# Are hunt saboteurs realy in the wrong?



## JANICE199

*We keep hearing about the fox in the press and on television just lately but i would honestly like this question answerd.Do you think that hunt saboteurs are wrong to try and help our foxes?
Until a few weeks ago i honestly thought all hunt saboteurs were a sandwich short of a picnic.But now i have seen the other side of the coin.Take a look at this short documentry and tell me who are the idiots.
YouTube - Revenge TV
*


----------



## sequeena

More power to them I say.


----------



## Guest

:Yawn::Yawn::Yawn::Yawn:


----------



## Cleo38

I used to go out sabbing years ago. I hated hunting, still do so it was the only direct action I could take.
It was hard work trying to keep up with the hunt & quite scary at times when the hunt heavies would seprate some people off from the group & give them a bit of a kicking.


----------



## nfp20

the fox that attacked the toddler in Brighton would not have been dispatched by the hunt it was a town fox and they unlike their country cousins they are far too friendly because they are fed by people all the time so to be perfectly honest this was to be expected. A fox can and has brought down new born foals so why should a toddler be any different. In that area there are numerous foxes and several of the residents in their stupidity feed them with household left overs which encourages them. They have no real fear of people at all. I used to live near there and they were to be honest a complete nightmare and kept attacking the cats so much so mine had to stay housecats till I moved.

Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


----------



## xxsarahpopsxx

nfp20 said:


> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


Well Said :thumbup:


----------



## simplysardonic

nfp20 said:


> the fox that attacked the toddler in Brighton would not have been dispatched by the hunt it was a town fox and they unlike their country cousins they are far too friendly because they are fed by people all the time so to be perfectly honest this was to be expected. A fox can and has brought down new born foals so why should a toddler be any different. In that area there are numerous foxes and several of the residents in their stupidity feed them with household left overs which encourages them. They have no real fear of people at all. I used to live near there and they were to be honest a complete nightmare and kept attacking the cats so much so mine had to stay housecats till I moved.
> 
> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. *They help to keep the balance.*


You are entitled to your opinion but I can't see how chasing an animal who is hopelessly outnumbered is 'balancing'. I also think its important that there are people witnessing these hunts to ensure that laws arent being broken


----------



## Guest

I prefer to remain neutral on these things, however it's not what the hunt sabs do or support, it's the way they do it. It'll only be a matter of time before they start resorting to _real _violence...


----------



## GoldenShadow

Depends what they are doing. Those people I don't think they are in the wrong at all, free country they are having their say and doing no damage. Its the ones who get in the way of horses on purpose or scare the horses on purpose to have the riders off I disagree with because the horses are just doing as they are told and have gotten caught up in these things before.


----------



## Cleo38

Chillinator said:


> I prefer to remain neutral on these things, however it's not what the hunt sabs do or support, it's the way they do it. It'll only be a matter of time before they start resorting to _real _violence...


What do you mean the way they do it? Resorting to real violence? What like the sort that the hunt used to dish out when the police weren't there?!
Why would you assume that hunt sabs are the violent ones? I wasn't the one out killing animals or letting my hounds on to private property & rip apart pet cats!


----------



## Guest

borderer said:


> :Yawn::Yawn::Yawn::Yawn:


Bordie, I wholeheartedly agree


----------



## nfp20

I would have thought that would be VERY rare.

It might surprise you that a healthy fox can easily out run the hounds. The majority of hunts are actually being paid to control the fox by landowners as a form of pest control usually to stop them killing livestock like newborn lambs, foals, chickens (and this is close to my heart as my beautiful buff orpingtons have yet again been killed off by a pair of town foxes released by the RSPCA in an area where there is no food for them and where they cannot survive - idiots!) and your pet cats.

I don't agree with hunts that act in a poor manner the majority act in good faith. The one that I used to participate in only hunted for a short period each year, they targeted specific foxes leaving areas alone that would have made for a great day out, no hard feelings if there was no kill (its more about the day than the kill) and during the breeding season they do not allow any shooting or other form of pest control unless there is an injured animal. They help to protect the fox unlike other areas where they are shot and poisoned willy nilly.

There is a saying 'Violence Begets Violence' hunt sabs have done some horrific things in the past with no care or concern for the people and animals that they hurt and sadly some of the hunt in return are no better.

I would rather a fox was hunted than shot far too many people have a crap aim and in the dark don't always kill them outright and poisons are the same it can take days for them to die rather than moments.


----------



## sequeena

I get that fox hunting is a way of keeping the population down. What I don't see is the pleasure the hunters get from seeing their hounds rip a fox apart.

Not my cup of tea at all.


----------



## GoldenShadow

sequeena said:


> I get that fox hunting is a way of keeping the population down. What I don't see is the pleasure the hunters get from seeing their hounds rip a fox apart.
> 
> Not my cup of tea at all.


IMO it doesn't do much to the population either


----------



## sequeena

Tinsley said:


> IMO it doesn't do much to the population either


Well I suppose, considering how many foxes there are vs successful hunts


----------



## Acacia86

Not read the repiles on this thread yet, but i voted that they have every right to defend the Fox. I know i would defend them if i lived there, i can only do so much living here.

If people like this do not then who the hell does? This beautiful animal has the absolute right to live, and live as they should.

How can it be right that some people think the Fox should be slaughtered and live in fear?

You guys are so lucky in the fact you actually have them over there, i have never had the chance to see such a beautiful wild animal. 

Foxes are meant to run......but for there next meal, instead they are now running for their lives


----------



## Guest

Acacia86 said:


> Not read the repiles on this thread yet, but i voted that they have every right to defend the Fox. I know i would defend them if i lived there, i can only do so much living here.
> 
> If people like this do not then who the hell does? This beautiful animal has the absolute right to live, and live as they should.
> 
> How can it be right that some people think the Fox should be slaughtered and live in fear?
> 
> You guys are so lucky in the fact you actually have them over there, i have never had the chance to see such a beautiful wild animal.
> 
> Foxes are meant to run......but for there next meal, instead they are now running for their lives


I see at least one fox nearly every day (not the same fox)
There are thousands of them.
When you come over, you will see some :thumbup:


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


ive been hunt sabbing and know plenty of them and yes they put themselves in danger(only because they are in the vicinity of the hunts men) but ive never seen them do anything which would endanger the dogs or horses i would be disgusted and outraged if i ever witnessed anything like that, the ones i know are just like i am they love all animals and would never harm any! its the hunts who put their own animals in danger! plenty of dogs and horses have been injured in chases jumping hedges and fences for example, much of what is said about hunt sabs is propaganda although im sure there are a minority who dont really care about the cause or animals and these along with the media have given the genuine ones a bad name!

they dont keep a balance at all! they even encourage foxes to breed by creating artificial earths... they want lots of foxes for the hunt so they can enjoy their vile pass time.


----------



## MissShelley

nfp20 said:


> They help to keep the balance.


If left to their own devices in their natural habitat - ie havent been introduced to places outside of their natural location, animals will regulate their own population, it's only human intervention that has disrupted this....Animals don't need human intervention, they can do it by themselves.


----------



## tafwoc

My bad, clicked the wrong one. Was meant to click they have every right


----------



## rocco33

> What I don't see is the pleasure the hunters get from seeing their hounds rip a fox apart.


I don't think you'll find they do. The majority of the hunt rarely get to see a fox, much less ever see one killed.


----------



## Nicky10

I don't agree with fox hunting and they have every right to protest that but to the point where they put the horses and dogs in the danger then I disagree. As for them putting themselves in danger that's their choice of course


----------



## hawksport

Hunt follower killed in collision with helicopter 'flown by anti-hunt monitors' - Telegraph


----------



## JANICE199

*For those that find this boring,why bother to reply? To those that think the hunters do no harm,try looking on the internet and see just what happens when the hunts go out.A couple of questions for you.
Do you think its ok to ride over and distroy other people land and property?
Have you seen video footage of the evil way these hunters treat their horses and hounds?
Do you think its ok for horses and hounds to do as they please o the highway without any thought to road users?
*


----------



## bucksmum

I have been hunting many times and it seems that the sabs are hunting just as much as the hunters  they just have a different quarry....the huntsmen,and they are enjoying it just as much as the hunt themselves.

In fact several hunt sabs i have spoken to do not even know why they are there, they are hired in by the day


----------



## momentofmadness

Seriously it depends how they behave.. i mean have you seen them.. They throw themselves in the way of horses.. Sometimes makes me think they are a sandwhich short of a picnic..

I been out to take pics of a drag hunt once... Was in our Landrover and you know there was (what i would say) idiots there giving the people on the drag hunt grief, shouting abuse chucking cans, blocking the followers in cars in (and these cars had people in who made sure the hunt was safe) etc.. Sometimes I think they actually don't know why they are there and are just jumping on a bandwagon...


----------



## rocco33

> Do you think its ok to ride over and distroy other people land and property?


Do you mean destroy other people's land and property? If so, they can't go on land without the landowners permission.


----------



## momentofmadness

JANICE199 said:


> *For those that find this boring,why bother to reply? To those that think the hunters do no harm,try looking on the internet and see just what happens when the hunts go out.A couple of questions for you.
> Do you think its ok to ride over and distroy other people land and property?
> Have you seen video footage of the evil way these hunters treat their horses and hounds?
> Do you think its ok for horses and hounds to do as they please o the highway without any thought to road users?
> *


Generally a hunt pays all the local farmers so they can have access to their land.. 
And I think you will find most horses love going out on a hunt.. If they didn't they would go stale and you wouldn't get anything out of the horse.. 
Now Im not sticking up for either.. But they are my thoughts..


----------



## JANICE199

rocco33 said:


> Do you mean destroy other people's land and property? If so, they can't go on land without the landowners permission.


*They DO go onto private land and without permission.*


----------



## Acacia86

Nicky10 said:


> I don't agree with fox hunting and they have every right to protest that but to the point where they put the horses and dogs in the danger then I disagree. As for them putting themselves in danger that's their choice of course


The Sabbs are not putting the horses and dogs in any more danger than the owners/riders already do..........

Except the people who do hunt not only risk serious injury to their horses and dogs they are also slaughtering another innocent animal.


----------



## sequeena

rocco33 said:


> I don't think you'll find they do. The majority of the hunt rarely get to see a fox, much less ever see one killed.


I guess that makes it ok then.


----------



## JANICE199

*Under control?
Residents left terrified after a pack of hunting hounds goes on the rampage in their street whilst pursuing a fox | Mail Online*


----------



## JANICE199

hawksport said:


> Hunt follower killed in collision with helicopter 'flown by anti-hunt monitors' - Telegraph


*The follow up to that story...The pilot was cleared of the charges.
Coventry Telegraph - News - Coventry News - Pilot Bryan Griffiths cleared of manslaughter of hunt supporter Trevor Morse*


----------



## Cleo38

bucksmum said:


> I have been hunting many times and it seems that the sabs are hunting just as much as the hunters  they just have a different quarry....the huntsmen,and they are enjoying it just as much as the hunt themselves.
> 
> *In fact several hunt sabs i have spoken to do not even know why they are there, they are hired in by the day *


 :lol::lol: When I used to go sabbing several hunt suporters thought we were hired in - £15 & a packed lunch apparently!!!! I don't know who you think 'hires' these people in!!! Makes me laugh that people can't accepet that others go out in their own time, for free because they BELIEVE in a cause!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> :lol::lol: When I used to go sabbing several hunt suporters thought we were hired in - £15 & a packed lunch apparently!!!! I don't know who you think 'hires' these people in!!! Makes me laugh that people can't accepet that others go out in their own time, for free because they BELIEVE in a cause!


pmsl isnt that just typical:lol: i mean how could anyone truely care the much for a fox flaming numptys its because they have no compassion for any animal full stop!


----------



## bucksmum

Cleo38 said:


> :lol::lol: When I used to go sabbing several hunt suporters thought we were hired in - £15 & a packed lunch apparently!!!! I don't know who you think 'hires' these people in!!! Makes me laugh that people can't accepet that others go out in their own time, for free because they BELIEVE in a cause!


You were not offered a very good deal then, the sabs that were on these hunts were paid £40 a day.

The reason i know this is i used to be very anti fox hunting myself until i actually went a saw it actually taking place to SEE exactly what went on and it absolutely nothing like the properganda you read and see.

I think to have an opinion on something people maybe should actually witness it and educate themselves on the subject not watch snippets on the internet or believe everything they read on a leaflet.

I can see both side having been anti for many years but have now learnt that my veiws were based on not knowing the facts.


----------



## Cleo38

bucksmum said:


> You were not offered a very good deal then, the sabs that were on these hunts were paid £40 a day.
> 
> The reason i know this is i used to be very anti fox hunting myself until i actually went a saw it actually taking place to SEE exactly what went on and it absolutely nothing like the properganda you read and see.
> 
> I think to have an opinion on something people maybe should actually witness it and educate themselves on the subject not watch snippets on the internet or believe everything they read on a leaflet.
> 
> I can see both side having been anti for many years but have now learnt that my veiws were based on not knowing the facts.


I grew up being obsessed with horse so from a very early age was riding then spent most of my teenage years working at stables so was inviolved with a lot of pro hunt types rather than antis. Despite this I always believed it was wrong & cruel. I had many discussions with riders who went out hunting & most admitted that they loved the ride but didn't want to see the kill - that saya lot. I think that if you are part of the chase that leads to the death of an animal then you should see *everything*, if you are not comfortable with the end result then maybe you shoud rethink your participation.

As for the £40 ... who is paying this out? I'll sign up again if that's the case!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## bucksmum

Cleo38 said:


> I grew up being obsessed with horse so from a very early age was riding then spent most of my teenage years working at stables so was inviolved with a lot of pro hunt types rather than antis. Despite this I always believed it was wrong & cruel. I had many discussions with riders who went out hunting & most admitted that they loved the ride but didn't want to see the kill - that saya lot. I think that if you are part of the chase that leads to the death of an animal then you should see *everything*, if you are not comfortable with the end result then maybe you shoud rethink your participation.
> 
> As for the £40 ... who is paying this out? I'll sign up again if that's the case!!! :lol::lol:


Yes, i agree.Before you can have a opinion on something you should see everything.I have seen a 'kill'.Not from a ridden pack but from a fell pack hunting on foot.It was not a 'rip apart' and i would say size ratio size it was similair to seening my terriers kill a rat.The hounds are incredibly strong jawed and death is alot quicker than i believed it could be.

I have no idea who was paying these sabs.This was going back 10 years in a hunt in the south east but to be honest i didn't want to get too involved with them even though we were on the same 'side'.I found the balaclavas and bovver boots quite intimidating


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> What do you mean the way they do it? Resorting to real violence? What like the sort that the hunt used to dish out when the police weren't there?!
> Why would you assume that hunt sabs are the violent ones? I wasn't the one out killing animals or letting my hounds on to private property & rip apart pet cats!


I don't think you've read my post properly, I haven't claimed that hunt sabs are violent, I've stated that they may eventually resort to violence. My point is the way they protest, using more or less anything in the way of excuses to brainwash as many people as they can into supporting the sabs. Protesting and the like is fine, they just have a bad way of doing it in my honest opinion, which I'm entitled to by the way... 

P.S I don't support fox-hunting, and I don't support saboteurs. They're both as bad as eachother.


----------



## RockRomantic

JANICE199 said:


> *Under control?
> Residents left terrified after a pack of hunting hounds goes on the rampage in their street whilst pursuing a fox | Mail Online*


  

i did have to 'lol' at the one in the picture that stopped to have a wee dunno why just made laugh


----------



## JANICE199

Chillinator said:


> I don't think you've read my post properly, I haven't claimed that hunt sabs are violent, I've stated that they may eventually resort to violence. My point is the way they protest, using more or less anything in the way of excuses to brainwash as many people as they can into supporting the sabs. Protesting and the like is fine, they just have a bad way of doing it in my honest opinion, which I'm entitled to by the way...
> 
> P.S I don't support fox-hunting, and I don't support saboteurs. They're both as bad as eachother.


*Sorry but i can't see how they can be classed as being as bad as each other,as one side are out to kill the other side are out to protect a life.*


----------



## Cleo38

bucksmum said:


> Yes, i agree.Before you can have a opinion on something you should see everything.I have seen a 'kill'.Not from a ridden pack but from a fell pack hunting on foot.It was not a 'rip apart' and i would say size ratio size it was similair to seening my terriers kill a rat.The hounds are incredibly strong jawed and death is alot quicker than i believed it could be.
> 
> I have no idea who was paying these sabs.This was going back 10 years in a hunt in the south east but to be honest i didn't want to get too involved with them even though we were on the same 'side'.I found the balaclavas and bovver boots quite intimidating


In some case the deaths were quick I agree but not always. I think I got annoyed with hunt riders/followers who only partcipated in the bits they wanted & turned away as the not-so-nice bits which imo was a bit pathetic. Same as peole who eat meat & don't want to acknowledge factory farming, etc as it 'upsets them'.

I never wore a balaclava (too itchy & messed up my hair ) although many sabs wore these not to be intimidating but simply to avoid being photgraphed/recognised & then having their heads kicked in at a later date.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *Sorry but i can't see how they can be classed as being as bad as each other,as one side are out to kill the other side are out to protect a life.*


Let's take a look at a small sample of case examples: the gyrocopter incident, hunt sabs throwing themselves in front of horses, a couple of news snippets dating back to god-knows-when about scuffles between sabs and supporters. Not all hunt sabs or animal-rights supporters care about animals, some are just in it for a cheap thrill to indulge their sad little minds. On the other hand, a certain percentage of the pro-hunt lobby love to enjoy indulging their sad little minds in hunting down foxes and ripping them apart.

So there you have it folks, my opinion is that they're both equally as bad, live with it...


----------



## Guest

Oh, and by the way, I've not indulged my mind with news articles. I have a bit of first-hand experience with animal-rights protesters, whilst fishing... 

Some are genuinely concerned about animal-welfare, and one or two have even handed me a couple of leaflets on the matter in the middle of the street. I've also witnessed a few others (the anti-fishing lobby this time) acting in a rather distasteful manner towards anglers and heard of entirely genuine stories of anglers receiving mouthfuls of abuse from the antis, sabotaged equipment and even being threatened with violence.


----------



## momentofmadness

I reckon this debate gets started every couple of months...

The hunting debate 
and the cross breeds debate...

The debate always endsd the same... No one agrees people feel like others are getting at them.. then the debate gets closed...


----------



## JANICE199

*


Chillinator said:



Let's take a look at a small sample of case examples: the helicopter incident, hunt sabs throwing themselves in front of horses, a couple of news snippets dating back to god-knows-when about scuffles between sabs and supporters. Not all hunt sabs or animal-rights supporters care about animals, some are just in it for a cheap thrill to indulge their sad little minds. On the other hand, a certain percentage of the pro-hunt lobby love to enjoy indulging their sad little minds in hunting down foxes and ripping them apart.

So there you have it folks, my opinion is that they're both equally as bad, live with it... 

Click to expand...

What about the helicopter incident?And what about the hunters that use their horses to knock people down?



momentofmadness said:



I reckon this debate gets started every couple of months...

The hunting debate 
and the cross breeds debate...

The debate always endsd the same... No one agrees people feel like others are getting at them.. then the debate gets closed...

Click to expand...

Thats what i like about a good debate,only a few members will go out of their way to get threads closed.*


----------



## nfp20

sequeena said:


> I get that fox hunting is a way of keeping the population down. What I don't see is the pleasure the hunters get from seeing their hounds rip a fox apart.
> 
> Not my cup of tea at all.


I asked a very similar question myself to a hunt master and was relatively surprised by the reply. What other pest and sadly foxes are categorised a pest have the people that cull them dress in their best for the occassion? To give some reverence, who keep their hounds in the fittest and best of conditions to ensure a swift kill. The outfits aren't just for a days jolly on the back of a horse they represent the relationship between man and his prey.

In some cultures like germany for a example a ceremony is held after a days hunting as thanks, different plants are used (oak leaves as an example) to represent the bag on the day. These are then presented to the hunters after the close of the horn and kept.

In some respects the art depicting hunting scenes has alot to answer to because it is the first contact alot of people have with hunting and the old histories of toffs on horses which has a class argument to it is rarely the reality. We also have a serious lack of contact with the realities of how our food is produced - that is not a good thing. Even keeping a vegetarian diet requires some pest control to produce your food.

If you want to do something about the foxes that are killed then look at roads and the way that you use your car. The majority of rural foxes killed are not by hunts or by pest controllers with guns they are by cars, your cars, mine and everyone elses that uses a public highway. I spent months keeping a count of road kill and foxes, badgers & pheasants in high majority litter our roads and yet there is no complaint  Lots of hunt sabs and yet not one of them is rallying to protect our wildlife from its biggest killer - the CAR. To me that seems totally ridiculous. I have watched so many people drive past a fox not quite dead and do nothing. They haven't stopped, they haven't taken it to a vet or dispatched it to put it out of there misery (I have I might add!) they have just driven by as if it did not exist the same goes for the occassional deer so Bambi is no better off. Cars do so much damage and they are indiscriminate they kill young and old, health or unfit... unlike the fox hounds and the hunt master. Foxes do at least have a chance with the hunt, they have very little against a car.

More would be saved.

Town foxes are a different kettle of fish altogether and to be honest beyond shooting and poisoning them its going to be very difficult to keep control of their population because people keep feeding them and we produce so much refuse.

This argument was started over a toddler being injured by a fox to bring in the argument of hunting which is always going to be a tinder box waiting to light is irresponsible.


----------



## JANICE199

Chillinator said:


> That proves exactly what I'm driving at!
> 
> They are both as bad as eachother, and this time I will say in _certain cases_.
> 
> Both examples just mentioned contrast eachother. In the gyrocopter incident: as the anti-fox hunt lobby were trying to save the life of a fox, they took another life, a human. And, in the other example: the pro-fox hunt lobby using their horses to knock people down. These people are of course anti-hunt activists.


*" They" didn't take the life of another human.If you were told to stand clear of a helecopter,gyrocopter, would you or would you ingnore the warning.
I should add the guy in the gyrocopter was found NOT guilty.*


----------



## momentofmadness

nfp20 said:


> I asked a very similar question myself to a hunt master and was relatively surprised by the reply. What other pest and sadly foxes are categorised a pest have the people that cull them dress in their best for the occassion? To give some reverence, who keep their hounds in the fittest and best of conditions to ensure a swift kill. The outfits aren't just for a days jolly on the back of a horse they represent the relationship between man and his prey.
> 
> In some cultures like germany for a example a ceremony is held after a days hunting as thanks, different plants are used (oak leaves as an example) to represent the bag on the day. These are then presented to the hunters after the close of the horn and kept.
> 
> In some respects the art depicting hunting scenes has alot to answer to because it is the first contact alot of people have with hunting and the old histories of toffs on horses which has a class argument to it is rarely the reality. We also have a serious lack of contact with the realities of how our food is produced - that is not a good thing. Even keeping a vegetarian diet requires some pest control to produce your food.
> 
> If you want to do something about the foxes that are killed then look at roads and the way that you use your car. The majority of rural foxes killed are not by hunts or by pest controllers with guns they are by cars, your cars, mine and everyone elses that uses a public highway. I spent months keeping a count of road kill and foxes, badgers & pheasants in high majority litter our roads and yet there is no complaint  Lots of hunt sabs and yet not one of them is rallying to protect our wildlife from its biggest killer - the CAR. To me that seems totally ridiculous. I have watched so many people drive past a fox not quite dead and do nothing. They haven't stopped, they haven't taken it to a vet or dispatched it to put it out of there misery (I have I might add!) they have just driven by as if it did not exist the same goes for the occassional deer so Bambi is no better off. Cars do so much damage and they are indiscriminate they kill young and old, health or unfit... unlike the fox hounds and the hunt master. Foxes do at least have a chance with the hunt, they have very little against a car.
> 
> More would be saved.
> 
> Town foxes are a different kettle of fish altogether and to be honest beyond shooting and poisoning them its going to be very difficult to keep control of their population because people keep feeding them and we produce so much refuse.
> 
> This argument was started over a toddler being injured by a fox to bring in the argument of hunting which is always going to be a tinder box waiting to light is irresponsible.


ery true, good post. xxx


----------



## Guest

Chillinator said:


> That proves exactly what I'm driving at!
> 
> They are both as bad as eachother, and this time I will say in _certain cases_.
> 
> Both examples just mentioned contrast eachother. In the gyrocopter incident: as the anti-fox hunt lobby were trying to save the life of a fox, they took another life, a human. And, in the other example: the pro-fox hunt lobby using their horses to knock people down. These people are of course anti-hunt activists.


errm sorry thats not exactly true he was monitoring the hunt in a gyrocopter to see if they were 'illegally' killing foxes, he was chased and tbh i can understand his fear ive been there! so he tried to take off and unfortunatley there was a tragic 'accident'.


----------



## buffie

If the only way to stop this barbaric "sport" indulged in by mindless thugs on horseback is to disrupt their dogs following the sent and block their path then more power to them,It can never be acceptable to rip a wild animal to pieces just for fun

THE UNSPEAKABLE IN PURSUIT OF THE UNEATABLE


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> I asked a very similar question myself to a hunt master and was relatively surprised by the reply. What other pest and sadly foxes are categorised a pest have the people that cull them dress in their best for the occassion? To give some reverence, who keep their hounds in the fittest and best of conditions to ensure a swift kill. The outfits aren't just for a days jolly on the back of a horse they represent the relationship between man and his prey.
> 
> In some cultures like germany for a example a ceremony is held after a days hunting as thanks, different plants are used (oak leaves as an example) to represent the bag on the day. These are then presented to the hunters after the close of the horn and kept.
> 
> In some respects the art depicting hunting scenes has alot to answer to because it is the first contact alot of people have with hunting and the old histories of toffs on horses which has a class argument to it is rarely the reality. We also have a serious lack of contact with the realities of how our food is produced - that is not a good thing. Even keeping a vegetarian diet requires some pest control to produce your food.
> 
> If you want to do something about the foxes that are killed then look at roads and the way that you use your car. The majority of rural foxes killed are not by hunts or by pest controllers with guns they are by cars, your cars, mine and everyone elses that uses a public highway. I spent months keeping a count of road kill and foxes, badgers & pheasants in high majority litter our roads and yet there is no complaint  Lots of hunt sabs and yet not one of them is rallying to protect our wildlife from its biggest killer - the CAR. To me that seems totally ridiculous. I have watched so many people drive past a fox not quite dead and do nothing. They haven't stopped, they haven't taken it to a vet or dispatched it to put it out of there misery (I have I might add!) they have just driven by as if it did not exist the same goes for the occassional deer so Bambi is no better off. Cars do so much damage and they are indiscriminate they kill young and old, health or unfit... unlike the fox hounds and the hunt master. Foxes do at least have a chance with the hunt, they have very little against a car.
> 
> More would be saved.
> 
> Town foxes are a different kettle of fish altogether and to be honest beyond shooting and poisoning them its going to be very difficult to keep control of their population because people keep feeding them and we produce so much refuse.
> 
> This argument was started over a toddler being injured by a fox to bring in the argument of hunting which is always going to be a tinder box waiting to light is irresponsible.


who has catagorised them as a pest though? anyone can call anything a pest

i know that where fox populations are high rabbit populations are kept in check, so thats great news for us vegetarians and the environment i would have thought.

some people are indifferent to animals suffering on roads its shameful:frown: i could never pass one by and i know my friends wouldnt either, but you have to realise these are 'accidents' no one deliberatly set out to cause an animal suffering by hitting it with a car, it cant be compared with hunting at all. But i think youve made an excellent point that wildlife has enough to deal with surviving our roads without seeking them out to persecute aswell!


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *" They" didn't take the life of another human.If you were told to stand clear of a helecopter,gyrocopter, would you or would you ingnore the warning.
> I should add the guy in the gyrocopter was found NOT guilty.*





Shamen said:


> errm sorry thats not exactly true he was monitoring the hunt in a gyrocopter to see if they were 'illegally' killing foxes, he was chased and tbh i can understand his fear ive been there! so he tried to take off and unfortunatley there was a tragic 'accident'.


I stand corrected, apologies folks! 

I was unaware that the men in the gyrocopter were found not guilty and that the hunt-supporter had stood in front of the aircraft, I have just enlightened myself after finding the relevant news articles. I've mistakenly made an ill-judged assumption that the antis made a deliberate attack. While a tragic incident nonetheless, it was foolish thing for the man (the hunt supporter) to do.


----------



## nfp20

But rabbit populations are not kept in check most foxes are actually unable to catch enough rabbits to survive and at best they eat the young, old and weak. Outside the breeding season they don't aways get a meal let alone enough to feed their own families which is why they have large territories. 

I'm not sure an urban fox has actually ever seen a rabbit beyond the ones in peoples hutches. 

Its also worth noting that their NATURAL HABITAT pretty much doesn't exist anymore in most parts of the UK it has been split built on and carved up by us. Foxes aren't the only ones to suffer its been years since I have seen a hedgehog outside of rescue and even the bugs are in decline because of our activities and destruction of their habitat. So that is again a poor argument in support of people who choose to put others including animals at risk.

Again the rural fox hunted by the hunt would do nothing to solve the issue of urban foxes biting children. What it does do is to divert the attention when the public is being fed on a plate a child with an injury that a dog would have been put to sleep for. The publics thirst for blood thanks to the media is putting the fox in poor light... dragging out the hunting argument really is only a way to regain its popularity.


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> some people are indifferent to animals suffering on roads its shameful:frown: i could never pass one by and i know my friends wouldnt either, but you have to realise these are 'accidents' no one deliberatly set out to cause an animal suffering by hitting it with a car, it cant be compared with hunting at all. But i think youve made an excellent point that wildlife has enough to deal with surviving our roads without seeking them out to persecute aswell!


Living in the sticks, dead animals on the roads are a regular sight. However, it's not just wild animals that fall victim to vehicles, I've seen one or two dead cats (with collars on) at the roadside too.

This may be of some interest: Going underground! Clever animals cross road in hidden tunnel to avoid being flattened by traffic | Mail Online


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> But rabbit populations are not kept in check most foxes are actually unable to catch enough rabbits to survive and at best they eat the young, old and weak. Outside the breeding season they don't aways get a meal let alone enough to feed their own families which is why they have large territories.
> 
> I'm not sure an urban fox has actually ever seen a rabbit beyond the ones in peoples hutches.
> 
> Its also worth noting that their NATURAL HABITAT pretty much doesn't exist anymore in most parts of the UK it has been split built on and carved up by us. Foxes aren't the only ones to suffer its been years since I have seen a hedgehog outside of rescue and even the bugs are in decline because of our activities and destruction of their habitat. So that is again a poor argument in support of people who choose to put others including animals at risk.
> 
> Again the rural fox hunted by the hunt would do nothing to solve the issue of urban foxes biting children. What it does do is to divert the attention when the public is being fed on a plate a child with an injury that a dog would have been put to sleep for. The publics thirst for blood thanks to the media is putting the fox in poor light... dragging out the hunting argument really is only a way to regain its popularity.


of course they keep rabbits in check its their main prey source(i dont mean urban foxes) heres a bit of info for you ........

Rabbits cause most agricultural losses but farmers tend to underestimate their losses due to rabbit grazing. At 1998 prices, one study estimated that, each year, a single rabbit would cost a farmer £6.50 eating winter wheat, £1.40 eating spring barley and £3.40 eating grazing pasture.

Rabbit make up the largest proportion of the diet of foxes in rural areasIn rural areas of Britain, 45% to 70% of the diet of foxes is made up by rabbits. During its lifetime, by eating rabbits each fox might be worth £150-£900 in increased revenue to farmers.

In areas with high levels of predator control, where fox density is lower, rabbit density is higher and there seems to a negative link between predator control and rabbit abundance, i.e. rabbits seem to thrive where there are fewer foxes.

dont really see what point youre trying to make in your next paragraph but i pretty much agree with you on most of it anyway, im passionate about all aspects of the environment and use to help out at a local hedgehog hospital before it was closed through lack of funding:frown:

it was tragic what happened to the twins but i dont agree with the persecution of all the innocent foxes in the vicinity. And if bringing hunting with hounds to the fore does the fox favours then i shall continue to do so


----------



## Guest

Chillinator said:


> I stand corrected, apologies folks!
> 
> I was unaware that the men in the gyrocopter were found not guilty and that the hunt-supporter had stood in front of the aircraft, I have just enlightened myself after finding the relevant news articles. I've mistakenly made an ill-judged assumption that the antis made a deliberate attack. While a tragic incident nonetheless, it was foolish thing for the man (the hunt supporter) to do.


no probs Chillinator



Chillinator said:


> Living in the sticks, dead animals on the roads are a regular sight. However, it's not just wild animals that fall victim to vehicles, I've seen one or two dead cats (with collars on) at the roadside too.
> 
> This may be of some interest: Going underground! Clever animals cross road in hidden tunnel to avoid being flattened by traffic | Mail Online


ive seen more than my fair share aswell:frown:

love the link what clever little critters


----------



## simplysardonic

Shamen said:


> who has catagorised them as a pest though? anyone can call anything a pest
> 
> i know that where fox populations are high rabbit populations are kept in check, so thats great news for us vegetarians and the environment i would have thought.
> 
> some people are indifferent to animals suffering on roads its shameful:frown: i could never pass one by and i know my friends wouldnt either, but you have to realise these are 'accidents' no one deliberatly set out to cause an animal suffering by hitting it with a car, it cant be compared with hunting at all. But i think youve made an excellent point that wildlife has enough to deal with surviving our roads without seeking them out to persecute aswell!


I'm unsure what they are a pest of exactly
We lived in the countryside when I was a child & kept a lot of chickens but I don't remember any incidents of foxed getting in & I'm sure if they ever did my folks would have just secured the chicken run better. They were always shut up at night so the fox couldn't get them anyway


----------



## xxwelshcrazyxx

If we were starving hungy we would go looking for food for our families, and this is what Fox's do. They are doing what is natural to them, it is not their fault if humans leave food around for them to scavage out of bins etc. I know it was awfull about those twins and I WOULD NEVER want anythiing like that to happen to my family, but the Fox need to find food for itself and if it can smell it it will go for it, which is natural for any animal. I dont like Fox Hunts etc.


----------



## Guest

simplysardonic said:


> I'm unsure what they are a pest of exactly
> We lived in the countryside when I was a child & kept a lot of chickens but I don't remember any incidents of foxed getting in & I'm sure if they ever did my folks would have just secured the chicken run better. They were always shut up at night so the fox couldn't get them anyway


same here never my family have never had a problem with foxes because we've always taken responsibility for keeping our animals safe, sadly its the same for animals all over the world but if we dont learn to live longside them 'warts an all' some wont be around much longer, it seems where ever a species comes into conflict with man they get labelled a 'pest' or 'vermin', dosent matter if its cheetah's in Namibia, a Wolf in Idaho, Lions all across Africa, to some individuals they need eliminating!


----------



## Spellweaver

nfp20 said:


> I asked a very similar question myself to a hunt master and was relatively surprised by the reply. What other pest and sadly foxes are categorised a pest have the people that cull them dress in their best for the occassion? To give some reverence, who keep their hounds in the fittest and best of conditions to ensure a swift kill. The outfits aren't just for a days jolly on the back of a horse they represent the relationship between man and his prey. .


Oh well, that's alright then. No need for any of us to worry. It's ok that a fox is ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs because the humans orchestrating it *have all dressed up in reverence of the occasion*    I have heard some lame excuses for fox hunting in my time but that one takes the biscuit! I am sure as the fox is being ripped to shreds he will understand and forgive you for killing him in one of the most painful ways imaginable because you are really holding him in reverence by wearing your red coat. I am sure that as the poor fox is dying he will really appreciate the fact that the hounds tearing him to pieces are in excellent conditon.



nfp20 said:


> The majority of rural foxes killed are not by hunts or by pest controllers with guns they are by cars, your cars, mine and everyone elses that uses a public highway.


If this is true (and I have no idea whether it is or not) - but if it *IS *true then it knocks the notion that fox hunting is needed as a form of pest control straight into a cocked hat.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*For anyone who cares to read this link it may answer a few of your questions.

vickihird*


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *For anyone who cares to read this link it may answer a few of your questions.
> 
> vickihird*


Thanks for posting this link hun - although I must admit it has made me feel physiclly ill - so ill I could not read past the description of the terrier man laughing as he beat a nursing vixen to death with his club. (I'll go back and read the rest later) This has confirmed my feelings about hunters.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> Thanks for posting this link hun - although I must admit it has made me feel physiclly ill - so ill I could not read past the description of the terrier man laughing as he beat a nursing vixen to death with his club. (I'll go back and read the rest later) This has confirmed my feelings about hunters.


*I know exactly how you feel. 
The reason i posted this was to answer alot of peoples questions they have and give them an insight into the mentality of the people behind such barbaric acts as well as answer the questions for those that think hunting controls the fox population...xxxx*


----------



## RockRomantic

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *For anyone who cares to read this link it may answer a few of your questions.
> 
> vickihird*


that link made me feel sick tbh


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

RockRomantic said:


> that link made me feel sick tbh


*Sorry mate....but so many people will insist that this is perfectly acceptable. So i felt for those that think this, then maybe they need to read this.  xxxx*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*Another few links for those who need answers to reply to those who are pro hunting.

Arguments

HUNTING - Issues and Arguments

Farmers Against Foxhunting and Trespass Leaflet

The Sitting Fox

This last link will CONTAIN some distubing, GRAPHIC images and abusive comments from hunters. (If you click on different sections of the site).

Pro-Hunt Political Organisations and Media Groups*


----------



## RockRomantic

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Sorry mate....but so many people will insist that this is perfectly acceptable. So i felt for those that think this, then maybe they need to read this.  xxxx*


completely agree mate i don't know much about fox hunting to be fair i never liked the idea of it anyway but after what I've been reading it sounds barbaric and just vile


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

RockRomantic said:


> completely agree mate i don't know much about fox hunting to be fair i never liked the idea of it anyway but after what I've been reading it sounds barbaric and just vile


*Ive always been against bloodsports...but since i have been researching this stuff i have learnt so much even though it has been very upsetting to read/watch along the way. I WILL continue not only fighting this cause but of course learning more along the way in the hope of educating others. *


----------



## simplysardonic

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Ive always been against bloodsports...but since i have been researching this stuff i have learnt so much even though it has been very upsetting to read/watch along the way. I WILL continue not only fighting this cause but of course learning more along the way in the hope of educating others. *


Good on you, you're very brave as a lot of the stuff I can't bring myself watch


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

simplysardonic said:


> Good on you, you're very brave as a lot of the stuff I can't bring myself watch


*Believe me it's not easy...I spend most of my time in tears while watching such stuff....But i really have to force myself so as i am able to pass on the facts to others who feel unable to watch/read the facts. Needless to say i fully repect those who cannot view these things but i have NO respect for those who are pro hunting but claim they cannot view such stuff. *


----------



## JANICE199

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Another few links for those who need answers to reply to those who are pro hunting.
> 
> Arguments
> 
> HUNTING - Issues and Arguments
> 
> Farmers Against Foxhunting and Trespass Leaflet
> 
> The Sitting Fox
> 
> This last link will CONTAIN some distubing, GRAPHIC images and abusive comments from hunters. (If you click on different sections of the site).
> 
> Pro-Hunt Political Organisations and Media Groups*


*I have been looking at some of the links you have added,and all i can add is this.If anyone cannot stand to read or view the images (which i respect) then they CANNOT say the ban on blood sports should be lifted..or that hunt saboteurs are in the wrong.*


----------



## suzy93074

I cannot watch the clip but I am against blood sports - imo these hunters are all jumped up toffee nosed ponses - I think instead of using a fox they should go to a fancy dress shop get a fox outfit and use one of their own huntsmen and see how that goes.


----------



## JANICE199

suzy93074 said:


> I cannot watch the clip but I am against blood sports - imo these hunters are all jumped up toffee nosed ponses - I think instead of using a fox they should go to a fancy dress shop get a fox outfit and use one of their own huntsmen and see how that goes.


*:lol: Now thats a sight i'd love to see.:lol:*


----------



## tafwoc

suzy93074 said:


> I cannot watch the clip but I am against blood sports - imo these hunters are all jumped up toffee nosed ponses - I think instead of using a fox they should go to a fancy dress shop get a fox outfit and use one of their own huntsmen and see how that goes.


Brilliant! :thumbup:


----------



## suzy93074

JANICE199 said:


> *:lol: Now thats a sight i'd love to see.:lol:*


I'd pay to watch it LOL:lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

Foxes are in themselves viscious little buggers as the family of foxes in my garden brutally killed another one that trespassed on their territory (my garden)

I do have issues with foxes as I do personally reguard them as vermin and remember them getting in the chicken pen and killing every single one needlessly. They are not cute fluffy little things thay are a scavenger/hunter, but people in towns have taken to feeding them and they are no longer scared of humans, and they are finding it harder to find food in towns with the introduction of wheelie bins, and as for the RSPCA catching them and releasing them in the country, well that is just ridiculous, but then the RSPCA generally is.

As for hunt saboteurs, if they are geniune and are just spoiling for a fight then I don't have a problem with them, but there is a group that go just looking for trouble, but then the same can be said for football supporters and hooligans.

I also have very little respect for most animal rights activists after they came onto the farm we lived on many years ago and 'freed' the cows, the mindless idiots opened up all the gates they could find then panicked the cows, 6 of them ended in the cess pit (muck pit that was 10-12 foot deep with poo and water) 2 drowned and my dad very nearly did as he tried to rope them all and get them out, plus they were milking cows so it would have huge detrimental effects on them if they weren't actually rounded up and milked.


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> Foxes are in themselves viscious little buggers as the family of foxes in my garden brutally killed another one that trespassed on their territory (my garden)
> 
> I do have issues with foxes as I do personally reguard them as vermin and remember them getting in the chicken pen and killing every single one needlessly. They are not cute fluffy little things thay are a scavenger/hunter, but people in towns have taken to feeding them and they are no longer scared of humans, and they are finding it harder to find food in towns with the introduction of wheelie bins, and as for the RSPCA catching them and releasing them in the country, well that is just ridiculous, but then the RSPCA generally is.
> 
> As for hunt saboteurs, if they are geniune and are just spoiling for a fight then I don't have a problem with them, but there is a group that go just looking for trouble, but then the same can be said for football supporters and hooligans.
> 
> I also have very little respect for most animal rights activists after they came onto the farm we lived on many years ago and 'freed' the cows, the mindless idiots opened up all the gates they could find then panicked the cows, 6 of them ended in the cess pit (muck pit that was 10-12 foot deep with poo and water) 2 drowned and my dad very nearly did as he tried to rope them all and get them out, plus they were milking cows so it would have huge detrimental effects on them if they weren't actually rounded up and milked.


well said mate:thumbup:


----------



## Cleo38

GreyHare said:


> Foxes are in themselves viscious little buggers as the family of foxes in my garden brutally killed another one that trespassed on their territory (my garden)
> 
> I do have issues with foxes as I do personally reguard them as vermin and remember them getting in the chicken pen and killing every single one needlessly. They are not cute fluffy little things thay are a scavenger/hunter, but people in towns have taken to feeding them and they are no longer scared of humans, and they are finding it harder to find food in towns with the introduction of wheelie bins, and as for the RSPCA catching them and releasing them in the country, well that is just ridiculous, but then the RSPCA generally is.
> 
> As for hunt saboteurs, if they are geniune and are just spoiling for a fight then I don't have a problem with them, but there is a group that go just looking for trouble, but then the same can be said for football supporters and hooligans.
> 
> I also have very little respect for most animal rights activists after they came onto the farm we lived on many years ago and 'freed' the cows, the mindless idiots opened up all the gates they could find then panicked the cows, 6 of them ended in the cess pit (muck pit that was 10-12 foot deep with poo and water) 2 drowned and my dad very nearly did as he tried to rope them all and get them out, plus they were milking cows so it would have huge detrimental effects on them if they weren't actually rounded up and milked.


Most animals are territorial & will fight to death to protect their territory & food. You only have to watch 'cute' robins to see just how aggressive they other with each other & other birds.
Personally I find all wildlife facinating & love watching it but realise that is some instances controls are necesasary. It is just about how this is carried out & imo hunting with a pack of dogs is just a bit of fun for the hunts wo/men & has very little to do with control of foxes.


----------



## bucksmum

GreyHare said:


> Foxes are in themselves viscious little buggers as the family of foxes in my garden brutally killed another one that trespassed on their territory (my garden)
> 
> I do have issues with foxes as I do personally reguard them as vermin and remember them getting in the chicken pen and killing every single one needlessly. They are not cute fluffy little things thay are a scavenger/hunter, but people in towns have taken to feeding them and they are no longer scared of humans, and they are finding it harder to find food in towns with the introduction of wheelie bins, and as for the RSPCA catching them and releasing them in the country, well that is just ridiculous, but then the RSPCA generally is.
> 
> As for hunt saboteurs, if they are geniune and are just spoiling for a fight then I don't have a problem with them, but there is a group that go just looking for trouble, but then the same can be said for football supporters and hooligans.
> 
> I also have very little respect for most animal rights activists after they came onto the farm we lived on many years ago and 'freed' the cows, the mindless idiots opened up all the gates they could find then panicked the cows, 6 of them ended in the cess pit (muck pit that was 10-12 foot deep with poo and water) 2 drowned and my dad very nearly did as he tried to rope them all and get them out, plus they were milking cows so it would have huge detrimental effects on them if they weren't actually rounded up and milked.


Well said  some common sense at last :thumbup:


----------



## ClaireLouise

I am against blood sports but I also think some of the things saboteurs do are wrong. *Two wrongs dont make a right*..Most saboteurs take a none violent/not dangerous approach and mask scents ect but the minority give them a bad name which is a shame for the ones who do a good job..... but i guess its the same as anything else its the bad/shocking stories that make it to the papers for everyone to read 
BBC News | ENGLAND | Hunt saboteur injured by horse


----------



## JANICE199

GreyHare said:


> Foxes are in themselves viscious little buggers as the family of foxes in my garden brutally killed another one that trespassed on their territory (my garden)
> 
> I do have issues with foxes as I do personally reguard them as vermin and remember them getting in the chicken pen and killing every single one needlessly. They are not cute fluffy little things thay are a scavenger/hunter, but people in towns have taken to feeding them and they are no longer scared of humans, and they are finding it harder to find food in towns with the introduction of wheelie bins, and as for the RSPCA catching them and releasing them in the country, well that is just ridiculous, but then the RSPCA generally is.
> 
> As for hunt saboteurs, if they are geniune and are just spoiling for a fight then I don't have a problem with them, but there is a group that go just looking for trouble, but then the same can be said for football supporters and hooligans.
> 
> I also have very little respect for most animal rights activists after they came onto the farm we lived on many years ago and 'freed' the cows, the mindless idiots opened up all the gates they could find then panicked the cows, 6 of them ended in the cess pit (muck pit that was 10-12 foot deep with poo and water) 2 drowned and my dad very nearly did as he tried to rope them all and get them out, plus they were milking cows so it would have huge detrimental effects on them if they weren't actually rounded up and milked.


*Your 1st statement that foxes are viscious couldn't be further from the truth..
As for your chickens being killed,is it not your responsiblity to protect your animals?*


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> Well said  some common sense at last :thumbup:


There's been plenty of common sense on this thread - just because the majority of posters haven't agreed with your views does not mean they haven't been posting common sense


----------



## ClaireLouise

Spellweaver said:


> There's been plenty of common sense on this thread - just because the majority of posters haven't agreed with your views does not mean they haven't been posting common sense


Well said spellweaver. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver

ClaireLouise said:


> the minority give them a bad name which is a shame for the ones who do a good job..... but i guess its the same as anything else its the bad/shocking stories that make it to the papers for everyone to read
> BBC News | ENGLAND | Hunt saboteur injured by horse


I agree Claire - every saboteur is violent just like every pedigree dog is a mutant, every breeder of pedigree dogs is a puppy farmer, every pit bull type dog is vicious, every teenager is a hooligan ......... etc etc. The majority always get tarred with the same brush as the minority.


----------



## bucksmum

Spellweaver said:


> There's been plenty of common sense on this thread - just because the majority of posters haven't agreed with your views does not mean they haven't been posting common sense


My point is that the majority of people who are anti hunting have never been out on a hunt and witnessed it first hand so can not speak from personal experience only more and more internet snippets.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> My point is that the majority of people who are anti hunting have never been out on a hunt and witnessed it first hand so can not speak from personal experience only more and more internet snippets.


very true most who post on here no nothing about it just what they read half of them never leave the house


----------



## Cleo38

borderer said:


> very true most who post on here no nothing about it just what they read half of them never leave the house


I've seen plenty of hunts & killing of foxes so think I'm able to comment quite a bit thanks!


----------



## JANICE199

bucksmum said:


> My point is that the majority of people who are anti hunting have never been out on a hunt and witnessed it first hand so can not speak from personal experience only more and more internet snippets.


*If you see any animal killed whether its in real life or on film whats the difference?*


----------



## ClaireLouise

borderer said:


> very true most who post on here no nothing about it just what they read half of them never leave the house


Just because people dont agree with you bordie doesnt mean they dont leave the house    AND good reliable info can be sourced on the internet if ya know here to look  its not all shat.

I dont understand why people are so shocked the majority of people on here are anti hunt ect............... IT IS A PET LOVERS FORUM and most here love all animals so not really a shock fox hunting comes up again and again is it


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> My point is that the majority of people who are anti hunting have never been out on a hunt and witnessed it first hand so can not speak from personal experience only more and more internet snippets.


And that's a good point - but that is probably because the thought of actually going on a hunt is so abhorrent to most people. There are such graphic videos of the violence of actual hunts online that peole can see all the evidence they need of the cruelty and barbaric nature of the hunt. I can accept that the actual kill is over in a short time compared to the rest of the hunt, but I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can enjoy a run through the countryside on a horse, knowing that the end result is an animal ripped to shreds whilst it is still alive, even if you are not there to personally witness it.

Let me ask you this. If you had seen hundreds of vidoes of dog fights online, and the government was preparing to overthrow legislation banning dog fights, would you feel justified in putting forward your views about the barbaric nature of dog fights even if you haven't been to one?


----------



## turkeylad

NOT in a million years - hunt sabs despite being met by mindless violence at many meets have kept up there spectacular antics and imaginative ways. i loved it and is great excercise


----------



## Guest

turkeylad said:


> NOT in a million years - hunt sabs despite being met by mindless violence at many meets have kept up there spectacular antics and imaginative ways. i loved it and is great excercise


and most are paid to do it


----------



## turkeylad

Yeah right went hunt sabbing from the age of 15 never been paid...........


----------



## Cleo38

borderer said:


> and most are paid to do it


:lol::lol: *That's fantastic!!! *I was only saying earlier about how many of the hunt supporters actually believed this rubbish!!!! Oh, & we got packed lunch as well according to them!!! *Brilliant*!!!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> :lol::lol: *That's fantastic!!! *I was only saying earlier about how many of the hunt supporters actually believed this rubbish!!!! Oh, & we got packed lunch as well according to them!!! *Brilliant*!!!


yes i got offered that aswell


----------



## Spellweaver

turkeylad said:


> Yeah right went hunt sabbing from the age of 15 never been paid...........





Cleo38 said:


> :lol::lol: *That's fantastic!!! *I was only saying earlier about how many of the hunt supporters actually believed this rubbish!!!! Oh, & we got packed lunch as well according to them!!! *Brilliant*!!!


The pro-hunters have to keep telling themselves this - it's one of the lies that helps them to justify their barbaric so-called sport  You'll have come across some of the others - there's the one about protesters being against the upper class, the one about protesters being townies who don't understand about the country way of life, the one about most people in the hunt don't actually see the kill, the one about it being a humane way to kill vermin - oh, and the one that was posted on here earlier and the best one I've heard so far ie the one about it being an honour for the fox because they dress up nicely.......... the list goes on and on!


----------



## Guest

turkeylad said:


> Yeah right went hunt sabbing from the age of 15 never been paid...........


you dont get paid if you like it but a tenner and free dinner man we could realy shout and scream:thumbup:


----------



## sequeena

Spellweaver said:


> And that's a good point - but that is probably because the thought of actually going on a hunt is so abhorrent to most people. There are such graphic videos of the violence of actual hunts online that peole can see all the evidence they need of the cruelty and barbaric nature of the hunt. I can accept that the actual kill is over in a short time compared to the rest of the hunt, but I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can enjoy a run through the countryside on a horse, knowing that the end result is an animal ripped to shreds whilst it is still alive, even if you are not there to personally witness it.
> 
> Let me ask you this. If you had seen hundreds of vidoes of dog fights online, and the government was preparing to overthrow legislation banning dog fights, would you feel justified in putting forward your views about the barbaric nature of dog fights even if you haven't been to one?


I really like this post  :thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> There's been plenty of common sense on this thread - just because the majority of posters haven't agreed with your views does not mean they haven't been posting common sense


*LOL...Love it...well said...xxxx  :thumbup:*


----------



## Guest

sequeena said:


> I really like this post  :thumbup:


so do i good isnt it:thumbup::lol:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> My point is that the majority of people who are anti hunting have never been out on a hunt and witnessed it first hand so can not speak from personal experience only more and more internet snippets.


*The majority of people don't murder but they don't need to try it to know it's sick and unacceptable. *


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *The majority of people don't murder but they don't need to try it to know it's sick and unacceptable. *


some do...........


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

ClaireLouise said:


> Just because people dont agree with you bordie doesnt mean they dont leave the house    AND good reliable info can be sourced on the internet if ya know here to look  its not all shat.
> 
> I dont understand why people are so shocked the majority of people on here are anti hunt ect............... IT IS A PET LOVERS FORUM and most here love all animals so not really a shock fox hunting comes up again and again is it


*Well said Claire...Totally agree..xxx  :thumbup:*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

borderer said:


> and most are paid to do it


*None are paid....It is done purely out of compassion, empathy for the animals.*


----------



## JANICE199

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *The majority of people don't murder but they don't need to try it to know it's sick and unacceptable. *


*:lol::lol: Straight to the point as usual.*


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *None are paid....It is done purely out of compassion, empathy for the animals.*


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

borderer said:


> some do...........


*Only a sick and twisted individual.*


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Only a sick and twisted individual.*


ye i heard:thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

borderer said:


> know nothing as usual:lol::lol:


*Seeing as your only contributions seem to be insults....Please Bordie...DO share with us all your wealth of knowledge on fox hunting. Because believe me i know a hell of alot more than you seem to realise, yet you are quick to insult. Your usual reply is a one line...mr fox kills chickens.
So come on Bordie let's have an intelligent debate with knowledge and FACTS. *


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Seeing as your only contributions seem to be insults....Please Bordie...DO share with us all your wealth of knowledge on fox hunting. Because believe me i know a hell of alot more than you seem to realise, yet you are quick to insult. Your usual reply is a one line...mr fox kills chickens.
> So come on Bordie let's have an intelligent debate with knowledge and FACTS. *


what would you like to know:thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

borderer said:


> what would you like to know:thumbup:


*For starters (clearly you haven't read the information ive already put up) ....why is fox hunting ok in your eyes?*


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *For starters (clearly you haven't read the information ive already put up) ....why is fox hunting ok in your eyes?*


for starters i dont read rubbish and my eyes have not said anything


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

borderer said:


> for starters i dont read rubbish and my eyes have not said anything


*How can you determine what is rubbish if you have not taken the time to read it?*


----------



## ClaireLouise

borderer said:


> for starters i dont read rubbish and my eyes have not said anything


Just because its not something you agree with doesnt mean its rubbish


----------



## Guest

ClaireLouise said:


> Just because its not something you agree with doesnt mean its ruddish


i like ruddishes
:thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

ClaireLouise said:


> Just because its not something you agree with doesnt mean its ruddish


*Exactly Claire but it seems Bordie would rather resort to insults rather than debate something. I asked a simple question of him, yet the usual one liner insulting reply comes back. I rest my case....He is unable to debate this subject in an intelligent way without insulting people and clearly doesn't have any knowledge/proof to back up any argument he would have on why he thinks this kind of thing should be considered acceptable.*


----------



## ClaireLouise

borderer said:


> i like ruddishes
> :thumbup:


hahahaha well spotted, still cant anwers the original question can you LOL:thumbup: :thumbup:

Not really the perfect person to be giving spelling lesson though are you


----------



## jeanie

I agree ,why try to spoil a good thread i understood all animal lovers loved nature too which includes the wild animals, i have kept a few chickens but dont eat them just the eggs , neither do the foxes of which there are plenty here , as they are shut in at nights securely, it would be a shame to shut such a nice debatable thread, everyone puts there point but in a nice cilvised manner so if you could put your point across maybe we would learn something to contribute to this thread,


----------



## jeanie

I totally agree with you both , shame there are lots of intelligent people around and quite capable of understanding your language we read we see and we learn maybe that would help you too. i to have been to watch hunts to see what really goes on and i find it disgusting , people can get the same pleasure not chasing foxes , they get the same ride when dogs are chasing a scent, no need to kill and smear the blood of a young fox on their small children out for first ride its so sick .


----------



## Cleo38

I'm never going to find fox hunting acceptable tbh but some posts earlier, despite being more pro hunting were still interesting & raised some valid points regarding employment in rural communities, etc which is exactly what made a good debate. I've enjoyed reading most posts on this thread despite not agreeing with them all.

Been a welcome break from the bl**dy decorating!!! :thumbup:


----------



## sequeena

No idea why you guys are surprised. Threads like this always turn personal at some point 

I think I can hear the jangle of a padlock in the not too distant future!


----------



## Spellweaver

sequeena said:


> No idea why you guys are surprised. Threads like this always turn personal at some point
> 
> I think I can hear the jangle of a padlock in the not too distant future!


It will be a real shame if the thread is locked - except for one poster it's been a great debate.


----------



## sequeena

Spellweaver said:


> It will be a real shame if the thread is locked - except for one poster it's been a great debate.


Same here. It's been a good read.


----------



## JANICE199

Spellweaver said:


> It will be a real shame if the thread is locked - except for one poster it's been a great debate.


*I have reported the poster in question twice on this thread but nothing has been done.To resort to personal insults is a disgrace.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

JANICE199 said:


> *I have reported the poster in question twice on this thread but nothing has been done.To resort to personal insults is a disgrace.*


*I reported it too but nothing was done.*


----------



## marion..d

i think it has been an interesting thread.. and as there has been over 1500 people look at thread a lot of others must think so too


----------



## MissShelley

I have enjoyed reading this, havent contributed much, was interested in seeing how people feel about it. I can see it from both sides, being a country girl, and growing up watching the local hunt in progress, year by year they do look stunning galloping away with hounds in pursuit. I understood the need to keep the population down, my Dad disagreed saying nature regulated itself and didn't need humans to intervene ( "everything we ever need is in in nature, humans need not interefere" were his words, made sense to me ) as I got older and understood what the hunt involved, I was less enthusiastic. 

I don't believe in sabotage, the fox is wily and if he's got wits, he'll find his own way out... Survival of the fittest, is the way it's been centuries down, but again, that goes back to animals regulating themselves, Humans have the unfair advantage, but i'm not sure how anyone can take the moral high ground on fox hunting when we've all eaten meat off dodgy burger vans, and service stations without a thought about where the meat came from, or how it was killed... You have to think about cruelty all across the board. Has the chicken in your takeway been slaughtered humanely??? where did that dodgy burger come from? Halal meat? who agrees with that? you see, to eat meat you have to understand the processes involved completey


----------



## suzy93074

wow this thread had been going so well ...........dont rise to certain peoples bait thats what they want  if they cannot even have the guts to debate their side properly they really are not worth getting upset with


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

MissShelley said:


> I have enjoyed reading this, havent contributed much, was interested in seeing how people feel about it. I can see it from both sides, being a country girl, and growing up watching the local hunt in progress, year by year they do look stunning galloping away with hounds in pursuit. I understood the need to keep the population down, my Dad disagreed saying nature regulated itself and didn't need humans to intervene ( "everything we ever need is in in nature, humans need not interefere" were his words, made sense to me ) as I got older and understood what the hunt involved, I was less enthusiastic.
> 
> I don't believe in sabotage, the fox is wily and if he's got wits, he'll find his own way out... Survival of the fittest, is the way it's been centuries down, but again, that goes back to animals regulating themselves, Humans have the unfair advantage, but i'm not sure how anyone can take the moral high ground on fox hunting when we've all eaten meat off dodgy burger vans, and service stations without a thought about where the meat came from, or how it was killed... You have to think about cruelty all across the board. Has the chicken in your takeway been slaughtered humanely??? where did that dodgy burger come from? Halal meat? who agrees with that? you see, to eat meat you have to understand the processes involved completey


*I understand and respect what you are saying. But just pointing out a couple of things....Firstly eating meat doesn't come into this argument in so much as fox hunters don't eat the meat. Also it's the fact this barbarity is done in the name of 'sport'.
If the discussion was about animals being killed for food, i agree we would all want to think an animal should be killed humanely.
*



suzy93074 said:


> wow this thread had been going so well ...........dont rise to certain peoples bait thats what they want  if they cannot even have the guts to debate their side properly they really are not worth getting upset with


*So true Suzy but easier said than done...lol*


----------



## bucksmum

MissShelley said:


> I have enjoyed reading this, havent contributed much, was interested in seeing how people feel about it. I can see it from both sides, being a country girl, and growing up watching the local hunt in progress, year by year they do look stunning galloping away with hounds in pursuit. I understood the need to keep the population down, my Dad disagreed saying nature regulated itself and didn't need humans to intervene ( "everything we ever need is in in nature, humans need not interefere" were his words, made sense to me ) as I got older and understood what the hunt involved, I was less enthusiastic.
> 
> I don't believe in sabotage, the fox is wily and if he's got wits, he'll find his own way out... Survival of the fittest, is the way it's been centuries down, but again, that goes back to animals regulating themselves, Humans have the unfair advantage, but i'm not sure how anyone can take the moral high ground on fox hunting when we've all eaten meat off dodgy burger vans, and service stations without a thought about where the meat came from, or how it was killed... You have to think about cruelty all across the board. Has the chicken in your takeway been slaughtered humanely??? where did that dodgy burger come from? Halal meat? who agrees with that? you see, to eat meat you have to understand the processes involved completey


Well said Miss Shelley  Just one point i see things differently on and that is animals regulating themselves.
The fox has no natural predator.No other wild animal will kill an adult fox (although i have found fox cub remains outside of a badger sett before).

Very good point about the source of the meat that we eat ,i think that is something many people would prefer not to think too hard about.
I personally would prefer to eat a pheasant or duck that we have shot that week that has led a free life than a chicken that has led a miserable existance.
That's REAL cruelty


----------



## MissShelley

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *I understand and respect what you are saying. But just pointing out a couple of things....Firstly eating meat doesn't come into this argument in so much as fox hunters don't eat the meat. Also it's the fact this barbarity is done in the name of 'sport'.
> If the discussion was about animals being killed for food, i agree we would all want to think an animal should be killed humanely.
> *
> 
> I was thinking about the cruelty aspect of it all rather than the purpose of the end product


----------



## MissShelley

bucksmum said:


> Well said Miss Shelley  Just one point i see things differently on and that is animals regulating themselves.
> The fox has no natural predator.No other wild animal will kill an adult fox (although i have found fox cub remains outside of a badger sett before).
> 
> Very good point about the source of the meat that we eat ,i think that is something many people would prefer not to think too hard about.
> I personally would prefer to eat a pheasant or duck that we have shot that week that has led a free life than a chicken that has led a miserable existance.
> That's REAL cruelty


Thank you  foxs may well regulate themselves, as does most wild animals, i'm sure in the same way lions etc do


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

MissShelley said:


> I was thinking about the cruelty aspect of it all rather than the purpose of the end product :)[/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the hunter knows the outcome and the cruelty involved beforehand. We do not know how the animals we eat for meat are killed. We rely on regulations that claim animals will be killed quickly and humanely. Being a meat eater does not mean you condone the cruelty towards an animal.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

Having grown up to a certain degree in Portland, OR, I can tell you a bit about the hunting over in the states. Most hunting involves a gun, and there are open and closed seasons for different quarry. 

US hunters do seem to be a slightly more composed bunch, and also seem to have greater respect for their targets, only taking what they need when hunting for food. They don't like seeing animals being ripped apart anymore than we do. As one member of a US hunting forum put it: "they must be compensating for something, as they are nothing short of sick and retarded in their ways". This member was of course commenting on UK fox hunters shown in a youtube video.

One thing is for certain, you wouldn't find a group of 'toffee-nosed' twerps dressed upto the nines chasing foxes or whatever in the US. They'd be literally laughed out of the country. :lol:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Chillinator said:


> Having grown up to a certain degree in Portland, OR, I can tell you a bit about the hunting over in the states. Most hunting involves a gun, and there are open and closed seasons for different quarry.
> 
> US hunters do seem to be a slightly more composed bunch, and also seem to have greater respect for their targets, only taking what they need when hunting for food. They don't like seeing animals being ripped apart anymore than we do. As one member of a US hunting forum put it: "they must be compensating for something, as they are nothing short of sick and retarded in their ways". This member was of course commenting on UK fox hunters shown in a youtube video.
> 
> One thing is for certain, you wouldn't find a group of 'toffee-nosed' twerps dressed upto the nines chasing foxes or whatever in the US. They'd be literally laughed out of the country. :lol:


*Now i totally respect that form of hunting. Hunting for food and not deriving pleasure from seeing an animal being ripped apart.*


----------



## momentofmadness

FREE SPIRIT said:


> MissShelley said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the hunter knows the outcome and the cruelty involved beforehand. We do not know how the animals we eat for meat are killed. We rely on regulations that claim animals will be killed quickly and humanely. Being a meat eater does not mean you condone the cruelty towards an animal.*
> 
> 
> 
> I campaigned with others for years re the transportation of live horses to other countries....
> If only you seen how animals are treated before slaughter.... No food or water and smacked around, prodders used on them when they wont go the right way.. Horses with their eyes gorged out, trying to escape as people are bashing them with sticks and whips.. They have broken legs etc but are still battered into the lorries cause the meat is worth more alive.... Horrific... People do know what happens but still eat meat..
> 
> I am no veggie but it disturbs me to know what can happen....
Click to expand...


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

momentofmadness said:


> FREE SPIRIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> You for real i campaigned with others for years re the transportation of live horses to other countries....
> If only you seen how animals are treated before slaughter.... No food or water and smacked around, prodders used on them when they wont go the right way.. Horses with their eyes gorged out, trying to escape as people are bashing them with sticks and whips.. They have broken legs etc but are still battered into the lorries cause the meat is worth more alive.... Horrific... People do know what happens but still eat meat..
> 
> I am no veggie but it disturbs me to know what can happen....
> 
> 
> 
> *I have seen plenty of footage that sickens me about the conditions animals are kept in, transported in and the way they are slaughtered. I have also done my part as far as signing petitions, joining groups, etc to put a stop to this.
> But being a meat eater, unless we know for sure where our meat comes from and if it was killed humanely we can only keep on campaigning for better conditions or become vegetarian. *
Click to expand...


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> Well said Miss Shelley  Very good point about the source of the meat that we eat ,i think that is something many people would prefer not to think too hard about.
> I personally would prefer to eat a pheasant or duck that we have shot that week that has led a free life than a chicken that has led a miserable existance.
> That's REAL cruelty


If the only way you can justify one inhumane action is by pointing out another inhumane action, then it is a sure fire signal that the action you are trying to justify is pretty unjustifiable. It's like trying to justify a war by saying that people get murdered anyway. Your argument is not even logical in that most anti-hunt people who have posted on this thread would actually agree with you about the horrors of factory farming. Factory farming is bad - but whatever has that got to do with fox-hunting? Shooting a pheasant or duck for food is a far cry from chasing a fox until it is exhausted and then allowing it to be ripped to shreds. How can you even begin to equate the two?

And btw, are you going to reply to my question about dog fighting?


----------



## Guest

yorkigirl said:


> They eat the racoons after they have been treed by their coon hounds do they


They are usually shot, but it is far less barbaric than having the animal torn to pieces to die. Animals like coons don't 'go to ground' as US hunters put it, instead they shoot up trees. The main role of coon hounds is scent, not to kill the racoon itself. So, as you can see, it is quite a contrast to the way UK fox hunting operates. Still cruel in the eyes of some yes, but arguably less barbaric and painful for the quarry.

A racoon that is being held up a tree by coon hounds has a much fairer and greater chance of escaping than animals that are chased across open ground by dogs. You'll find that dogs are rarely used when hunting for animals that are primarily ground-dwelling in the US, except for retrieving the animal once it has been shot.


----------



## bucksmum

Spellweaver said:


> If the only way you can justify one inhumane action is by pointing out another inhumane action, then it is a sure fire signal that the action you are trying to justify is pretty unjustifiable. It's like trying to justify a war by saying that people get murdered anyway. Your argument is not even logical in that most anti-hunt people who have posted on this thread would actually agree with you about the horrors of factory farming. Factory farming is bad - but whatever has that got to do with fox-hunting? Shooting a pheasant or duck for food is a far cry from chasing a fox until it is exhausted and then allowing it to be ripped to shreds. How can you even begin to equate the two?
> 
> And btw, are you going to reply to my question about dog fighting?


Sorry Spellweaver,been in and out so forgot all about it 

Yes ok the dogfighting in my eyes is a totally different subject.A hound in size relation to a fox is as i said before the same as a terrier to a rat.When my terriers kill a rat it is extremely quick and i have witnessed a hound kill a fox in much the same amount of time BUT dog fighting is two animals of the same size and strength therefore prolonging the fight (when a hound kills a fox there is no 'fight')and obviously dog fighting is something we would all find distressing and cannot be compared to fox and hounds 

Also when pheasants are shot this is also a form of hunting.Pheasants do not like to fly if they can walk and they are driven with beaters to a chosen spot and then 'flushed' towards the guns.It is still hunting in a different form....i'm married to a gamekeeper so am not at all anti shooting,it's our bread and butter just trying to point out it's still the rich,dressed up killing for sport


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> Sorry Spellweaver,been in and out so forgot all about it
> 
> Yes ok the dogfighting in my eyes is a totally different subject.A hound in size relation to a fox is as i said before the same as a terrier to a rat.When my terriers kill a rat it is extremely quick and i have witnessed a hound kill a fox in much the same amount of time BUT dog fighting is two animals of the same size and strength therefore prolonging the fight (when a hound kills a fox there is no 'fight')and obviously dog fighting is something we would all find distressing and cannot be compared to fox and hounds
> 
> Also when pheasants are shot this is also a form of hunting.Pheasants do not like to fly if they can walk and they are driven with beaters to a chosen spot and then 'flushed' towards the guns.It is still hunting in a different form....i'm married to a gamekeeper so am not at all anti shooting,it's our bread and butter just trying to point out it's still the rich,dressed up killing for sport


*No offence but with regards to fox hunting it is rarely the case that one hound kills the fox. It is a few of the hounds that tear the fox apart and there is plenty of footage to prove this. If you have not seen this, then i suggest you go take a look and then come back and say how quickly the fox was killed. It is barbaric in every sense.*


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> Sorry Spellweaver,been in and out so forgot all about it
> 
> Yes ok the dogfighting in my eyes is a totally different subject.A hound in size relation to a fox is as i said before the same as a terrier to a rat.When my terriers kill a rat it is extremely quick and i have witnessed a hound kill a fox in much the same amount of time BUT dog fighting is two animals of the same size and strength therefore prolonging the fight (when a hound kills a fox there is no 'fight')and obviously dog fighting is something we would all find distressing as cannot be compared to fox and hounds


So in hunting you have a pack of hounds run after an animal until, exhausted, it is either caught and ripped to shreds, or goes to earth, then is dug up by a human being, thrown to the pack and ripped to shreds. One small animal against all that. In dog fighting you have two equal animals. And you are trying to make a case that the former is more ?sporting ?fair ?humane? than the latter? Really? How can you possibly find the latter more distressing than the former? (I'm not trying to justify dog fighting btw - I think both so-called "sports" are equally as barbaric and the people who indulge in them are equally as blood-thirsty.

However, having said all that ......... my original question to you about dog fighting was in regard to reading about it on the internet and whether or not you would feel justified in speaking out against it if you had never been to a dog fight. This was in connection to your complaint that people who had never been to a hunt were speaking out against it.


----------



## bucksmum

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *No offence but with regards to fox hunting it is rarely the case that one hound kills the fox. It is a few of the hounds that tear the fox apart and there is plenty of footage to prove this. If you have not seen this, then i suggest you go take a look and then come back and say how quickly the fox was killed. It is barbaric in every sense.*


The kill that i witnessed was made by the lead hound (as is often the case). She caught the fox at the back of the neck and it was dead in seconds.The 'tearing apart' was all done to an already dead fox.

No offence to you either but i would rather make my judgement on what i saw in real life than keep looking at video footage


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> The kill that i witnessed was made by the lead hound (as is often the case). She caught the fox at the back of the neck and it was dead in seconds.The 'tearing apart' was all done to an already dead fox.
> 
> No offence to you either but i would rather make my judgement on what i saw in real life than keep looking at video footage


*So you are making your judgement on the ONE case you have witnessed rather than endless video footage to prove otherwise, that that is not the norm?*


----------



## bucksmum

Spellweaver said:


> So in hunting you have a pack of hounds run after an animal until, exhausted, it is either caught and ripped to shreds, or goes to earth, then is dug up by a human being, thrown to the pack and ripped to shreds. One small animal against all that. In dog fighting you have two equal animals. And you are trying to make a case that the former is more ?sporting ?fair ?humane? than the latter? Really? How can you possibly find the latter more distressing than the former? (I'm not trying to justify dog fighting btw - I think both so-called "sports" are equally as barbaric and the people who indulge in them are equally as blood-thirsty.
> 
> However, having said all that ......... my original question to you about dog fighting was in regard to reading about it on the internet and whether or not you would feel justified in speaking out against it if you had never been to a dog fight. This was in connection to your complaint that people who had never been to a hunt were speaking out against it.


You have your info wrong there.The fox is never thrown alive to hounds after being dug out.It is always shot dead first and given to hounds to 'rag' as a reward.

The point about the dog fighting is the inflicted suffering.The suffering to the fox when caught by hounds is obviously going to be less so than two dogs of equal size fighting for a longer period of time.

I can only imagine the aim of the dog fighters is to see a prolonged fight between two similair sized animals(god only knows why) and anyone in their right mind would be against this but the aim of hunting is to use a powerful hound to kill their quarry quickly,totally different 

Just to answer your other question ,by christ yes i do find dog fighting more distasteful then fox hunting and i'm shocked that you don't either!!!!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> You have your info wrong there.The fox is never thrown alive to hounds after being dug out.It is always shot dead first and given to hounds to 'rag' as a reward.


*Yet again...you only have to go search and it won't take long to actually find footage where you actually see a fox being dug out and thrown directly to the hounds alive. Infact i posted a video clip on another thread showing this. *


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> You have your info wrong there.The fox is never thrown alive to hounds after being dug out.It is always shot dead first and given to hounds to 'rag' as a reward.


Not always - sometimes it is thrown alive, and sometimes it is beaten to death with a spade before being thrown to the pack.



bucksmum said:


> The point about the dog fighting is the inflicted suffering.The suffering to the fox when caught by hounds is obviously going to be less so than two dogs of equal size fighting for a longer period of time.


If I had the choice between being ripped to shreds by several animals bigger than me or fighting an equal, then I know which I'd prefer - and it wouldn't be being ripped to shreds!



bucksmum said:


> I can only imagine the aim of the dog fighters is to see a prolonged fight between two similair sized animals(god only knows why) and anyone in their right mind would be against this but the aim of hunting is to use a powerful hound to kill their quarry quickly,totally different


Well, you still haven't directly answered my question about whether or not you would feel it is ok to comment on dog fighting if you have never been to a dog fight, but by actually commenting on dog fighting I guess you have answered it indirectly. So, by your own logic, it must be ok for people who have never been to a hunt to comment on hunting. And just as you feel that anyone in their right mind would be against dog fighting, so do many, many people feel that anyone in their right mind would be against fox hunting. The two "sports" are held in equal derision and contempt by everyone except for the hunters themselves; and fox hunters are looked upon with the same abhorence as people who train dogs to fight.

Anyway, must go to bed or I'll be falling asleep at the computer. Thanks for a good debate everyone - I'll catch you all tomorow.


----------



## bucksmum

Spellweaver said:


> Not always - sometimes it is thrown alive, and sometimes it is beaten to death with a spade before being thrown to the pack.
> 
> If I had the choice between being ripped to shreds by several animals bigger than me or fighting an equal, then I know which I'd prefer - and it wouldn't be being ripped to shreds!
> 
> Well, you still haven't directly answered my question about whether or not you would feel it is ok to comment on dog fighting if you have never been to a dog fight, but by actually commenting on dog fighting I guess you have answered it indirectly. So, by your own logic, it must be ok for people who have never been to a hunt to comment on hunting. And just as you feel that anyone in their right mind would be against dog fighting, so do many, many people feel that anyone in their right mind would be against fox hunting. The two "sports" are held in equal derision and contempt by everyone except for the hunters themselves; and fox hunters are looked upon with the same abhorence as people who train dogs to fight.
> 
> Anyway, must go to bed or I'll be falling asleep at the computer. Thanks for a good debate everyone - I'll catch you all tomorow.


Yes,i'm going to leave this debate now but no, i do feel very different to you in that dog fighting to me is FAR FAR worse than fox hunting and if your veiws are that the two are equal then i cannot continue to have this conversation with you  sorry.


----------



## canuckjill

I just got on and am now going to read this thread. Could we in the meantime stop with the personal insults Janice would I'm sure like this to stay open ...Thank you Jill


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*Here's a nice bit of advice given to hunt leaders and supporters.

Anger at Countryside Alliance Call to Sabotage Anti-Hunt Videos*


----------



## Agility Springer

Firstly, let me apologise if i am repeating what has already been said, i'm sorry to say i have the read the majority of replies, but do not at the moment have the time to read them all.

Secondly, what i write is not based on pro or anti hunt prpoganda, its from real life experiences, i have seen hunts and kills, i have also seen ant's

I could not agree more that the ban should not be reppealed, i do not regard this as a sport, a sport involves two sides aware they are in a game, not a fight for its life!

The arguments put forwards regarding foxes as pests, and population control are just the petty excuses rolled out everytime this argument arises, the rural population of foxes is dwindling, through natural boom and bust occurances in the ecosystem, foxes are capable of maintaining their population, its survival of the fittest, and natural selection. predator prey relationships between the fox and the rabbit ensure BOTH population correlate with each other, if the rabbit population decreases, so does the fox and vice versa. Nature is the best tool in population control, why let man decide?

If we do consider for one moment that yes, the fox is over populated, then other methods of control are far more humane, somebody has mentioned that poison and shooting are ineffective and often more painful to the fox, my argument to you is why not use humane traps and cull once caught? there are other options to population control if that where neccesary.

To those that mention the vicious fox who kills all chickens in the coop not just the one it intends to eat....how ridiculous a statement, a fox is a wild animal, its sole purpose is to survive, it does not have the reasoning we do, it kills to survive, you kill to "control the population" or to have fuin, see it how you will, the fox does not carry out a mindless act of aggression, if you dont want your chickens eating, lock them up in better accommodation??

Road traffic accidents do, understandably kill more foxes than the hunt does, fair enough, i agree, however if i where to hit a fox, it would be a mistake, i wouldnt get my red coat and horn out, drive around chasing a fox until i catch it and mow it down, i do not seek to kill the fox, accidents happen. Pro hunters posses the reasoning to seek out the fox and kill it.

The kill itself, i have witnessed, it is never humane, and it is a healthy fox, it is chased until it cannot run any longer at which point the hounds catch it and kill it, on average what...40 hounds?? how can one fox possibly survive? 

Ritualised killing in my honest opinion, nothing justified or dignified about it, a fox is a wild animal, it was put on this earth just as we have, to survive, the fox should only run to catch its prey, not for its life! 

Fox hunting is NOT a sport. FACT. 
neither is it a population control tool.

Can i also add, i would much rather my taxes spent on using contraception for foxes than have it pay for damages done by the hunt riding through and causing damage.

What on earth entitles people to take away a healthy animals life? for those of you that hunt, why do you think you have the right to remove an animals life? who gave you this power? I am truly saddend by a human being who would intentionally remove an animals life without a second thought, what a horrible world we live in.

Sabs....you have my greatest respect, keep fighting for these glorious animals, they are the heart of British wildlife.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Agility Springer said:


> Firstly, let me apologise if i am repeating what has already been said, i'm sorry to say i have the read the majority of replies, but do not at the moment have the time to read them all.
> 
> Secondly, what i write is not based on pro or anti hunt prpoganda, its from real life experiences, i have seen hunts and kills, i have also seen ant's
> 
> I could not agree more that the ban should not be reppealed, i do not regard this as a sport, a sport involves two sides aware they are in a game, not a fight for its life!
> 
> The arguments put forwards regarding foxes as pests, and population control are just the petty excuses rolled out everytime this argument arises, the rural population of foxes is dwindling, through natural boom and bust occurances in the ecosystem, foxes are capable of maintaining their population, its survival of the fittest, and natural selection. predator prey relationships between the fox and the rabbit ensure BOTH population correlate with each other, if the rabbit population decreases, so does the fox and vice versa. Nature is the best tool in population control, why let man decide?
> 
> If we do consider for one moment that yes, the fox is over populated, then other methods of control are far more humane, somebody has mentioned that poison and shooting are ineffective and often more painful to the fox, my argument to you is why not use humane traps and cull once caught? there are other options to population control if that where neccesary.
> 
> To those that mention the vicious fox who kills all chickens in the coop not just the one it intends to eat....how ridiculous a statement, a fox is a wild animal, its sole purpose is to survive, it does not have the reasoning we do, it kills to survive, you kill to "control the population" or to have fuin, see it how you will, the fox does not carry out a mindless act of aggression, if you dont want your chickens eating, lock them up in better accommodation??
> 
> Road traffic accidents do, understandably kill more foxes than the hunt does, fair enough, i agree, however if i where to hit a fox, it would be a mistake, i wouldnt get my red coat and horn out, drive around chasing a fox until i catch it and mow it down, i do not seek to kill the fox, accidents happen. Pro hunters posses the reasoning to seek out the fox and kill it.
> 
> The kill itself, i have witnessed, it is never humane, and it is a healthy fox, it is chased until it cannot run any longer at which point the hounds catch it and kill it, on average what...40 hounds?? how can one fox possibly survive?
> 
> Ritualised killing in my honest opinion, nothing justified or dignified about it, a fox is a wild animal, it was put on this earth just as we have, to survive, the fox should only run to catch its prey, not for its life!
> 
> Fox hunting is NOT a sport. FACT.
> neither is it a population control tool.
> 
> Can i also add, i would much rather my taxes spent on using contraception for foxes than have it pay for damages done by the hunt riding through and causing damage.
> 
> What on earth entitles people to take away a healthy animals life? for those of you that hunt, why do you think you have the right to remove an animals life? who gave you this power? I am truly saddend by a human being who would intentionally remove an animals life without a second thought, what a horrible world we live in.
> 
> Sabs....you have my greatest respect, keep fighting for these glorious animals, they are the heart of British wildlife.


*What a beautiful, caring and well put answer. *


----------



## Agility Springer

Thank you very much


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Yes,i'm going to leave this debate now but no, i do feel very different to you in that dog fighting to me is FAR FAR worse than fox hunting and if your veiws are that the two are equal then i cannot continue to have this conversation with you  sorry.


i'll never understand how anyone can thinks its okay to rip a wild animal to shreds but inhumane when its a domestic animal, both feel pain,fear and have emotions, both are capable of suffering, and i know you believe everything the Hunts told you about the 'sport' Bucksmum but maybe if they'd told you all the hidden cruelties that go on you might feel differently? this is just one snippit from the accounts of huntsman Clifford Pellow. Do you feel this is less cruel than dog fighting?


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> If the only way you can justify one inhumane action is by pointing out another inhumane action, then it is a sure fire signal that the action you are trying to justify is pretty unjustifiable. It's like trying to justify a war by saying that people get murdered anyway. Your argument is not even logical in that most anti-hunt people who have posted on this thread would actually agree with you about the horrors of factory farming. Factory farming is bad - but whatever has that got to do with fox-hunting? Shooting a pheasant or duck for food is a far cry from chasing a fox until it is exhausted and then allowing it to be ripped to shreds. How can you even begin to equate the two?
> 
> And btw, are you going to reply to my question about dog fighting?


well said! ive always wondered why do some people who support blood sports always try to justify it by comparing it with some other form of animal abuse very odd!!!



FREE SPIRIT said:


> *What a beautiful, caring and well put answer. *


i agree


----------



## Cleo38

There may be instances where foxes are shot before being thrown to hounds but I can assure you that there are many instances where the hounds get to the fox first & do literally rip it apart - & yes I have seen this with my own eyes not a video clip. It was horrible.
as for the fox being wily & this being a 'sport' where the animal has a chance to escape then how can cubbing be justified? The poor animals then are surrounded, have no chance of escaping before being killed


----------



## JANICE199

*


canuckjill said:



I just got on and am now going to read this thread. Could we in the meantime stop with the personal insults Janice would I'm sure like this to stay open ...Thank you Jill

Click to expand...

Thankyou Jill,like others have said its been a good debate and i would like to see it continue.

To all those that have added to this thread i thankyou.I find it most interesting hearing from all sides as i'm still learning.I have learnt more on this subject in the last month or so than in my entire life.If you are still on the fence about this subject i would say,take a look on the internet there is a wealth of information out there.FREE SPIRIT has added some VERY interesting links which i am very grateful for.*


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> Yes,i'm going to leave this debate now but no, i do feel very different to you in that dog fighting to me is FAR FAR worse than fox hunting and if your veiws are that the two are equal then i cannot continue to have this conversation with you  sorry.


I am really sorry you feel this way. I, along with most animal lovers, feel strongly that the two blood sports are equally horrendous and will produce as many arguments as it takes to try to convince anyone of the fact. On the other hand, you obviously feel just as strongly that they are not equal. Sigh. I can't help feeling that the reason you won't continue the debate is because you can't produce any arguments to suppport your view.


----------



## Spellweaver

Agility Springer said:


> Firstly, let me apologise if i am repeating what has already been said, i'm sorry to say i have the read the majority of replies, but do not at the moment have the time to read them all.
> 
> Secondly, what i write is not based on pro or anti hunt prpoganda, its from real life experiences, i have seen hunts and kills, i have also seen ant's
> 
> I could not agree more that the ban should not be reppealed, i do not regard this as a sport, a sport involves two sides aware they are in a game, not a fight for its life!
> 
> The arguments put forwards regarding foxes as pests, and population control are just the petty excuses rolled out everytime this argument arises, the rural population of foxes is dwindling, through natural boom and bust occurances in the ecosystem, foxes are capable of maintaining their population, its survival of the fittest, and natural selection. predator prey relationships between the fox and the rabbit ensure BOTH population correlate with each other, if the rabbit population decreases, so does the fox and vice versa. Nature is the best tool in population control, why let man decide?
> 
> If we do consider for one moment that yes, the fox is over populated, then other methods of control are far more humane, somebody has mentioned that poison and shooting are ineffective and often more painful to the fox, my argument to you is why not use humane traps and cull once caught? there are other options to population control if that where neccesary.
> 
> To those that mention the vicious fox who kills all chickens in the coop not just the one it intends to eat....how ridiculous a statement, a fox is a wild animal, its sole purpose is to survive, it does not have the reasoning we do, it kills to survive, you kill to "control the population" or to have fuin, see it how you will, the fox does not carry out a mindless act of aggression, if you dont want your chickens eating, lock them up in better accommodation??
> 
> Road traffic accidents do, understandably kill more foxes than the hunt does, fair enough, i agree, however if i where to hit a fox, it would be a mistake, i wouldnt get my red coat and horn out, drive around chasing a fox until i catch it and mow it down, i do not seek to kill the fox, accidents happen. Pro hunters posses the reasoning to seek out the fox and kill it.
> 
> The kill itself, i have witnessed, it is never humane, and it is a healthy fox, it is chased until it cannot run any longer at which point the hounds catch it and kill it, on average what...40 hounds?? how can one fox possibly survive?
> 
> Ritualised killing in my honest opinion, nothing justified or dignified about it, a fox is a wild animal, it was put on this earth just as we have, to survive, the fox should only run to catch its prey, not for its life!
> 
> Fox hunting is NOT a sport. FACT.
> neither is it a population control tool.
> 
> Can i also add, i would much rather my taxes spent on using contraception for foxes than have it pay for damages done by the hunt riding through and causing damage.
> 
> What on earth entitles people to take away a healthy animals life? for those of you that hunt, why do you think you have the right to remove an animals life? who gave you this power? I am truly saddend by a human being who would intentionally remove an animals life without a second thought, what a horrible world we live in.
> 
> Sabs....you have my greatest respect, keep fighting for these glorious animals, they are the heart of British wildlife.


An excellent and well thought out post. Well said!


----------



## Paul Dunham

Hunt saboteurs have a right to demonstrate against fox hunting in a peaceful manner, but not to sabotage and endanger life. Some of the tricks they get up to they should go to jail. Often they put lives in danger not only of people, but horses and dogs too.
And they call themselves animal lovers? If the anti fox hunting brigade wants the moral high ground, they had better get rid of these idiots in their ranks.

Now conservatives are back, foxhunting will return. The recent attacks will give them the ammunition.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

nfp20 said:


> the fox that attacked the toddler in Brighton would not have been dispatched by the hunt it was a town fox and they unlike their country cousins they are far too friendly because they are fed by people all the time so to be perfectly honest this was to be expected. A fox can and has brought down new born foals so why should a toddler be any different. In that area there are numerous foxes and several of the residents in their stupidity feed them with household left overs which encourages them. They have no real fear of people at all. I used to live near there and they were to be honest a complete nightmare and kept attacking the cats so much so mine had to stay housecats till I moved.
> 
> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


Very good post, absolutely agree. Not only are they in the wrong they are breaking the law, you can't pick and choose which laws you uphold and those you don't. The thread didn't ask if fox hunting was *ethical* it asked whether hunt saboteurs are right to go out and do what they do, to me, there is no justification for breaking the law.

With all the cruelty that goes on to animals, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to pin point one sport. I've said it before and I will say it again, this is something that people can *support* because it doesn't affect their way of lives, tell everyone their food bills were all going up by £50 a week because we were going to end all cruelty to animals in our food chain tomorrow, and the vast majority of the populous would be up in arms!!!!

And, before anyone wonders, I haven't actually said whether I'm pro hunting, or not


----------



## Spellweaver

Paul Dunham said:


> Hunt saboteurs have a right to demonstrate against fox hunting in a peaceful manner, but not to sabotage and endanger life. Some of the tricks they get up to they should go to jail. Often they put lives in danger not only of people, but horses and dogs too.
> And they call themselves animal lovers? If the anti fox hunting brigade wants the moral high ground, they had better get rid of these idiots in their ranks.
> 
> Now conservatives are back, foxhunting will return. The recent attacks will give them the ammunition.


The fact that an attack in a town by an urban fox will give ammunition to the pro-hunting lobby is, sadly, true. However, it plainly shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Fox hunting in the countryside is likely to increase the urban population of foxes, not decrease it. Yet it will be used by the pro-hunters as a justification for their blood-thirsty "sport" to be reinstated. Just shows how hard up for justification they are, really.

As for hunt saboteurs putting lives in danger - well, fighting for causes that are right, true and just often incurs danger. My hat goes off to the hunt sabs. Well done, and long may you continue.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Very good post, absolutely agree. Not only are they in the wrong they are breaking the law, you can't pick and choose which laws you uphold and those you don't. The thread didn't ask if fox hunting was *ethical* it asked whether hunt saboteurs are right to go out and do what they do, to me, there is no justification for breaking the law.


*Firstly i don't agree or condone ANY extremist, especially if they endanger the lives of others or animals but as for saboteurs breaking the law....They are the ones trying to uphold the law of THE BAN....They try to monitor/capture on camera illegal hunts and if possible try and throw the scent off the fox that is being chased. So i think saboteurs are to be commended for their actions. But as i said before i DO NOT condone extremists.*


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Not only are they in the wrong they are breaking the law, you can't pick and choose which laws you uphold and those you don't. The thread didn't ask if fox hunting was *ethical* it asked whether hunt saboteurs are right to go out and do what they do, to me, there is no justification for breaking the law.


Is it breaking the law to demonstrate against something? If a law is cruel and unjust, surely you would not want to deny people the right to demonstrate against it? The vast majority of hunt saboteurs do not break any laws at all. More laws are being broken by hunts who are ignoring the present law. I dare bet there have been more prosecutions on hunts than sabs since the law against hunting with hounds was passed.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> With all the cruelty that goes on to animals, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to pin point one sport. I've said it before and I will say it again, this is something that people can *support* because it doesn't affect their way of lives, tell everyone their food bills were all going up by £50 a week because we were going to end all cruelty to animals in our food chain tomorrow, and the vast majority of the populous would be up in arms!!!!


No-one is being hypocritical at all. People are pin-pointing this sport in particular because this is what the thread is about. If you were to start a thread about the horrors of factory farming you would probably find that the people who are against fox hunting would be against that too. Genuine animals lovers usually care about cruelty to animals in all kinds of situations.

Using one kind of abuse to justify another kind of abuse does not work as a logical argument - it merely shows that the orignal argument does not have a valid premise.


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Very good post, absolutely agree. Not only are they in the wrong they are breaking the law, you can't pick and choose which laws you uphold and those you don't. The thread didn't ask if fox hunting was *ethical* it asked whether hunt saboteurs are right to go out and do what they do, to me, there is no justification for breaking the law.
> 
> With all the cruelty that goes on to animals, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to pin point one sport. I've said it before and I will say it again, this is something that people can *support* because it doesn't affect their way of lives, tell everyone their food bills were all going up by £50 a week because we were going to end all cruelty to animals in our food chain tomorrow, and the vast majority of the populous would be up in arms!!!!
> 
> And, before anyone wonders, I haven't actually said whether I'm pro hunting, or not


In what way is hunt sabbing breaking the law? I must admit it's been years since I went so laws may have changed but when I used to sab hunts there were certain laws regarding actions likely to cause a beach of the peace & trespassing, etc which the police did implement frequently but we were never arrested simply because sabbing was breaking the law.

As for endangering lives of animals as mentioned in another post then this could also be applied to the huntswo/men who frequently take chances with their horses when pushing them to jump maybe beyond their means at certain points spurred on by the thrill of the chase, letting hounds cross busy roads with no direction or kill domestic pets because they have no control over them. 
The welfare of all of the animals involved in the hunt (horses, hounds as well as the fox) was always a consideration when I was a sab. Maybe other groups acted differently, there will always be idiots on both sides tbh.


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Firstly i don't agree or condone ANY extremist, especially if they endanger the lives of others or animals but as for saboteurs breaking the law....They are the ones trying to uphold the law of THE BAN....They try to monitor/capture on camera illegal hunts and if possible try and throw the scent off the fox that is being chased. So i think saboteurs are to be commended for their actions. But as i said before i DO NOT condone extremists.*


Excellent post! Agree totally.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Firstly i don't agree or condone ANY extremist, especially if they endanger the lives of others or animals but as for saboteurs breaking the law....They are the ones trying to uphold the law of THE BAN....They try to monitor/capture on camera illegal hunts and if possible try and throw the scent off the fox that is being chased. So i think saboteurs are to be commended for their actions. But as i said before i DO NOT condone extremists.*


To follow a hunt around on the chance they might break the law, and by doing so break several laws yourself? I'm sorry, but that is no excuse at all. It is not the job of anyone else to uphold the law except for the police, if everyone became vigilantes to uphold the laws they chose to, and broke others, we would all resort to anarchy. And that's without going into the dangers they place others and themselves in.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It is not the job of anyone else to uphold the law except for the police, if everyone became vigilantes to uphold the laws they chose to, and broke others, we would all resort to anarchy. And that's without going into the dangers they place others and themselves in.


If you extend this argument logically, then should we also abandon schemes such as neighbourhood watch? The police are a limited force and cannot be everywhere. It is the duty of every citizen to watch out for law breakers and inform the police when law breaking occurs. If the hunts were not breaking any laws they would have nothing to fear.

Everyone in this country has the right to protest about anything.


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To follow a hunt around on the chance they might break the law, and by doing so break several laws yourself? I'm sorry, but that is no excuse at all. It is not the job of anyone else to uphold the law except for the police, if everyone became vigilantes to uphold the laws they chose to, and broke others, we would all resort to anarchy. And that's without going into the dangers they place others and themselves in.


Break what laws though??


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Sleeping_Lion said:


> To follow a hunt around on the chance they might break the law, and by doing so break several laws yourself? I'm sorry, but that is no excuse at all. It is not the job of anyone else to uphold the law except for the police, if everyone became vigilantes to uphold the laws they chose to, and broke others, we would all resort to anarchy. And that's without going into the dangers they place others and themselves in.


*Shame the police aren't doing their jobs properly then. Because it seems so many hunters are not prosecuted even when evidence is shown or the police don't bother coming out when called. Monitoring someone or an activity that is illegal is hardly causing anarchy. Or would you call neighbourhood watch anarchy too?*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> If you extend this argument logically, then should we also abandon schemes such as neighbourhood watch? The police are a limited force and cannot be everywhere. It is the duty of every citizen to watch out for law breakers and inform the police when law breaking occurs. If the hunts were not breaking any laws they would have nothing to fear.
> 
> Everyone in this country has the right to protest about anything.


*lol...Great minds think alike. :lol: :lol:*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Cleo38 said:


> Break what laws though??


Tresspass
Aggravated Tresspass
Intent to commit a criminal offence
Assault
Damage to property

to name a few


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *lol...Great minds think alike. :lol: :lol:*


:lol: :lol: :lol: - You're quicker at typing than me! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Tresspass
> Aggravated Tresspass
> Intent to commit a criminal offence
> Assault
> Damage to property
> 
> to name a few


But to be fair you could be talking about the hunt here too!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> If you extend this argument logically, then should we also abandon schemes such as neighbourhood watch? The police are a limited force and cannot be everywhere. It is the duty of every citizen to watch out for law breakers and inform the police when law breaking occurs. If the hunts were not breaking any laws they would have nothing to fear.
> 
> Everyone in this country has the right to protest about anything.


They have a right to protest, but I don't see neighbourhood watch people going round to the homes of known burglars/criminals, gathering in a large crowd, spitting, verbally abusing and intimindating the occupants, because that would be the equivalent.


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Tresspass
> Aggravated Tresspass
> Intent to commit a criminal offence
> Assault
> Damage to property
> 
> to name a few


But those could be equally applied to the hunt as well though, especially the violence!


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> They have a right to protest, but I don't see neighbourhood watch people going round to the homes of known burglars/criminals, gathering in a large crowd, spitting, verbally abusing and intimindating the occupants, because that would be the equivalent.


And, of course, the huntsment never do this kind of thing to the protesters, do they? Pot, kettle and black spring to mind!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> But to be fair you could be talking about the hunt here too!


So if a hunt does tresspass, and cause damage to property, do two wrongs make a right? I doubt if anyone supports saboteurs because Mrs Biggins favourite rhodedendron bush got trampled, they support saboteurs because nobody likes to think of cuddly cute foxes getting ripped apart by hounds. And although incidences do happen where hunts do occasionally cause damage to property, they don't set out to do so on purpose, and in the vast majority of cases they don't commit any offences at all. Where they do, I would hope they would make some sort of compensation for it, unfortunately I'm sure there will be cases where this hasn't happened.

The difference is, hunt saboteurs set out with the intent to commit at least one of these offences, often more. They set out to break the law, and people support them doing it!!


----------



## Spellweaver

Spellweaver said:


> But to be fair you could be talking about the hunt here too!





Cleo38 said:


> But those could be equally applied to the hunt as well though, especially the violence!


:lol: :lol: More great minds thinking alike! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> And, of course, the huntsment never do this kind of thing to the protesters, do they? Pot, kettle and black spring to mind!


All the advice to any hunting/sporting/shooting people is not to, but if you're being spat at and verbally abused, would you sit there and do nothing?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Cleo38 said:


> But those could be equally applied to the hunt as well though, especially the violence!


Why violence? Unless you mean the fox?


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So if a hunt does tresspass, and cause damage to property, do two wrongs make a right? I doubt if anyone supports saboteurs because Mrs Biggins favourite rhodedendron bush got trampled, they support saboteurs because nobody likes to think of cuddly cute foxes getting ripped apart by hounds. And although incidences do happen where hunts do occasionally cause damage to property, they don't set out to do so on purpose, and in the vast majority of cases they don't commit any offences at all. Where they do, I would hope they would make some sort of compensation for it, unfortunately I'm sure there will be cases where this hasn't happened.
> 
> The difference is, hunt saboteurs set out with the intent to commit at least one of these offences, often more. They set out to break the law, and people support them doing it!!


No, I don't accept this argument. Saboteurs set out to stop the hunt ripping an animal to pieces. The sabs follow the hunt. Ergo, if the sabs are breaking the law - _the hunt has broken it first_.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> All the advice to any hunting/sporting/shooting people is not to, but if you're being spat at and verbally abused, would you sit there and do nothing?





Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why violence? Unless you mean the fox?


Just look at some of the links Free Spirit has posted and see the atrocious behaviour of the hunters towards the sabs. Then come back here and try to argue the hunters are good, law-abiding people who are never violent and who never react unless provoked beyond endurance.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> No, I don't accept this argument. Saboteurs set out to stop the hunt ripping an animal to pieces. The sabs follow the hunt. Ergo, if the sabs are breaking the law - _the hunt has broken it first_.


That doesn't follow at all, if the sabs set out to follow the hunt, they are more than likely tresspassing, so breaking the law, ergo they have already broken the law, not the hunt. Setting out to break the law is wrong, whoever does it, and shouldn't be supported.


----------



## Guest

its ILLEGAL to hunt foxes with hounds and yet even with the hunting ban its still happening the police arnt enforcing the law so the sabs out their risking their necks trying too, so how do you feel about hunts breaking the law?


and can i just reiterate that ive never witnessed any sabs trying to harm the hunt animals or attacking anyone involved in the hunt, but i have seen them try to defend themselves when theyve been confronted by hunts staff and ive been intimidated by the hunt supporters in thier jeeps its terrifying

the hunt sabateurs association are a non violent organisation, the minority of idiots who have gone against their ethics are no better than football hooligans who claim to be football supporters!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Just look at some of the links Free Spirit has posted and see the atrocious behaviour of the hunters towards the sabs. Then come back here and try to argue the hunters are good, law-abiding people who are never violent and who never react unless provoked beyond endurance.


So those links will take me to evidence that shows that ALL hunts people behave in that way? There are any number of links out there showing how sabs/huntspeople behave. The fact is, if the sabs weren't there to break the law, it simply wouldn't happen.


----------



## tashi

I am just going to make one post on here, some saboteurs are genuine  some just join in for the trouble couldnt care a damn about the reason they are there - they are just born troublemakers out for a fight


----------



## Guest

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So those links will take me to evidence that shows that ALL hunts people behave in that way? There are any number of links out there showing how sabs/huntspeople behave. The fact is, if the sabs weren't there to break the law, it simply wouldn't happen.


i'd like to see those links please.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

tashi said:


> I am just going to make one post on here, some saboteurs are genuine  some just join in for the trouble couldnt care a damn about the reason they are there - they are just born troublemakers out for a fight


I completely agree.

The very title though, suggests that they are out to cause problems, I wish the genuine people would call them selves hunt protesters, and if they are trying to gather any evidence of illegal hunting, do it in a way that didn't break any laws.


----------



## Zaros

Shamen said:


> the hunt sabateurs association are a non violent organisation, the minority of idiots who have gone against their ethics


You can always count on the militant factions. Never more happy than when they're causing trouble for everyone and corrupting an otherwise worthy cause!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Shamen said:


> i'd like to see those links please.


I'm afraid I haven't got time to sit and google for them, I'm busy invoicing atm, but will try and find some for you later if you still want them


----------



## Spellweaver

tashi said:


> I am just going to make one post on here, some saboteurs are genuine  some just join in for the trouble couldnt care a damn about the reason they are there - they are just born troublemakers out for a fight


This is true Tashi and, sadly, happens in all walks of life in all sorts of (intended) peaceful protests. However, they are in a minority and are mindless thugs - not true saboteurs at all.


----------



## Guest

Zaros said:


> You can always count on the militant factions. Never more happy than when they're causing trouble for everyone and corrupting an otherwise worthy cause!


exactly such people dont give a damn and because of them many of the gp think all sabs are like that.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm afraid I haven't got time to sit and google for them, I'm busy invoicing atm, but will try and find some for you later if you still want them


thanks that would be great because ive only ever seen evidence of hunts supporters instigating violence both in life and on the net.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Shamen said:


> thanks that would be great because ive only ever seen evidence of hunts supporters instigating violence both in life and on the net.


Like everything, there are good and bad in all walks of life, some of the saboteurs are not there *just* to gather evidence, and unfortunately there are often retaliations on both sides. I'm not by any means saying it doesn't happen from the side of the hunts people, quite often through sheer frustration that their day's enjoyment is tarnished by some eejits, who do set out to cause problems. Personally, I just wish they could protest peacefully, as I said above, and if the hunts people do break the law, then the sabs are completely blameless.

Will try and find a couple of links for you later


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Like everything, there are good and bad in all walks of life, some of the saboteurs are not there *just* to gather evidence, and unfortunately there are often retaliations on both sides. I'm not by any means saying it doesn't happen from the side of the hunts people, quite often through sheer frustration that their day's enjoyment is tarnished by some eejits, who do set out to cause problems. Personally, I just wish they could protest peacefully, as I said above, and if the hunts people do break the law, then the sabs are completely blameless.
> 
> Will try and find a couple of links for you later


Depends on your definitition of protesting peacefully though. if you mean stading about with a placard then that's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

I was never charged with anything during my time sabbing, I was never threatening or violent towards anybody neither did I damage property. I was there because I did not want foxes to be killed, not to cause trouble.

There will always be a certtain few people who are there to cause trouble; on both sides. You get this in everything though so I'm not sure how this is aprticular to hunt sabs. If you can see how the hunt can react as their enjoyment (?) of the day has been ruined then can you not also understand how hunt sabs react as a foxes life has been ended in such a horrible way?

When I used to sab it wasn't to gather evidence about hunt activities it was to stop them catching & killing foxes. We were quite successful & I'm glad I participated.


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *Your 1st statement that foxes are viscious couldn't be further from the truth..
> As for your chickens being killed,is it not your responsiblity to protect your animals?*


Im sorry but :lol: so foxes are cute cuddly little things are they 

Also I find it hard to take your comments seriously as an animal lover when you have a picture of Ceaser Milan as your avatar.



Shamen said:


> exactly such people dont give a damn and because of them many of the gp think all sabs are like that.
> 
> thanks that would be great because ive only ever seen evidence of hunts supporters instigating violence both in life and on the net.


As with all the video evidence, it will always be very one sided as to who shoots it and who *edits* it, but this thread will go round round in circles because the two camps will never ever agree.


----------



## Cleo38

GreyHare said:


> Im sorry but :lol: so foxes are cute cuddly little things are they
> 
> Also I find it hard to take your comments seriously as an animal lover when you have a picture of Ceaser Milan as your avatar.
> 
> As with all the video evidence, it will always be very one sided as to who shoots it and who *edits* it, but this thread will go round round in circles because the two camps will never ever agree.


I don't really think the debate is whether foxes are 'cute & cuddly' - I wouldn't refer to any wild animal as such, but they certainly aren't vicious.

As for the debate going round & round does it really matter? No side will probably convince the other but it's been a lively thread!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I don't really think the debate is whether foxes are 'cute & cuddly' - I wouldn't refer to any wild animal as such, but they certainly aren't vicious.


My mention of them being cute and cuddly was tongue in cheek at at 
Janice199 saying that my first statement of foxes being viscious buggers couldn't be further from the truth, but they are, they are a pest and vermin, they are not cute domesticated animals, and yes I think that the fact that they are viscious/pest/vermin is important to this thread.


----------



## suzy93074

GreyHare said:


> Im sorry but :lol: so foxes are cute cuddly little things are they
> 
> Also I find it hard to take your comments seriously as an animal lover when you have a picture of Ceaser Milan as your avatar.
> 
> As with all the video evidence, it will always be very one sided as to who shoots it and who *edits* it, but this thread will go round round in circles because the two camps will never ever agree.


Not sure what Ceaser Milan has to do with anything and I dont think Jan has said all foxes are cute and cuddly just not all are as vicious as some poeple make out

Also it doesnt matter if both camps dont agree - that is what debate is about and its interesting to see peoples different points of view - it doesnt have to become a war , I think most people have been very civalised


----------



## Cleo38

GreyHare said:


> My mention of them being cute and cuddly was tongue in cheek at at
> Janice199 saying that my first statement of foxes being viscious buggers couldn't be further from the truth, but they are, they are a pest and vermin, they are not cute domesticated animals, and yes I think that the fact that they are *viscious/pest/vermin *is important to this thread.


But again this is subjective & not fact. The foxes that are often seen where I live are considered a delight & people love seeing them. 
I can't see how you can apply a word such as vicious to an animal that is simply behaving in a way it was designed to be - a predator.


----------



## suzy93074

Cleo38 said:


> But again this is subjective & not fact. The foxes that are often seen where I live are considered a delight & people love seeing them.
> I can't see how you can apply a word such as vicious to an animal that is simply behaving in a way it was designed to be - a predator.


I agree and like it has been said they are only becoming seen as a "pest" because we as humans are not cleaning up the rubbish etc so we are leading them to venture more into urban areas which is not their faults.


----------



## rocco33

> I agree and like it has been said they are only becoming seen as a "pest" because we as humans are not cleaning up the rubbish etc so we are leading them to venture more into urban areas which is not their faults.


Or worst, feeding them because they do feel they are cute and need looking after


----------



## gorgeous

If us humans did not use up so much of their countryside to build houses upon houses then maybe they would not be the 'nuisance' they are considered to be.


----------



## Guest

I live in the country and still class foxes as pests, and thats because they are, but I still enjoy watching them, but I know that they are wild animals, we seems to have such a way of humanising animals and their characteristics and behaviour.

I mean when a fox kills a rabbit it's not doing it in an approved humane way it kills it because that is what it does, so ok maybe you are reading to much into my viscious comment, but they are not cute cuddly animals and people feeding them in the towns and getting them used to humans are really not doing the animals any favours what so ever.

My comments also about this going round and round are because people who want to hunt/support hunts are just as strong in their beliefs as anti hunts people, and I doubt any one will change their attitudes, some will maybe open their minds more to the other side but some are so millitant in their beliefs they don't/won't open their minds, and they are the ones that need to open them most normally.


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> My mention of them being cute and cuddly was tongue in cheek at at
> Janice199 saying that my first statement of foxes being viscious buggers couldn't be further from the truth, but they are, they are a pest and vermin, they are not cute domesticated animals, and yes I think that the fact that they are viscious/pest/vermin is important to this thread.


very true.........................


----------



## Jess2308

I havent read the whole thread, but can imagine what most of the posts are about. But, in response to the title "are hunt saboteurs really in the wrong?"

Having seen these so-called "Animal lovers" throw stones at horses, beep car horns and rev engines to scare them, throw paint on them, hit them with brooms/spades and one memorable experience where a couple of saboteurs ran their range rover INTO a group of ponies on a childrens meet drag hunt (ie NO FOX KILLING HAPPENING!!!) which subsequently ended in my friends very sweet pony having to be PTS at the side of the road due to her horrific injuries... YES, they will always be in the wrong to me. If people geniunely care about animal welfare there are ways to protest without having to cause suffering to other animals. I certainly hope some hunt followers caught up to the people in the car and gave them "a good kicking", sick, sick people.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Sorry Shamen, been busy with work, here's a few articles that came up just from googling, I'll try and remember where I've seen links to videos posted before as well, I can't for the life of me remember right this minute.......

With baseball bats and balaclavas... bloody revenge of the hunt saboteurs. - Free Online Library

Farmer is badly hurt in clash with saboteurs - Telegraph

Worst violence fear as hunting starts: New laws are voted on after clashes with saboteurs increase (CORRECTED) - UK, News - The Independent

Violence escalates following hunting ban - Horses for sale, Equestrian news - Horse & Hound

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/countryside-alliance-hunt-saboteurs-continue-acts-violence-despite-hunting-ban-$7967399.htm

Apologies as I haven't had chance to read through them all thoroughly, and I haven't a clue how recent they are, but show that violence clearly happens on both sides, it is not JUST huntspeople becoming violent at the presence of saboteurs, who are often not there just to observe. It is a sad fact that anyone is injured, that animals are also injured because people feel they have a right to break the law.


----------



## kaz_f

I haven't read all of this thread. I think that the right to protest is extremely important but I would be completely horrified if I took part in a protest where people were doing anything extreme to the point of putting humans or other animals in danger. To be fair though I think the vast majority of other so called 'anti's' would share that same view. I think that any form of protest has the potential to go too far because tempers run high and it certainly doesn't just apply to people campaigning on animal rights issues, there tends to be an assumption that it does. A few will always ruin it for the majority no matter what or who you are protesting.

I don't think there's anything wrong with publicly displaying your opposition to something, to be able to make your voice heard and to stand up and be counted is a great thing (I'm big on democracy) however I do feel that lobbying, evidence gathering and applying constant pressure to get this activity properly stamped out might yield better results. 

For me it's not necessarily about saving the lives of lots of foxes it's about making people who for whatever reason feel they must attempt to control fox popultions legally bound to do it in the quickest, most effective and most humane way possible. Personally I would feel that was a good step forward.


----------



## owieprone

nfp20 said:


> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


totally agree

they can also put the general public at risk with their deluded antics.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry Shamen, been busy with work, here's a few articles that came up just from googling, I'll try and remember where I've seen links to videos posted before as well, I can't for the life of me remember right this minute.......
> 
> With baseball bats and balaclavas... bloody revenge of the hunt saboteurs. - Free Online Library
> 
> Farmer is badly hurt in clash with saboteurs - Telegraph
> 
> Worst violence fear as hunting starts: New laws are voted on after clashes with saboteurs increase (CORRECTED) - UK, News - The Independent
> 
> Violence escalates following hunting ban - Horses for sale, Equestrian news - Horse & Hound
> 
> http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/countryside-alliance-hunt-saboteurs-continue-acts-violence-despite-hunting-ban-$7967399.htm
> 
> Apologies as I haven't had chance to read through them all thoroughly, and I haven't a clue how recent they are, but show that violence clearly happens on both sides, it is not JUST huntspeople becoming violent at the presence of saboteurs, who are often not there just to observe. It is a sad fact that anyone is injured, that animals are also injured because people feel they have a right to break the law.


Perhaps you should have read through them before you posted them hun, because they don't exactly read what you want them to say!

Please bear in mind that I abhor and do not support mindless violence, whether it is enacted by anti-hunters or pro-hunters.

However, your first example was nothing to do with hunt sabs - it was a revenge carried out by thugs in retaliation for the hunt attacking and hospitalising 11 sabs the previous year. No way do I agree with what these thugs did - but your example shows the hunters were just as bad.

That the hunt is as bad as any militant sab is is bourne out by your third example - these are direct quotes from it: (my bits are in brackets to make it clearer)

_The BHWC's (the hunt's) record is not spotless. One of its kennelmen, Michael Smith, and hunt marshal Richard Cheshire were each jailed for two months last year after a well-known saboteur was pushed into the path of a four-wheel 'quad' motorcycle and injured. This hunt - the BHWC - is well known for fighting back. A week ago she (a hunt sab) was confronted herself, with a minor explosion under her Peugeot car parked outside her home near the town centre. A small box-shaped device produced a loud bang, flames and large quantities of smoke. First the fire brigade and then the army bomb squad attended while police cordoned off the estate.
Ms Gellard, 23, says a spent shotgun cartridge was thrown in her garden a few days before the incident, and afterwards fuses were removed from the fusebox outside her front door. She believes she is being warned off by hunt supporters - a claim the BHWC rejects. 'Her allegation is a disgrace and we condemn the placing of this device,' said Robert Vallence, its secretary.' It's made me angry but it's not going to put me off sabbing,' said Ms Gellard.
She admits she and her colleagues fight back when cornered, although they have sometimes telephoned the police for help. _

And your fourth example is more about the violence of pro-hunters than sabs - again, direct qotes from it:

_It has been claimed that pro-hunt campaigners have also been breaking the law. According to The Times newspaper, Animal Welfare Minister Ben Bradshaw, a vocal anti-hunt MP, has received a death threat from a pro-hunt activist. A message warning Mr Bradshaw that his life was in danger was left on his office telephone answering machine, The Times reports this morning. It follows an incident last month in Mr Bradshaw's constituency, Exeter, when hunt protesters threw an "offal bomb" at his head causing a minor injury. Mr Bradshaw expressed concern not only for himself, but for his staff who accompany him on visits, saying they were mostly female civil servants who had become blameless targets for pro-hunt activists_

As I have said repeatedly, I do not condone violence from any group. However, it is wrong to try to blame violent acts totally on the sabs when the hunters are equally as bad.


----------



## Cleo38

owieprone said:


> totally agree
> 
> they can also put the general public at risk with their deluded antics.


:lol: How was I putting the general public at risk with my 'deluded' antics????!!! it's not as if this was going on in a busy town centre, the only people in the vicinity (when I used to go out with a sab group) were the sabs, the hunts wo/men, the hunt supporters & the police.

And why is saving the life of an animal deluded??? Maybe the fox would then be off to savage Daily Mail readers in their own homes :thumbup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Perhaps you should have read through them before you posted them hun, because they don't exactly read what you want them to say!
> 
> Please bear in mind that I abhor and do not support mindless violence, whether it is enacted by anti-hunters or pro-hunters.
> 
> However, your first example was nothing to do with hunt sabs - it was a revenge carried out by thugs in retaliation for the hunt attacking and hospitalising 11 sabs the previous year. No way do I agree with what these thugs did - but your example shows the hunters were just as bad.
> 
> That the hunt is as bad as any militant sab is is bourne out by your third example - these are direct quotes from it: (my bits are in brackets to make it clearer)
> 
> _The BHWC's (the hunt's) record is not spotless. One of its kennelmen, Michael Smith, and hunt marshal Richard Cheshire were each jailed for two months last year after a well-known saboteur was pushed into the path of a four-wheel 'quad' motorcycle and injured. This hunt - the BHWC - is well known for fighting back. A week ago she (a hunt sab) was confronted herself, with a minor explosion under her Peugeot car parked outside her home near the town centre. A small box-shaped device produced a loud bang, flames and large quantities of smoke. First the fire brigade and then the army bomb squad attended while police cordoned off the estate.
> Ms Gellard, 23, says a spent shotgun cartridge was thrown in her garden a few days before the incident, and afterwards fuses were removed from the fusebox outside her front door. She believes she is being warned off by hunt supporters - a claim the BHWC rejects. 'Her allegation is a disgrace and we condemn the placing of this device,' said Robert Vallence, its secretary.' It's made me angry but it's not going to put me off sabbing,' said Ms Gellard.
> She admits she and her colleagues fight back when cornered, although they have sometimes telephoned the police for help. _
> 
> And your fourth example is more about the violence of pro-hunters than sabs - again, direct qotes from it:
> 
> _It has been claimed that pro-hunt campaigners have also been breaking the law. According to The Times newspaper, Animal Welfare Minister Ben Bradshaw, a vocal anti-hunt MP, has received a death threat from a pro-hunt activist. A message warning Mr Bradshaw that his life was in danger was left on his office telephone answering machine, The Times reports this morning. It follows an incident last month in Mr Bradshaw's constituency, Exeter, when hunt protesters threw an "offal bomb" at his head causing a minor injury. Mr Bradshaw expressed concern not only for himself, but for his staff who accompany him on visits, saying they were mostly female civil servants who had become blameless targets for pro-hunt activists_
> 
> As I have said repeatedly, I do not condone violence from any group. However, it is wrong to try to blame violent acts totally on the sabs when the hunters are equally as bad.


I skip read them hun, but I'm a bit busy atm with work 

There is information relating to both sides committing crimes, which is apt, because what I'm trying to say is that it is wrong for either the huntspeople, or the saboteurs to commit any crime.

I just draw my line before yours, I do not, and will not, condone law breaking. It is never justifiable to take the law in to your own hands in any way, no matter which side does what, the saboteurs are not out there in a lot of instances just to record details, and they do their utmost provoke a reaction. It isn't right that the huntspeople react, but what do you expect them to do? As I said earlier in the thread, if the saboteurs weren't there, then these situations wouldn't happen. If you look at it from the huntspeople's point of view, they are out to enjoy themselves, wouldn't you be frustrated if a random group of people who didn't agree with your enjoyment turned up and in many cases were abusive and aggressive to complete strangers? Look at Jessica's post above, there is absolutely no justification for that type of behaviour! It is no wonder that sometimes the huntspeople react the way they do, I can't at all condone it, but I can understand just how frustrated and angry they must feel.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I skip read them hun, but I'm a bit busy atm with work
> 
> There is information relating to both sides committing crimes, which is apt, because what I'm trying to say is that it is wrong for either the huntspeople, or the saboteurs to commit any crime.
> 
> I just draw my line before yours, I do not, and will not, condone law breaking. It is never justifiable to take the law in to your own hands in any way, no matter which side does what, the saboteurs are not out there in a lot of instances just to record details, and they do their utmost provoke a reaction. It isn't right that the huntspeople react, but what do you expect them to do? As I said earlier in the thread, if the saboteurs weren't there, then these situations wouldn't happen. If you look at it from the huntspeople's point of view, they are out to enjoy themselves, wouldn't you be frustrated if a random group of people who didn't agree with your enjoyment turned up and in many cases were abusive and aggressive to complete strangers? Look at Jessica's post above, there is absolutely no justification for that type of behaviour! It is no wonder that sometimes the huntspeople react the way they do, I can't at all condone it, but I can understand just how frustrated and angry they must feel.


But hun - has it escaped your notice that until the act is repealed, then hunting is actually banned? So the hunts are deliberately setting themselves up to break the law. Yet you seem to be condoning this? And if the hunts wern't hunting, then the sabs wouldn't be there and the situation wouldn't happen - so your argument about that holds true for both sides. 

As I said, I'm not condoing violence by any side - but it is impossible to blame it all on sabs. The hunters are equally to blame.


----------



## canuckjill

Sorry folks I fell asleep last night, I have edited/deleted some posts I don't think it has changed the thread. Now I'll give my opinion I don't agree with violence but see nothing wrong with people protesting against something they think is wrong. In any group you find the ones that go overboard on both sides, that is unfortunate, but is the way we as humans seem to be. We had the G20 summit in Canada and although most were peaceful demonstrations we still had the small group that were violent and caused trouble and those are the ones that made TV....Jill


----------



## Cleo38

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I skip read them hun, but I'm a bit busy atm with work
> 
> There is information relating to both sides committing crimes, which is apt, because what I'm trying to say is that it is wrong for either the huntspeople, or the saboteurs to commit any crime.
> 
> I just draw my line before yours, I do not, and will not, condone law breaking. It is never justifiable to take the law in to your own hands in any way, no matter which side does what, the saboteurs are not out there in a lot of instances just to record details, and they do their utmost provoke a reaction. It isn't right that the huntspeople react, but what do you expect them to do? As I said earlier in the thread, if the saboteurs weren't there, then these situations wouldn't happen. If you look at it from the huntspeople's point of view, they are out to enjoy themselves, wouldn't you be frustrated if a random group of people who didn't agree with your enjoyment turned up and in many cases were abusive and aggressive to complete strangers? Look at Jessica's post above, there is absolutely no justification for that type of behaviour! It is no wonder that sometimes the huntspeople react the way they do, I can't at all condone it, but I can understand just how frustrated and angry they must feel.


But if the hunt weren't out killing fox then neither would the hunt sabs. As for the post you refer to regarding causing suffering to hunt horses then that is completely unacceptable, there is no no way I would ever have been associated with anything like that & think most groups would feel the same.


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> But hun - has it escaped your notice that until the act is repealed, then hunting is actually banned? So the hunts are deliberately setting themselves up to break the law. Yet you seem to be condoning this? And if the hunts wern't hunting, then the sabs wouldn't be there and the situation wouldn't happen - so your argument about that holds true for both sides.
> 
> As I said, I'm not condoing violence by any side - but it is impossible to blame it all on sabs. The hunters are equally to blame.


So how do you respond to my post about the sabateurs attacking people on a childrens drag hunt? There was no intention to kill foxes, it had been advertised only as a drag hunt and yet a huge group of protestors turned up throwing rocks/bricks etc at the riders (including the young children!!) throwing paint on the horses, and of course driving their car into a group of horses.

The hunt wasnt hunting there, it was purely a day out for the kids to have an experience of the hunt without any hunting being done and yet it turned into a dangerous and tragic situation.


----------



## owieprone

Jess2308 said:


> So how do you respond to my post about the sabateurs attacking people on a childrens drag hunt? There was no intention to kill foxes, it had been advertised only as a drag hunt and yet a huge group of protestors turned up throwing rocks/bricks etc at the riders (including the young children!!) throwing paint on the horses, and of course driving their car into a group of horses.
> 
> The hunt wasnt hunting there, it was purely a day out for the kids to have an experience of the hunt without any hunting being done and yet it turned into a dangerous and tragic situation.


THAT was what i was talking about Cleo, in response to your "how was I" question further up this page.

yes boths sides can be stupid but if there weren't sabs who went beyond law abiding demonstration/tactics there'd be no need for anti-sabs to take a heavy hand either.


----------



## Guest

The Hunts are legal though because they are drag hunting as fox hunting is banned/illegal, but I think 90% of the riders don't care about what they are hunting they are there for the day out and the ride and to get bladdered in the pub after, it's not about the killing, and I think if the ban was lifted you may see a quick surge in hunting but then it would fall back to a very few meets like it is now, I think the main reason people want the ban lifted is because it's been banned IFYSWIM and it the whole petulant child syndrome of wanting to do what you've been told you can't.


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> So how do you respond to my post about the sabateurs attacking people on a childrens drag hunt? There was no intention to kill foxes, it had been advertised only as a drag hunt and yet a huge group of protestors turned up throwing rocks/bricks etc at the riders (including the young children!!) throwing paint on the horses, and of course driving their car into a group of horses.
> 
> The hunt wasnt hunting there, it was purely a day out for the kids to have an experience of the hunt without any hunting being done and yet it turned into a dangerous and tragic situation.


I would respond by agreeing totally that there was no justification for this and their actions were criminal. I would think that most sabs would heartily agree as well, and most sabs would not do this sort of thing. As in all walks of life, the majority suffer for the acts of a violent minority.

However, this does not detract from my argument that there is an equal minority of hunters who are equally as violent.


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> I would respond by agreeing totally that there was no justification for this and their actions were criminal. I would think that most sabs would heartily agree as well, and most sabs would not do this sort of thing. As in all walks of life, the majority suffer for the acts of a violent minority.
> 
> *However, this does not detract from my argument that there is an equal minority of hunters who are equally as violent*.


I agree entirely. And this is what causes the problems unfortunately. For some people i think its more that they enjoy the violence rather than having any great support for their cause, and that applies to both sides of the argument.


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> I agree entirely. And this is what causes the problems unfortunately. For some people i think its more that they enjoy the violence rather than having any great support for their cause, and that applies to both sides of the argument.


Yay! We always seem to find something to agree on don't we hun! :thumbup:


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> Yay! We always seem to find something to agree on don't we hun! :thumbup:


:thumbup:

TBH, I could take or leave hunting anyway :lol:. I would not be overly bothered if it was banned completely but it is a lovely day out as a horse rider, and wonderful socialisation for young and old horses and i plan to take my youngster drag hunting this year to help teach her to canter and jump as she is struggling to get the hang of cantering and hunting is the perfect way to teach that as they keep up with the group naturally. I would be sad to see the actual hunting ride disappear as there is nothing to compare to it for horse and rider, but if a suitable alternative of fox control could be found it wouldnt bother me in the slightest if the actual fox-catching was banned


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver, posting and dashing again, must get on with an acrylic, but you seem to be missing the point of my posts, I don't condone the violence from either side. But if people are out drag hunting, and are carrying out a legal form of activity that gives them enjoyment, why should they have to put up with hunt saboteurs spoiling what they want to do. Yes, you will get those who *hunt* that do break the law, unfortunately, but the presumption seems to be, that people gathering to *hunt* legally will break the law, so therefore it's acceptable to sabotage their enjoyment just in case they may do something wrong. Or at least THAT is how it comes across in peoples' opinions. 

And when I say *hunt* legally, I mean carrying out the activity within the bounds of the law as it stands, before anyone corrects me and tells me it isn't legal to actually hunt with dogs


----------



## hawksport

borderer said:


> and most are paid to do it


I bet they don't declare it to the dole office either


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> I havent read the whole thread, but can imagine what most of the posts are about. But, in response to the title "are hunt saboteurs really in the wrong?"
> 
> Having seen these so-called "Animal lovers" throw stones at horses, beep car horns and rev engines to scare them, throw paint on them, hit them with brooms/spades and one memorable experience where a couple of saboteurs ran their range rover INTO a group of ponies on a childrens meet drag hunt (ie NO FOX KILLING HAPPENING!!!) which subsequently ended in my friends very sweet pony having to be PTS at the side of the road due to her horrific injuries... YES, they will always be in the wrong to me. If people geniunely care about animal welfare there are ways to protest without having to cause suffering to other animals. I certainly hope some hunt followers caught up to the people in the car and gave them "a good kicking", sick, sick people.


i agree that was absolutley disgusting! something this serious must have made the national press do you have a link for it?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I skip read them hun, but I'm a bit busy atm with work
> 
> There is information relating to both sides committing crimes, which is apt, because what I'm trying to say is that it is wrong for either the huntspeople, or the saboteurs to commit any crime.
> 
> I just draw my line before yours, I do not, and will not, condone law breaking. It is never justifiable to take the law in to your own hands in any way, no matter which side does what, the saboteurs are not out there in a lot of instances just to record details, and they do their utmost provoke a reaction. It isn't right that the huntspeople react, but what do you expect them to do? As I said earlier in the thread, if the saboteurs weren't there, then these situations wouldn't happen. If you look at it from the huntspeople's point of view, they are out to enjoy themselves, wouldn't you be frustrated if a random group of people who didn't agree with your enjoyment turned up and in many cases were abusive and aggressive to complete strangers? Look at Jessica's post above, there is absolutely no justification for that type of behaviour! It is no wonder that sometimes the huntspeople react the way they do, I can't at all condone it, but I can understand just how frustrated and angry they must feel.


thanks for the linksin answer to your 1st question i expect them Not to abuse animals... but it is much harder to find evidence of sabs commiting violence isnt it yet they seem to be the ones who get the blame for it all, but at any rate i certainly dont condone it and neither do the HSA, and if you look at the flip side of the coin cant you see the frustration and despair the sabs feel when they see wild animals treated so cruelly? the true sabs dont go to provoke a reaction at all they are only trying to distract the hounds from picking up a scent nothing more, Spellweaver pointed out your 1st and 4th links are not really about sabs and your 3rd mentions Tom Warby a 15yr old hunt sab who was run over by a hunt supporter..this is what happened to Tom

Tom Worby, a 15 year old British hunt saboteur was deliberately run over by a hunter during his first foxhunt protest. Alan Ball drove straight into a group of hunt saboteurs. When they realized that he was not slowing down but was actually driving straight into them, they jumped aside into a ditch on the right. However, Tom was too far on the left and was caught between a hedge and the van. He was caught on the left wing mirror and dragged approximately 50 yards, while screaming and banging against the van door. After losing his grip, he bounced back against the hedge and his head fell under the back wheel. The hound van did not bother to stop as the wheel went over his head. Instead, the driver sped up, passing two other hunt saboteurs who had watched the even in a state of shock and disbelief.

By the time the van returned to the kennels, literally hundreds of police had arrived (to protect Mr. Ball). The saboteurs attempted to aid Mr. Worby, while screaming for help. A few nearby hunters laughed and proclaimed a "victory". They also managed to once again threaten the saboteurs who were expressing the urgency of calling an ambulance. Eventually, the one policeman who had been present from the on-set, called an ambulance. Mr. Worby died before it arrived. On a number of previous occasions, Mr. Ball had attempted to ram or threatened to ram saboteur vehicles. There were 27 reported incidents either with photographic or video evidence, of Mr. Ball using violence against saboteurs prior to this incident. [10] No action was taken against the driver, 53-year-old huntsman Alan Ball. [11]

heres some more cases of abuse...

The True Face of Foxhunting in the UK



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Spellweaver, posting and dashing again, must get on with an acrylic, but you seem to be missing the point of my posts, I don't condone the violence from either side. But if people are out drag hunting, and are carrying out a legal form of activity that gives them enjoyment, why should they have to put up with hunt saboteurs spoiling what they want to do. Yes, you will get those who *hunt* that do break the law, unfortunately, but the presumption seems to be, that people gathering to *hunt* legally will break the law, so therefore it's acceptable to sabotage their enjoyment just in case they may do something wrong. Or at least THAT is how it comes across in peoples' opinions.
> 
> And when I say *hunt* legally, I mean carrying out the activity within the bounds of the law as it stands, before anyone corrects me and tells me it isn't legal to actually hunt with dogs


if they have nothing to hide surely they wouldnt mind hunt monitors there would they?? .....or is it because they have lots to hide


----------



## Guest

well me and my oh have never been on the dole and we got paid nothing:thumbup:


----------



## bucksmum

Shamen said:


> i agree that was absolutley disgusting! something this serious must have made the national press do you have a link for it?
> 
> thanks for the linksin answer to your 1st question i expect them Not to abuse animals... but it is much harder to find evidence of sabs commiting violence isnt it yet they seem to be the ones who get the blame for it all, but at any rate i certainly dont condone it and neither do the HSA, and if you look at the flip side of the coin cant you see the frustration and despair the sabs feel when they see wild animals treated so cruelly? the true sabs dont go to provoke a reaction at all they are only trying to distract the hounds from picking up a scent nothing more, Spellweaver pointed out your 1st and 4th links are not really about sabs and your 3rd mentions Tom Warby a 15yr old hunt sab who was run over by a hunt supporter..this is what happened to Tom
> 
> Tom Worby, a 15 year old British hunt saboteur was deliberately run over by a hunter during his first foxhunt protest. Alan Ball drove straight into a group of hunt saboteurs. When they realized that he was not slowing down but was actually driving straight into them, they jumped aside into a ditch on the right. However, Tom was too far on the left and was caught between a hedge and the van. He was caught on the left wing mirror and dragged approximately 50 yards, while screaming and banging against the van door. After losing his grip, he bounced back against the hedge and his head fell under the back wheel. The hound van did not bother to stop as the wheel went over his head. Instead, the driver sped up, passing two other hunt saboteurs who had watched the even in a state of shock and disbelief.
> 
> By the time the van returned to the kennels, literally hundreds of police had arrived (to protect Mr. Ball). The saboteurs attempted to aid Mr. Worby, while screaming for help. A few nearby hunters laughed and proclaimed a "victory". They also managed to once again threaten the saboteurs who were expressing the urgency of calling an ambulance. Eventually, the one policeman who had been present from the on-set, called an ambulance. Mr. Worby died before it arrived. On a number of previous occasions, Mr. Ball had attempted to ram or threatened to ram saboteur vehicles. There were 27 reported incidents either with photographic or video evidence, of Mr. Ball using violence against saboteurs prior to this incident. [10] No action was taken against the driver, 53-year-old huntsman Alan Ball. [11]
> 
> heres some more cases of abuse...
> 
> The True Face of Foxhunting in the UK
> 
> if they have nothing to hide surely they wouldnt mind hunt monitors there would they?? .....or is it because they have lots to hide


Is this not the same as hiding behind balaclavas


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Is this not the same as hiding behind balaclavas


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Is this not the same as hiding behind balaclavas


sorry i dont know what you mean do you mean hunt monitors wears balaclavas?


----------



## bucksmum

No,obviously not.

My point is the anti hunt protesters hide behind balaclavas.

Why do this if they are not ashamed to be recognised? Is it because they are behaving in an criminal and intimidating way?

I would want to be recognised if i was standing up for something i felt so strongly about


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Spellweaver, posting and dashing again, must get on with an acrylic, but you seem to be missing the point of my posts, I don't condone the violence from either side. But if people are out drag hunting, and are carrying out a legal form of activity that gives them enjoyment, why should they have to put up with hunt saboteurs spoiling what they want to do. Yes, you will get those who *hunt* that do break the law, unfortunately, but the presumption seems to be, that people gathering to *hunt* legally will break the law, so therefore it's acceptable to sabotage their enjoyment just in case they may do something wrong. Or at least THAT is how it comes across in peoples' opinions.
> 
> And when I say *hunt* legally, I mean carrying out the activity within the bounds of the law as it stands, before anyone corrects me and tells me it isn't legal to actually hunt with dogs


No hun, I didn't misunderstand you. Since the ban, some hunts have taken place deliberately to defy the law and hunt with hounds, and some hunts have met ostensibly to drag hunt, but in reality meaning to "accidentally" come across a fox and hunt it to the death. (see the lnks below - just a few of many) In both cases, this is breaking the law, just as much as a minority of sabs may be breaking the law. And while ever this is happening, you cannot blame hunt sabs for suspecting that any hunt will be forming to do just that.

BBC NEWS | UK | 'More foxes dead' since hunt ban

Just 62 people prosecuted under the hunting ban in 2007 - Telegraph

Nottingham Hunt Monitors

2 years since the ban


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> No,obviously not.
> 
> My point is the anti hunt protesters hide behind balaclavas.
> 
> Why do this if they are not ashamed to be recognised? Is it because they are behaving in an criminal and intimidating way?
> 
> I would want to be recognised if i was standing up for something i felt so strongly about


I completely agree with this statement, why hide your identity if you are do nothing wrong, and as I said earlier re: filming, they only film the bits they want you to see, you don't see them antagonising the huntsmen/women, you only see the riled up riders who have at times been pushed to the limit retaliating against the sabs. Alot of it is down to selective filming and editing.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> No,obviously not.
> 
> My point is the anti hunt protesters hide behind balaclavas.
> 
> Why do this if they are not ashamed to be recognised? Is it because they are behaving in an criminal and intimidating way?
> 
> I would want to be recognised if i was standing up for something i felt so strongly about


sorry but youre generalising here cos i wouldnt be seen dead in a balaclava:lol:...and neither would my oh or his mates

or these...

YouTube - Real Countryside Alliance


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

bucksmum said:


> Is this not the same as hiding behind balaclavas


Have to agree there bucksmum, the few times I've seen saboteurs, many of them hide their faces with scarves, hoodies, balaclavas. Surely if they have nothing to hide they wouldn't mind being identified? Perhaps they don't generally, but why do some of them resort to this?

Darn, everyone's posting so quickly and I'm too blinkin busy to catch up!

Spellweaver, it boils back to the point that you believe it is ok to break the law, I just don't, two wrongs don't make a right to me. If the huntspeople break the law, then it is not up to a bunch of vigilantes to go up against them and also break the law. Saboteurs can suspect all the like, but they are still turning up to disrupt a legal activity, without knowing for certain that the huntspeople will definitely break the law, or have planned to, how can that be right? 

Greyhare, agree re the balaclava thing.

Shamen, haven't actually had much chance to look for the articles, those were just the few that came up when I googled earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if it is more difficult to find video footage of the huntspeople being attacked, verbally and physically, because I would imagine the saboteurs are the ones who do the majority of filming, and they are hardly likely to film themselves breaking the law. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I'm probably about ten posts behind here, and have to dash off again......


----------



## Guest

Im just back from my holiday so couldnt reply til now! And having not read the 11 pages of debate I dontknow if I amrelaying whats probably already said but i think are saboteurs "right or wrong" is an impossible question without making brash generalisations.

MOST sabs are non-violent, non-extremists, and so have every right to protest what they believe to be an inhumane and cruel "sport". Personally I dont think that the pest control argument stands as it does not prevent access to property in the first place (rule number one of pest control is restrict access), nor does it effect large numbers of foxes,so chase one down and there will be a whole family more left to come on your land. 
So without knowing what goes on first hand on a hunt, all i see is a rather ineffective, needlessly labour intensive method of pest control.

Those who do hunt have a much better idea on what happens on such drags since the ban - and from my own experiance most who protest are not country folk and dont really have a 100% inside out look on the hunt these days, all we have to go on is animal right group properganda and the media (who are ALWAYS truthful and unbiased........) and will pull out such biased articles etc to back up their argument rather than an eye witness fact - true to life account.

Sadly for *both* sides of the fight - hunters and protesters, there are a small number of bad eggs. Those who take to the extreme, harm other people, animals etc in their fight for their cause, which does nothing but discredit their side.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Spellweaver, it boils back to the point that you believe it is ok to break the law, I just don't, two wrongs don't make a right to me. If the huntspeople break the law, then it is not up to a bunch of vigilantes to go up against them and also break the law. Saboteurs can suspect all the like, but they are still turning up to disrupt a legal activity, without knowing for certain that the huntspeople will definitely break the law, or have planned to, how can that be right?


No, you've got it wrong. (In fairness, it might be because you've had to race through the posts and dash off  ) I do not believe it is ok to break the law. I am pointing out that the law is being broken by the hunts, but you seem to be both ignoring and condoning this. My point is: If you truly mean what you said in post #186 - "_Setting out to break the law is wrong, whoever does it, and shouldn't be supported_" - why are you turning a blind eye to the laws being broken by the hunts and just condemning sabs? Why aren't you condemning hunts too? Why do you think breaking the law by allowing an innocent animal to be ripped to shreds is ok, but breaking the law by harrasing a hunt which may or may not be going to kill an innocent animal is not ok? (even if said harrassment IS breaking the law, which I must admit I'm not sure it is, if it is done peaceably)


----------



## Guest

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Have to agree there bucksmum, the few times I've seen saboteurs, many of them hide their faces with scarves, hoodies, balaclavas. Surely if they have nothing to hide they wouldn't mind being identified? Perhaps they don't generally, but why do some of them resort to this?
> 
> Darn, everyone's posting so quickly and I'm too blinkin busy to catch up!
> 
> Spellweaver, it boils back to the point that you believe it is ok to break the law, I just don't, two wrongs don't make a right to me. If the huntspeople break the law, then it is not up to a bunch of vigilantes to go up against them and also break the law. Saboteurs can suspect all the like, but they are still turning up to disrupt a legal activity, without knowing for certain that the huntspeople will definitely break the law, or have planned to, how can that be right?
> 
> Greyhare, agree re the balaclava thing.
> 
> Shamen, haven't actually had much chance to look for the articles, those were just the few that came up when I googled earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if it is more difficult to find video footage of the huntspeople being attacked, verbally and physically, because I would imagine the saboteurs are the ones who do the majority of filming, and they are hardly likely to film themselves breaking the law. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
> 
> I'm probably about ten posts behind here, and have to dash off again......


i cant seem to find much evidence on the net for sabs being prosecuted for violent crimes dont get me wrong im sure it happens but believe me its the hunt supporters who in 9 out of 10 cases are the aggressors and theres plenty of evidence to support that both on the net and from what me, my oh and friends have witnessed with our own eyes. (and we never wore balaclavas :thumbup

if the police arnt policing the hunts the sabs have no choice now do they, the law is constantly being broken and foxes are still dying!


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> No, you've got it wrong. (In fairness, it might be because you've had to race through the posts and dash off  ) I do not believe it is ok to break the law. I am pointing out that the law is being broken by the hunts, but you seem to be both ignoring and condoning this. My point is: If you truly mean what you said in post #186 - "_Setting out to break the law is wrong, whoever does it, and shouldn't be supported_" - why are you turning a blind eye to the laws being broken by the hunts and just condemning sabs? Why aren't you condemning hunts too? Why do you think breaking the law by allowing an innocent animal to be ripped to shreds is ok, but breaking the law by harrasing a hunt which may or may not be going to kill an innocent animal is not ok? (even if said harrassment IS breaking the law, which I must admit I'm not sure it is, if it is done peaceably)


excellent post.. im really interested to hear SleepinLion's reply


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> No, you've got it wrong. (In fairness, it might be because you've had to race through the posts and dash off  ) I do not believe it is ok to break the law. I am pointing out that the law is being broken by the hunts, but you seem to be both ignoring and condoning this. My point is: If you truly mean what you said in post #186 - "_Setting out to break the law is wrong, whoever does it, and shouldn't be supported_" - why are you turning a blind eye to the laws being broken by the hunts and just condemning sabs? Why aren't you condemning hunts too? Why do you think breaking the law by allowing an innocent animal to be ripped to shreds is ok, but breaking the law by harrasing a hunt which may or may not be going to kill an innocent animal is not ok? (even if said harrassment IS breaking the law, which I must admit I'm not sure it is, if it is done peaceably)


Eh (and apols, posting and dashing again) - where have I said it is ok for huntspeople to retaliate? I've said exactly the opposite, although I can understand their frustration. And I also pointed out that they are given guidance not to retaliate, but would you be able to stand there if someone were verbally abusing you, your animals, and possibly even trying to sabotage what you were doing that may cause harm or injury to your animals or you?

I have continually made the point that I condone neither side breaking the law, but you do condone hunt saboteurs breaking the law with the presumption that huntspeople are setting out to do so  Surely that is hypocritical? This is the ONLY situation I can think of, where it is accepted that people can be presumed guilty before even setting out for the day.

And, for the record, where have I said I condone innocent animals being ripped to shreds? I made the point as well, although it was sidelined, that we are guilty of committing continual cruelty to animals in order to ensure we don't have to pay more for our food, but that's ok, because it would hit us in the pocket to have animals raised and slaughtered with the least amount of cruelty possible. And I know that some do their best to avoid this, but the vast, vast majority in this country don't, and would rather pay less for something where they are aware an animal will have had a poor life and death. But ask that same majority if they would support fox hunting, and they would declare it as terrible cruelty, what horrible people etc, etc, it is pure hypocrisy!!!

I am not at all turning a blind eye to one side or the other, if you read my posts properly (although I must say I haven't had the time to read all of the others). The question is are the hunt saboteurs right, and my answer is no, it is not alright to take the law into your own hands and by doing so break the law.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Eh (and apols, posting and dashing again) - where have I said it is ok for huntspeople to retaliate?


I never said you did - I said that you don't seem to mind the hunt breaking the law in the first place by hunting illegally - irrespective of anything about sabs.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> And, for the record, where have I said I condone innocent animals being ripped to shreds?


So you don't condone hunting then?



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I made the point as well, although it was sidelined, that we are guilty of committing continual cruelty to animals in order to ensure we don't have to pay more for our food, but that's ok, because it would hit us in the pocket to have animals raised and slaughtered with the least amount of cruelty possible. And I know that some do their best to avoid this, but the vast, vast majority in this country don't, and would rather pay less for something where they are aware an animal will have had a poor life and death. But ask that same majority if they would support fox hunting, and they would declare it as terrible cruelty, what horrible people etc, etc, it is pure hypocrisy!!! .


This point was not sidelined at all - my reply to you was that in a thread on factory farming you would get most of the people who abhored fox hunting also speaking out against factory farming. It is not hypocrisy not to speak about factory farming on a thread about hunt sabs. It *is* hypocritical to try to divert attention from the subject matter in hand by trying to introduce an equally abhorrent practice as an excuse for continuing to hunt foxes.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> The question is are the hunt saboteurs right, and my answer is no, it is not alright to take the law into your own hands and by doing so break the law.


Protesting is not breaking the law. Most sabs break no laws, and they are perfectly in order within the laws of the land to protest to try to save innocent lives if that is what they suspect a hunt is going to do. Hunts break far more laws than sabs do. I do not condone the breaking of any law, by either sabs or hunters, but given that the laws a minority of sabs break are tresspass and harrassment, and given that the laws hunts break cause innocent animals to be ripped to shreds, is it not hypocritical to try to defend fox hunting by trying to make out hunts are innocent and only the sabs break the law?


----------



## nfp20

Protesting is breaking the law if you are trespassing most hunting is carried out on private land.

I have a question that I would like to put to those that support Hunt Sabs:

*What is an acceptable alternative to fox hunting to manage fox populations??*

People are happy to protest and have opinion but not to participate in providing a suitable alternative to manage numbers and specific problem animals.

I have a unique perspective on this in that I have been shot in the head with a shotgun whose cartridge content (lead shot) had been dipped in Warfarin specifically made to kill a fox that was killing new born foals where I was working as a child. I lost part of my sight to it. So I do have some sympathy with the fox.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> Protesting is breaking the law if you are trespassing most hunting is carried out on private land.
> 
> I have a question that I would like to put to those that support Hunt Sabs:
> 
> *What is an acceptable alternative to fox hunting to manage fox populations??*
> 
> People are happy to protest and have opinion but not to participate in providing a suitable alternative to manage numbers and specific problem animals.
> 
> I have a unique perspective on this in that I have been shot in the head with a shotgun whose cartridge content (lead shot) had been dipped in Warfarin specifically made to kill a fox that was killing new born foals where I was working as a child. I lost part of my sight to it. So I do have some sympathy with the fox.


if fox hunting is really about controlling populations Why do hunts encourage foxes to breed by creating artificial dens?

and ive scoured the net and cant find a single scrap of evidence that proves foxes kills foals they dont even kill many lambs so i find it hard to believe they tackle something a large as a foal who has an even larger mother, its more likely to have been a loose dog.


----------



## tashi

Shamen said:


> if fox hunting is really about controlling populations Why do hunts encourage foxes to breed by creating artificial dens?
> 
> and ive scoured the net and cant find a single scrap of evidence that proves foxes kills foals they dont even kill many lambs so i find it hard to believe they tackle something a large as a foal who has an even larger mother, its more likely to have been a loose dog.


We lost foals to a fox, horrible when you are standing in a window watching him take down the foal and you are totally helpless to do anything about it


----------



## Zaros

Well here's a bone of contention to chew over. Many years ago we had a small holding and used to keep chickens and ducks as well as horses. We were aware that Foxes lived in the nearby woodland and often saw one or two of them early morning/evening crossing the top field between our property and the woodland itself. Not once in all the time we lived there did a fox ever pay us a visit late at night:confused1:
According to a neighbouring farmer who also kept poultry, but in large numbers, we would never have a Fox problem all the time the horses were present.
So now I'm thoroughly :confused1: Chickens, Ducks and on one occasion, a foal, a veritable open and help yourself take away to any self respecting fox and yet not one single problem?


----------



## tashi

Zaros said:


> Well here's a bone of contention to chew over. Many years ago we had a small holding and used to keep chickens and ducks as well as horses. We were aware that Foxes lived in the nearby woodland and often saw one or two of them early morning/evening crossing the top field between our property and the woodland itself. Not once in all the time we lived there did a fox ever pay us a visit late at night:confused1:
> According to a neighbouring farmer who also kept poultry, but in large numbers, we would never have a Fox problem all the time the horses were present.
> So now I'm thoroughly :confused1: Chickens, Ducks and on one occasion, a foal, a veritable open and help yourself take away to any self respecting fox and yet not one single problem?


They do say a fox will not 'take' on his own territory


----------



## Guest

tashi said:


> We lost foals to a fox, horrible when you are standing in a window watching him take down the foal and you are totally helpless to do anything about it


im really am surprised about that because studies have shown they dont even take that many lambs, just out of curiosity why were you helpless to do anything about it? it must have been ghastly for anyone to see but it must be an extremely rare occurence or there would be reports about it and im sure the media would have a field day, i can certainly understand someone shooting the fox caught doing it but it still dosent justify targetting all and any fox as the hunt does.


----------



## tashi

Shamen said:


> im really am surprised about that because studies have shown they dont even take that many lambs, just out of curiosity why were you helpless to do anything about it? it must have been ghastly for anyone to see but it must be an extremely rare occurence or there would be reports about it and im sure the media would have a field day, i can certainly understand someone shooting the fox caught doing it but it still dosent justify targetting all and any fox as the hunt does.


helpless as we had no guns in the house, I was in the farmhouse window, banged on the window at him but he didnt run, by the time my father got to the paddock the foal was dead, the following night we lost about 10 lambs  why get the media involved, everyday happening in the countryside


----------



## JANICE199

*


GreyHare said:



Im sorry but :lol: so foxes are cute cuddly little things are they 

Also I find it hard to take your comments seriously as an animal lover when you have a picture of Ceaser Milan as your avatar.

As with all the video evidence, it will always be very one sided as to who shoots it and who edits it, but this thread will go round round in circles because the two camps will never ever agree.

Click to expand...

They are not the viscious animal that you seem to think they are.Did you see the programe Sunday evening where an injured fox was caught,or the ones trapped?Not one of them showed any signs of being viscious,quite the oposite in fact..
As for my avitar of Cesar i've never hidden the fact that i don't disagree with him.But that is another debate which has been gone over time and time again.



Zaros said:



Well here's a bone of contention to chew over. Many years ago we had a small holding and used to keep chickens and ducks as well as horses. We were aware that Foxes lived in the nearby woodland and often saw one or two of them early morning/evening crossing the top field between our property and the woodland itself. Not once in all the time we lived there did a fox ever pay us a visit late at night:confused1:
According to a neighbouring farmer who also kept poultry, but in large numbers, we would never have a Fox problem all the time the horses were present.
So now I'm thoroughly :confused1: Chickens, Ducks and on one occasion, a foal, a veritable open and help yourself take away to any self respecting fox and yet not one single problem?

Click to expand...

My friend has foxes in her garden,which she feeds every day.She also has pheasants,and cats.She use to have chickens,(her neighbour still does),but she has never had a problem with the foxes killing in her garden neither has the neighbour.*


----------



## Guest

tashi said:


> helpless as we had no guns in the house, I was in the farmhouse window, banged on the window at him but he didnt run, by the time my father got to the paddock the foal was dead, the following night we lost about 10 lambs  why get the media involved, everyday happening in the countryside


im sorry you lost your animals like that, but i still dont believe foxes killing foals is a common occurence, and this is what studies have shown even on the losses of much smaller lambs.....it is calculated that each year 4 million lambs are lost at a cost of £120 million for the industry. Deaths due to all predators (i.e. not just foxes) and misadventures combined account for only 5% of this figure, whereas 95% is due to poor husbandry and a variety of management problems


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> I never said you did - I said that you don't seem to mind the hunt breaking the law in the first place by hunting illegally - irrespective of anything about sabs.
> *
> *I have not said that I condone the huntspeople breaking the law once**
> 
> So you don't condone hunting then?
> 
> **I haven't said whether I do or I don't**
> 
> This point was not sidelined at all - my reply to you was that in a thread on factory farming you would get most of the people who abhored fox hunting also speaking out against factory farming. It is not hypocrisy not to speak about factory farming on a thread about hunt sabs. It *is* hypocritical to try to divert attention from the subject matter in hand by trying to introduce an equally abhorrent practice as an excuse for continuing to hunt foxes.
> 
> **the point was sidelined, I think you've misinterpreted hypocritical - "hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions" - I don't condone cruelty to animals, to point out that we are cruel in other areas is not being hypocritical, it is pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting hunt saboteurs and yet being willing to buy produce that has come from an animal suffering*
> *
> Protesting is not breaking the law. Most sabs break no laws, and they are perfectly in order within the laws of the land to protest to try to save innocent lives if that is what they suspect a hunt is going to do. Hunts break far more laws than sabs do. I do not condone the breaking of any law, by either sabs or hunters, but given that the laws a minority of sabs break are tresspass and harrassment, and given that the laws hunts break cause innocent animals to be ripped to shreds, is it not hypocritical to try to defend fox hunting by trying to make out hunts are innocent and only the sabs break the law?
> *
> *It depends entirely upon the protest, if it is carried out in a peaceful way, on land where they are allowed to gather I have absolutely no problem with it, good luck to them. Please point out where I have defended foxes being hunted, I think I made it quite clear I am defending the legal activity, not the illegal**


Ok, I will put this very plainly and simply, because you seem to keep trying to turn around what I am writing.

I do not condone violence from either side, nor breaking the law, the simple fact is, as pointed out, as the majority of hunts are carried out on private land, saboteurs often do break the law in gathering to protest. And they do so with the presumption that the hunt will break the law, so the huntspeople are guilty until proven innocent. So this leads to the conclusion from your point of view that ALL hunts WILL break the law, and should be stopped, regardless of whether they have/will break the law? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

An apologies, posting and running again, as I have to get the girls out and get on with work :blushing:


----------



## tashi

This thread is slowly moving off topic  can we try to keep it to the op's poll and original question - I am one that is guilty sorry


----------



## Spellweaver

nfp20 said:


> Protesting is breaking the law if you are trespassing most hunting is carried out on private land..


There is no law of trespass. Contrary to popular belief, trespassers cannot be prosecuted!

Trespass Law - FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

_Can i be prosecuted for trespassing?

In short no, in full sometimes. Trespassers cannot be prosecuted by private land owners, Trespass is a civil matter. Signs that read, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are bluff._



nfp20 said:


> I have a question that I would like to put to those that support Hunt Sabs:
> 
> *What is an acceptable alternative to fox hunting to manage fox populations??*
> 
> People are happy to protest and have opinion but not to participate in providing a suitable alternative to manage numbers and specific problem animals.
> 
> .


I have posted several times on both threads that fox hunting is a pretty poor way of pest control (more foxes are killed on the roads than by hunting). I have also suggested serveral times that humane traps, where animals can either be released or killed safely and humanely, are a much better solution to pest control.

What happened to you sounds horrible btw and you have my every sympathy.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Ok, I will put this very plainly and simply, because you seem to keep trying to turn around what I am writing.
> 
> I do not condone violence from either side, nor breaking the law, the simple fact is, as pointed out, as the majority of hunts are carried out on private land, saboteurs often do break the law in gathering to protest. And they do so with the presumption that the hunt will break the law, so the huntspeople are guilty until proven innocent. So this leads to the conclusion from your point of view that ALL hunts WILL break the law, and should be stopped, regardless of whether they have/will break the law? Is that what you are saying?


I'll answer just as simply, because you seem to be ignoring what I am saying. You say many times you do not condone law breaking from either side, which is fair enough, but then you always go on to try to make out that sabs are the only law breakers.

My point - and the point that you are missing - is that *this is just not true*!

The two salient facts I have been trying to get you to acknowledge are:

1. Many hunts are breaking the law.

2. Anybody in the land - including saboteurs - has a right to monitor hunts to ensure they don't break the law, and also has a right to protest about anything they feel warrants a protest. That is not breaking the law, as you seem to intimate. There is no law being broken by sabs gathering together to protest. Trespassing is not against the law!

This is not twisting your words, or trying to turn around anything you say. It is merely me trying to get a couple of points across that you seem to be missing.

I hope you understand because I really don't know how to put it more clearly than that.


----------



## Jess2308

Shamen said:


> i agree that was absolutley disgusting! something this serious must have made the national press do you have a link for it?


Sorry, im several pages behind everyone else!! Im sure it did make the press but its going back about 10-12 years now so i wouldnt even know where to look for it


----------



## Jess2308

Just had a quick hunt on the BBC website on the off-chance i could find anything linking to the story there, and sadly not.. BUT, was interested to find this almost identical story... Shocked it is not a one off occurance!! 

BBC NEWS | Wales | South West Wales | 'Irritated' man drove at hunters


----------



## Cleo38

I have a question ... if fox hunting is there to manage population control & the hunt are actually helping preserve the countryside & help protect farmers against this 'viscious' animal then why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight???? Surely such a predatory animal that harms livestock rolleyes shouldn't be introduced to such a small island?? But it was .... by huntsmen to enable them to chase & kill animals for FUN!!!

History of foxhunting on the Isle of Wight


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> Just had a quick hunt on the BBC website on the off-chance i could find anything linking to the story there, and sadly not.. BUT, was interested to find this almost identical story... Shocked it is not a one off occurance!!
> 
> BBC NEWS | Wales | South West Wales | 'Irritated' man drove at hunters


what a stupid plonker i pretty sure he wasnt a sab though


----------



## Jess2308

Shamen said:


> what a stupid plonker i pretty sure he wasnt a sab though


I suppose it depends what your definition of a hunt sab is. To me it is anyone who acts in an extreme or violent way towards the hunt and he certainly did that. So to me, he is an example of a hunt sab.


----------



## Spellweaver

Cleo38 said:


> I have a question ... if fox hunting is there to manage population control & the hunt are actually helping preserve the countryside & help protect farmers against this 'viscuiious' animal then why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight???? Surely such a predatory animal that harms livestock rolleyes shouldn't be introduced to such a small island?? But it was .... by huntsmen to enable them to chase & kill animals for FUN!!!
> 
> History of foxhunting on the Isle of Wight


Says it all, doesn't it hun? 

Wonder how the pro-hunters will justify this?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> I'll answer just as simply, because you seem to be ignoring what I am saying. You say many times you do not condone law breaking from either side, which is fair enough, but then you always go on *to try to make out that sabs are the only law breakers*.
> 
> My point - and the point that you are missing - is that *this is just not true*!
> 
> The two salient facts I have been trying to get you to acknowledge are:
> 
> 1. Many hunts are breaking the law.
> 
> 2. Anybody in the land - including saboteurs - has a right to monitor hunts to ensure they don't break the law, and also has a right to protest about anything they feel warrants a protest. That is not breaking the law, as you seem to intimate. There is no law being broken by sabs gathering together to protest. Trespassing is not against the law!
> 
> This is not twisting your words, or trying to turn around anything you say. It is merely me trying to get a couple of points across that you seem to be missing.
> 
> I hope you understand because I really don't know how to put it more clearly than that.


I have to disagree (although nice use of the word salient btw), I haven't at any point said that hunt saboteurs are the only law breakers, I have merely pointed out, that they are usually the ones that precipitate the situation:

Aggravated Tresspass
On private land it is a criminal offence (aggravated trespass) to obstruct or disrupt anyone pursuing a lawful activity. It is also an offence to intimidate someone so as to deter them from taking part in that activity. The police have the power, in most circumstances, to arrest anyone committing a criminal offence.

What it *appears* to be that you're saying, is that it is acceptable to presume huntspeople are guilty, before even setting out on an activity, and it is therefore acceptable to prevent them, or to try to prevent them from doing so. That is discrimination, pure and simple. If that isn't what you're saying, then I am misreading your posts, and apologise beforehand - dashing off again, got to get on with work.

Just before I go, I noticed the note from Tashi about going slightly OT, but actually, have to say, yet another well thought out debate from both sides and I *hope* my posts are taken as debate, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I know not everyone will agree with mine


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> I suppose it depends what your definition of a hunt sab is. To me it is anyone who acts in an extreme or violent way towards the hunt and he certainly did that. So to me, he is an example of a hunt sab.


so although it sounds like he was just an irrate driver because he acted violently then he must be a sab


----------



## Jess2308

Shamen said:


> so although it sounds like he was just an irrate driver because he acted violently then he must be a sab


He drove his car at a hunt gathering (including children) and nearly ran someone over in the process 

Sounds like he was trying to *sabotage* the hunt to me. That is the definition of a hunt sab, no? :confused1:

I am shocked you would call such an act an "irritated driver". I find kids irritating but if I drove into a group of them you would probably not condone it :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have to disagree (although nice use of the word salient btw), I haven't at any point said that hunt saboteurs are the only law breakers, I have merely pointed out, that they are usually the ones that precipitate the situation:
> 
> Aggravated Tresspass
> On private land it is a criminal offence (aggravated trespass) to obstruct or disrupt anyone pursuing a lawful activity. It is also an offence to intimidate someone so as to deter them from taking part in that activity. The police have the power, in most circumstances, to arrest anyone committing a criminal offence.
> 
> What it *appears* to be that you're saying, is that it is acceptable to presume huntspeople are guilty, before even setting out on an activity, and it is therefore acceptable to prevent them, or to try to prevent them from doing so. That is discrimination, pure and simple. If that isn't what you're saying, then I am misreading your posts, and apologise beforehand - dashing off again, got to get on with work.
> 
> Just before I go, I noticed the note from Tashi about going slightly OT, but actually, have to say, yet another well thought out debate from both sides and I *hope* my posts are taken as debate, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I know not everyone will agree with mine


Trespass can only be aggravated trespass if the trespasser stops someone from doing something lawful. If they are stoppping someone doing something unlawful, it is not aggravated trespass.

And yes, I do think it is acceptable to presume hunters guilty. Given the amount of evidence and prosections for hunts breaking the law already, it is not discrimination to suppose the same hunts are going to break the law again. It is common sense! It is monitoring suspected lawbreakers who are probably going to break the law again. Nothing discriminatory in that, hun. It's no different from the neighbourhood watch keeping an eye on a youth gang hanging around on a street corner whose members have already been convicted of several offences - they may not be intending to do anything criminal, but the fact that they have done before makes it likely that they will again.


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> He drove his car at a hunt gathering (including children) and nearly ran someone over in the process
> 
> Sounds like he was trying to *sabotage* the hunt to me. That is the definition of a hunt sab, no? :confused1:
> 
> I am shocked you would call such an act an "irritated driver". I find kids irritating but if I drove into a group of them you would probably not condone it :lol:


From reading your link, it would seem that the fact that it was a hunt that this driver drove into was immaterial. He was an irate (not irritated!) man who had previous convictions for doing similar things to other people. If it had been a herd of cattle, for example, in his way, he would have done the same thing.

He's not a hunt saboteur - just a rather nasty and irate old man.


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I have a question ... if fox hunting is there to manage population control & the hunt are actually helping preserve the countryside & help protect farmers against this 'viscious' animal then why were foxes introduced to the Isle of Wight???? Surely such a predatory animal that harms livestock rolleyes shouldn't be introduced to such a small island?? But it was .... by huntsmen to enable them to chase & kill animals for FUN!!!
> 
> History of foxhunting on the Isle of Wight


This occurred what over a hundred years ago, hunting has always been seen as a sport rightly or wrongly, but it was viewed so differently back then which doesn't justify it, but I don't think it's particularly relevent now and in this discussion


----------



## Spellweaver

GreyHare said:


> This occurred what over a hundred years ago, hunting has always been seen as a sport rightly or wrongly, but it was viewed so differently back then which doesn't justify it, but I don't think it's particularly relevent now and in this discussion


Given that one of the excuses trotted out by hunters for their behaviour is, "Hunting is traditional", I think anything that looks at the tradition of hunting is relevant to the discussion. If hunters insist they are merely keeping up long held traditions, it is pertinent to look at those traditions.


----------



## Jess2308

Interesting way of looking at it. The way I look at it is that out of all the people/buildings etc etc he could have driven into to vent his anger, he decided to drive into a hunt gathering. I dont think anyone could deny that he deliberately made a decision to do that and he could have cause a very serious injury to a horse, rider or follower... Not that such things worry the majority of hunt sabs of course


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> Interesting way of looking at it. The way I look at it is that out of all the people/buildings etc etc he could have driven into to vent his anger, he decided to drive into a hunt gathering. I dont think anyone could deny that he deliberately made a decision to do that and he could have cause a very serious injury to a horse, rider or follower... Not that such things worry the majority of hunt sabs of course


Don't get me wrong hun, I think what he did was totally wrong - but I also think it was just a case that the hunt was in his way and he would have done the same whatever had been in his way - herd of cows, bicyclists, groups of tourists etc etc. Trying to say that makes him a hunt saboteur is really stretching it - come on, be honest now! If he had run into a group of schoolkids on bicycles would you be saying that made him a paedophile?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Trespass can only be aggravated trespass if the trespasser stops someone from doing something lawful. If they are stoppping someone doing something unlawful, it is not aggravated trespass.
> 
> And yes, I do think it is acceptable to presume hunters guilty. Given the amount of evidence and prosections for hunts breaking the law already, it is not discrimination to suppose the same hunts are going to break the law again. It is common sense! It is monitoring suspected lawbreakers who are probably going to break the law again. Nothing discriminatory in that, hun. It's no different from the neighbourhood watch keeping an eye on a youth gang hanging around on a street corner whose members have already been convicted of several offences - they may not be intending to do anything criminal, but the fact that they have done before makes it likely that they will again.


That first bit just confirms my point, at least as I see it, they are setting out to disrupt something where they do not know that a law will be broken, they are presuming it. Jess2308's example of the children's drag hunt shows exactly why no-one should condone people committing the offence of aggravated tresspass on the offchance they are disrupting people who will go on to break the law, it's absolute madness to think that's acceptable behaviour.

You cannot equate it to neighbourhood watch schemes, it is nothing like that at all. You are talking about people who are on private property having their activity disrupted before they've even set off, let alone before they've been seen to commit an offence in many cases.

Whether or not huntspeople have committed an offence is neither here nor there, unless you want the laws in this country changing so that all prior offences are taken into account, or changing only with relevance to hunting perhaps? If they've committed an offence it is up to the police to gather evidence and prosecute, not to a gang of vigilantes to try and disrupt the whole of the hunting community, and tar every single one of them with the same brush.

I don't think you or I will agree on this one bit, but good to debate openly without the topic getting overheated.


----------



## JANICE199

Jess2308 said:


> Interesting way of looking at it. The way I look at it is that out of all the people/buildings etc etc he could have driven into to vent his anger, he decided to drive into a hunt gathering. I dont think anyone could deny that he deliberately made a decision to do that and he could have cause a very serious injury to a horse, rider or follower... Not that such things worry the majority of hunt sabs of course


*I honestly don't believe the majority of hunt sabs would want to harm any animal or person.As has been said before you will always get the odd idiot that does something that only they know why they have taken such action.
As for doing harm to animals or people on a hunt you realy should take a look at what these hunters get up to.The bottom line is,hunting is illegal whether people like it or not.And yes a lot of these hunters have openly stateted they will go against the ban and have been doing just that.*


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> That first bit just confirms my point, at least as I see it, they are setting out to disrupt something where they do not know that a law will be broken, they are presuming it. Jess2308's example of the children's drag hunt shows exactly why no-one should condone people committing the offence of aggravated tresspass on the offchance they are disrupting people who will go on to break the law, it's absolute madness to think that's acceptable behaviour.
> 
> You cannot equate it to neighbourhood watch schemes, it is nothing like that at all. You are talking about people who are on private property having their activity disrupted before they've even set off, let alone before they've been seen to commit an offence in many cases.
> 
> Whether or not huntspeople have committed an offence is neither here nor there, unless you want the laws in this country changing so that all prior offences are taken into account, or changing only with relevance to hunting perhaps? If they've committed an offence it is up to the police to gather evidence and prosecute, not to a gang of vigilantes to try and disrupt the whole of the hunting community, and tar every single one of them with the same brush.
> 
> I don't think you or I will agree on this one bit, but good to debate openly without the topic getting overheated.


In a ideal society the police would be the ones to monitor such things, but we are not in an ideal society and there are not enough police to go around. So in my book, not only is there nothing wrong with members of the public monitoring such things, it is actually a benefit to society that they do so. And if hunts were not blatantly breaking the law, there would be no need for them to be monitored, so my view is that they have only themselves to blame when members of the public assume they are going to break the law again.

I agree hun, we are never going to see eye to eye - but like you, I have enjoyed the debate and, as you say, it has really been good to be able to debate properly and in a reasoned manner.


----------



## Jess2308

JANICE199 said:


> *I honestly don't believe the majority of hunt sabs would want to harm any animal or person.As has been said before you will always get the odd idiot that does something that only they know why they have taken such action.
> As for doing harm to animals or people on a hunt you realy should take a look at what these hunters get up to.The bottom line is,hunting is illegal whether people like it or not.And yes a lot of these hunters have openly stateted they will go against the ban and have been doing just that.*


The hunts I have been involved in (or friends have been) have most certainly stayed well within the law. Like you claim that its only the "odd idiot" causing violence to the hunt (not my experience seeing gangs of 20-50 people attacking a childrens meet  It was like a bl00dy riot, completely out of control!) then I would say from my own experience, the majority of hunts do care about the welfare of the animals and do not act in violence unless pushed to it (ie having their kids hailed with rocks and bricks did bring out the defensive side of a number of the hunt followers...!) but I have never seen the violence from hunt followers described on here. Im not saying it doesnt happen, just that it is not as common as people would have everyone believe. As im sure the violence i was unfortunate enough to witness would hopefully not be the "norm" for sabs, maybe we just have a particularly violent group down here.

And hunting is not illegal at all. There are just certain rules hunts must adhere to in order to keep the hunting within the law, but it is still perfectly legal to ride along to hounds.


----------



## JANICE199

Jess2308 said:


> The hunts I have been involved in (or friends have been) have most certainly stayed well within the law. Like you claim that its only the "odd idiot" causing violence to the hunt (not my experience seeing gangs of 20-50 people attacking a childrens meet  It was like a bl00dy riot, completely out of control!) then I would say from my own experience, the majority of hunts do care about the welfare of the animals and do not act in violence unless pushed to it (ie having their kids hailed with rocks and bricks did bring out the defensive side of a number of the hunt followers...!) but I have never seen the violence from hunt followers described on here. Im not saying it doesnt happen, just that it is not as common as people would have everyone believe. As im sure the violence i was unfortunate enough to witness would hopefully not be the "norm" for sabs, maybe we just have a particularly violent group down here.
> 
> And hunting is not illegal at all. There are just certain rules hunts must adhere to in order to keep the hunting within the law, but it is still perfectly legal to ride along to hounds.


*I was talking about fox hunting,are you saying this is not illegal?*


----------



## Jess2308

JANICE199 said:


> *I was talking about fox hunting,are you saying this is not illegal?*


No, its not, as long as a fox is not killed by the hounds...

Right?

I havent been hunting since the ban and havent taken much of an interest in it, but this is what i understood the ban to mean :confused1: And certainly what I have been told is correct.

ETA: As I have a few mins to elaborate on that i thought i should!!! Im at work so having to type quickly lol Several of my friends attended hunts this year that were also attended by a significant amount of police who presumably would have spotted anything illegal. I* believe* the hunts they take part in is what i would call drag hunts (ie chasing fake scents) so they are not actually chasing or killing any foxes but maybe i have got that way off, like I said, I havent really taken much of an interest in it lol. They certainly have told me that the hunts they took part in were not intended to kill any foxes but it is certainly legal to take part in a traditional "fox hunt" (ie group of riders, pack of hounds chasing a scent). MAybe i am wording things incorrectly...


----------



## JANICE199

*


Jess2308 said:



No, its not, as long as a fox is not killed by the hounds...

Right?

I havent been hunting since the ban and havent taken much of an interest in it, but this is what i understood the ban to mean :confused1: And certainly what I have been told is correct.

ETA: As I have a few mins to elaborate on that i thought i should!!! Im at work so having to type quickly lol Several of my friends attended hunts this year that were also attended by a significant amount of police who presumably would have spotted anything illegal. I believe the hunts they take part in is what i would call drag hunts (ie chasing fake scents) so they are not actually chasing or killing any foxes but maybe i have got that way off, like I said, I havent really taken much of an interest in it lol. They certainly have told me that the hunts they took part in were not intended to kill any foxes but it is certainly legal to take part in a traditional "fox hunt" (ie group of riders, pack of hounds chasing a scent). MAybe i am wording things incorrectly...

Click to expand...

I have found this and IF i have read it correctly,my understanding is that it is still illegal for hounds to chase foxes.This is quoted from the link below.

"Is hunting different from chasing away?

The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to chase wild mammals, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals."
Defra, UK; Hunting with Dogs - Questions and Answers
*


----------



## Jess2308

JANICE199 said:


> *
> 
> I have found this and IF i have read it correctly,my understanding is that it is still illegal for hounds to chase foxes.This is quoted from the link below.
> 
> "Is hunting different from chasing away?
> 
> The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to chase wild mammals, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals."
> Defra, UK; Hunting with Dogs - Questions and Answers
> *


Yeah, if you read the rest of my post I said they are chasing fake trails :thumbup: If the hounds were to track and kill a fox then it would be illegal.

Thats my understanding anyway


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> He drove his car at a hunt gathering (including children) and nearly ran someone over in the process
> 
> Sounds like he was trying to *sabotage* the hunt to me. That is the definition of a hunt sab, no? :confused1:
> 
> I am shocked you would call such an act an "irritated driver". I find kids irritating but if I drove into a group of them you would probably not condone it :lol:


i never said an irritated driver the newspaper did, this is what i said below, i just made a spelling mistake i also said he acted violently but you cant have noticed that! just goes to show some people only believe what they want to even if its there in black and white, makes me wonder if your incident was actually sabs now, as you seem to label anyone causing trouble in the vicinity of hunt a sab



Shamen said:


> so although it sounds like he was just an irrate driver because he acted violently then he must be a sab


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> Yeah, if you read the rest of my post I said they are chasing fake trails :thumbup: If the hounds were to track and kill a fox then it would be illegal.
> 
> Thats my understanding anyway


When you look at this phrase from the act:

_"The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals."_

it seems as though most hunts will probably end up being illegal, because on most hunts the hounds will be likely to pick up and follow the trail of a fox and, unless the hunt has a sure fire way of stopping them, they are breaking the law. In other words, hunts are deliberately putting themselves in a position whereby they will be unable to prevent breaking the law.

And if that is the case, it makes the argument that Sleeping_lion was making about sabs discriminating against hunters redundant. Monitoring a hunt that is setting itself up to almost certainly break the law is not discrimination.


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> When you look at this phrase from the act:
> 
> _"The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals."_
> 
> it seems as though most hunts will probably end up being illegal, because on most hunts the hounds will be likely to pick up and follow the trail of a fox and, unless the hunt has a sure fire way of stopping them, they are breaking the law. In other words, hunts are deliberately putting themselves in a position whereby they will be unable to prevent breaking the law.
> 
> And if that is the case, it makes the argument that Sleeping_lion was making about sabs discriminating against hunters redundant. Monitoring a hunt that is setting itself up to almost certainly break the law is not discrimination.


IMO hunt monitors and hunt sabs are completely different. Im all for monitoring the hunts to insure they remain within the law and I see no reason why people purely doing that would need to protest or become violent? :confused1:

Hunt saboteurs.. Well, its all in the name. They are intentionally sabotaging the hunt (and often causing damage to people, animals and property in the process) not monitoring the actions of the hunt.

And before anyone jumps on the "protest" comment, I have no problem with people doing that at hunt meets either so long as their actions remain within the law and they do not attempt to intimidate (especially on childrens meets) or become violent.


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> i never said an irritated driver the newspaper did, this is what i said below, i just made a spelling mistake i also said he acted violently but you cant have noticed that! just goes to show some people only believe what they want to even if its there in black and white, makes me wonder if your incident was actually sabs now, as you seem to label anyone causing trouble in the vicinity of hunt a sab


just incase you missed my reply Jess because i dont want you thinking ive said something i havent


----------



## Jess2308

Shamen said:


> just incase you missed my reply Jess because i dont want you thinking ive said something i havent


I was ignoring your reply as i felt it was in bad taste to those who were injured in the accident i witnessed, as well as to the pony that lost its life.

Someone DRIVING A CAR INTO A GROUP OF CHILDREN AT A HUNT MEET (also screaming obscenities out the window) indicates it was not a random accident but an intentional act  Anyone who witnessed the "incident" was in no confusion on that.

Thats all I will say on the matter as i thought your comment was incredibly rude and uncalled for on a thread that has, so far as i've seen, managed to remain civil and respectful to people on both sides of the argument.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> When you look at this phrase from the act:
> 
> _"The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals."_
> 
> it seems as though most hunts will probably end up being illegal, because on most hunts the hounds will be likely to pick up and follow the trail of a fox and, unless the hunt has a sure fire way of stopping them, they are breaking the law. In other words, hunts are deliberately putting themselves in a position whereby they will be unable to prevent breaking the law.
> 
> And if that is the case, it makes the argument that Sleeping_lion was making about sabs discriminating against hunters redundant. Monitoring a hunt that is setting itself up to almost certainly break the law is not discrimination.


Darn, made redundant and I wasn't even here to witness it!

Dashing about all over, and half way down my lunch, but (surprisingly  ) I disagree! LOL!!!!

Drag hunting can be set up very effectively from what I understand of it, so that it is unlikely that they will follow the wrong trail, once they're set on the right one. I know from teaching tracking to my dogs, the numpty chocolate variety of Labrador, that even they can discriminate an enormous amounts of scent on the ground. But, back to the drag hunting, this was supposed to be the way forward for hunts, rather than specifically setting out to track a live fox, so are you're saying that because there's an element of risk that they may pick up the wrong trail that they shouldn't be drag hunting even? That's assuming you believe there are those who do this legitimately and within the law?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

And while I think on, there was a thread in the dog chat section a while back, where it seemed a lot of owners believed it was *natural* for their dogs to chase rabbits, and fine for them to kill them. This is a failure to stop your dog from wilfully pursuing wildlife.


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> I was ignoring your reply as i felt it was in bad taste to those who were injured in the accident i witnessed, as well as to the pony that lost its life.
> 
> Someone DRIVING A CAR INTO A GROUP OF CHILDREN AT A HUNT MEET (also screaming obscenities out the window) indicates it was not a random accident but an intentional act  Anyone who witnessed the "incident" was in no confusion on that.
> 
> Thats all I will say on the matter as i thought your comment was incredibly rude and uncalled for on a thread that has, so far as i've seen, managed to remain civil and respectful to people on both sides of the argument.


why was it rude you completely misinterpreted my post, you admited you think anyone causing trouble is a sab...even that old 'irate' driver.

as you say 'someone' drove the car into those children (and that is disgusting)but maybe that was also an irate diver who youve labelled a sab (the hunt are a pain in the ass to motorists ) , the HSA cant be blamed for every idiot can they? its like saying all football supporters are to blame for the hooligans...its ludicrous


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But, back to the drag hunting, this was supposed to be the way forward for hunts, rather than specifically setting out to track a live fox, so are you're saying that because there's an element of risk that they may pick up the wrong trail that they shouldn't be drag hunting even? That's assuming you believe there are those who do this legitimately and within the law?


Lol - you're not redundant - only your argument! 

No, I'm not saying what you put hun - what I'm saying is that unless drag hunts have a means to stop hounds following the trail of a wild animal and chasing it, then under the law _as it stands_ they will be committing an offence.


----------



## Jess2308

Deleted cos I cant be ar$ed lol


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Lol - you're not redundant - only your argument!
> 
> No, I'm not saying what you put hun - what I'm saying is that unless drag hunts have a means to stop hounds following the trail of a wild animal and chasing it, then under the law _as it stands_ they will be committing an offence.


Surely they are only committing an offence, if they make no attempt to stop their dogs from trailing the wrong scent? They can't be committing an offence just by setting out to set the trail they've left on purpose 

Shamen, the irate old driver in the article you're referring to (Jess posted the link when looking for the news article relating to the other incident) did threaten to set hunt saboteurs on some of those who tried to intervene.


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> And while I think on, there was a thread in the dog chat section a while back, where it seemed a lot of owners believed it was *natural* for their dogs to chase rabbits, and fine for them to kill them. This is a failure to stop your dog from wilfully pursuing wildlife.


This is not necessarily illegal under the act - it depends on whether or not they had the land-owner's permission to do it.

Direct quotes from the act:

_The Act makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, subject to the exemptions in Schedule 1 of the Act. It also makes it an offence for a person to knowingly permit their land or dogs to be used for such hunting. It outlaws hare coursing, and makes it an offence to participate in, attend, facilitate or allow dogs to be used in such events.
_

and the exemptions in schedule 1 are:

_What are the exemptions?
The exemptions from the offence of illegal hunting permit the following types of hunting:

Stalking and flushing out 
Use of a dog below ground, in the course of stalking and flushing out, to protect birds being kept or preserved for shooting 
*Hunting rats and rabbits *
Retrieval of hares which have been shot 
Falconry 
Recapture of wild mammals 
Rescue of wild mammals 
Research and observation _

_These exemptions are subject to strict conditions (eg on the number of dogs which can be used in stalking and flushing out (two) *and on obtaining permission to carry out the activity on the land on which it is to take place*). The Schedule also requires that anyone intending to rely on the stalking and flushing out exemption must ensure that animals flushed out are shot as soon as possible afterwards by a competent person. These stringent conditions are intended to prevent abuse of the exemptions._

Defra, UK; Hunting with Dogs - Questions and Answers


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

I doubt if anyone out walking their dog, when a rabbit gets up and allows their dog to chase it, because it's *what they do*, has the permission of the landowner? 

I also don't know many dog walkers competent to shoot said rabbit, who happen to take a shot gun with them, and have permission?????

So, it's illegal, yet many dog walkers think it's a *natural* thing for their dogs to do and completely ok.


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> It was a hunt MEET, the hunt was not riding down the road, they were grouped in a pub car park gathering, with a small group of children (myself included) riding from the farm we'd parked our trailers in down the country lane towards the meet. Do you think its acceptable for a driver to drive into a group of (no more than 10) kids on ponies accompanied by their parents on foot just because the hunt annoys them on roads?? REALLY?  Im sorry, but you lot keep going on about about hunt followers justifying what you think is wrong, but it is shocking what the anti-hunt folk will support or make excuses for.
> 
> It is obvious to anyone that these people were attempting to sabotage the hunt, and no amount of excuses made will convince anyone in their right mind that its just an individual motorist who happened to get the urge to drive into a group of horses... That is ridiculous. I havent once blamed the HSA for the actions of these people, but they WERE hunt sabs whether associated with the HSA or not. There are hunt followers who may be causing the problems you talk about, it does not mean they are associated with the hunt so by your way of looking at things, you shouldnt be blaming the hunting community in general for their actions.
> 
> I found your post extremely rude towards me, implying that I was lying or elaborating about what happened in that accident. There is no need for such things.


:lol: OMG of course i dont think its acceptable why do you keep taking everything i say out of context.... my point was anyone who would kill a pony imo isnt a sab just some thug tagging along to cause trouble deffo not an animal lover, not to mention putting the lives of children at risk! i hope he went down and they threw away the key for this!


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Surely they are only committing an offence, if they make no attempt to stop their dogs from trailing the wrong scent? They can't be committing an offence just by setting out to set the trail they've left on purpose .


Not exactly - they will be comitting an offence *if they do not stop them *from trailing the wrong scent. My point was that to set off on a drag hunt unless they have a means to stop the hounds following the trail of a wild animal will end up in them committing an offence.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Shamen, the irate old driver in the article you're referring to (Jess posted the link when looking for the news article relating to the other incident) did threaten to set hunt saboteurs on some of those who tried to intervene.


Again, not exactly - he did it afterwards, from at home, in retaliation to someone from the hunt ringing him and threatening him with the police. It was just another example of "nasty-irate-old-man-ness". The fact that he had two other driving convictions for offences not related to hunts, and had no record of any activity against hunts, makes it obvious that he is not a hunt sab but just a nasty old man who drove into the hunt because it was in his way - just as he would have driven into anything else that had impeded him that day. As I said in an earlier post, this does not excuse or condone his actions - but it does not make him a hunt sab either!


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> Not exactly - they will be comitting an offence *if they do not stop them *from trailing the wrong scent. My point was that to set off on a drag hunt unless they have a means to stop the hounds following the trail of a wild animal will end up in them committing an offence.


The master of the hunt controls the hounds using the horn :thumbup: different noise = different command, it really is very effective :thumbup:


----------



## Spellweaver

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I doubt if anyone out walking their dog, when a rabbit gets up and allows their dog to chase it, because it's *what they do*, has the permission of the landowner?
> 
> I also don't know many dog walkers competent to shoot said rabbit, who happen to take a shot gun with them, and have permission?????
> 
> So, it's illegal, yet many dog walkers think it's a *natural* thing for their dogs to do and completely ok.


Can't dispute that - but the law is the law hun! (puts tongue firmly in cheek) And you being such a stickler on upholding the law, thought I just ought to mention it ......  (takes tongue out of cheek)

(Sorry - couldn't resist that - but let me know if you think it OTT and I'll delete it.)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Not exactly - they will be comitting an offence *if they do not stop them *from trailing the wrong scent. My point was that to set off on a drag hunt unless they have a means to stop the hounds following the trail of a wild animal will end up in them committing an offence.
> 
> Again, not exactly - he did it afterwards, from at home, in retaliation to someone from the hunt ringing him and threatening him with the police. It was just another example of "nasty-irate-old-man-ness". The fact that he had two other driving convictions for offences not related to hunts, and had no record of any activity against hunts, makes it obvious that he is not a hunt sab but just a nasty old man who drove into the hunt because it was in his way - just as he would have driven into anything else that had impeded him that day. As I said in an earlier post, this does not excuse or condone his actions - but it does not make him a hunt sab either!


As Jess says, the master of the hunt controls the hounds, so do you think it helps when hunt saboteurs actually carry horns to distract the hounds?

I never said when/who tried to intervene, just that as a consequence of the incident, when people tried to intervene, he threatened setting hunt saboteurs on them


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Can't dispute that - but the law is the law hun! (puts tongue firmly in cheek) And you being such a stickler on upholding the law, thought I just ought to mention it ......  (takes tongue out of cheek)
> 
> (Sorry - couldn't resist that - but let me know if you think it OTT and I'll delete it.)


Spellweaver, I'm delighted we can debate this in a good manner and have a laugh! I hope people reading don't think it isn't in good humour 

However, just going back to the dogs/rabbits thing, it seemed acceptable on the thread in the dog chat, to allow dogs to chase and kill rabbits, I bet if you asked them whether drag hunt should be stopped in case an innocent fluffy animal got killed, they'd all vote yes. To me, that's completely skewed logics and ethics


----------



## Jess2308

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As Jess says, the master of the hunt controls the hounds, so do you think it helps when hunt saboteurs actually carry horns to distract the hounds?


:lol: Yes, I should have said that it is really very effective until some clueless idiot turns up blowing their own hunt horn, confusing the hounds and then they are more likely to just chase a "real" scent as they dont know whats going on...

SO, maybe hunt sabs are to blame for any hounds killing live prey?? 

:lol:


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> :lol: Yes, I should have said that it is really very effective until some clueless idiot turns up blowing their own hunt horn, confusing the hounds and then they are more likely to just chase a "real" scent as they dont know whats going on...
> 
> SO, maybe hunt sabs are to blame for any hounds killing live prey??
> 
> :lol:


Nice try hun!! :thumbup:

But no prize ......................


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> Nice try hun!! :thumbup:
> 
> But no prize ......................


It's conceivable it could happen, I don't know if it has, but it's also conceivable that by distracting the hounds they are putting the life of the dogs at risk, so do you still think it's a good idea for them to resort to these tactics?


----------



## Spellweaver

I really must go and walk the poor dogs - loving this thread though - catch you all later!


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> Nice try hun!! :thumbup:
> 
> But no prize ......................


Why not?

Makes perfect sense to me, what doesnt make sense to you?  If you give a dog two different commands at the same time it will confuse it, we are dog folk, we know that  And the dog is likely to ignore both and go off and do its own thing. Imagine the chaos caused when you do that to a large pack of dogs!! Stands to reason the sabs using these horns are *causing* the hunt to lose control of the hounds and inadvertantly allow the dogs to pick up a scent they werent intended to


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Spellweaver said:


> I really must go and walk the poor dogs - loving this thread though - catch you all later!


Walked mine a bit earlier, got to get on with an acrylic though


----------



## Jess2308

Wow, you guys walk your dogs? I let my pack of 3 hoooounds loose in the countryside. Tonight we will eat roast fox that they will track and catch for me. BRING ON THE FOX ROAST!!

:lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Jess2308 said:


> Wow, you guys walk your dogs? I let my pack of 3 hoooounds loose in the countryside. Tonight we will eat roast fox that they will track and catch for me. BRING ON THE FOX ROAST!!
> 
> :lol:


 If you're going to release *the pack* to hunt and kill something illegal, make it rabbit, at least that tastes nice, I've never tried fox but have been told it's not particularly palateable! Or even better, hare


----------



## Guest

the horns work very well and have saved the lives of countless animals:thumbup:


----------



## Jess2308

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If you're going to release *the pack* to hunt and kill something illegal, make it rabbit, at least that tastes nice, I've never tried fox but have been told it's not particularly palateable! Or even better, hare


Yeah, the pug could catch a hare no problem :lol: The lab could bark at it  He's useless!


----------



## staflove

Hunting is wrong running the poor foxes in to the ground, damage coursed to the horses its all wrong i feel sorry for the foxes the horses and the dogs what i would like to do is get on my horse with a big whip and chase the swines who hunt and see how they like it


----------



## Jess2308

staflove said:


> Hunting is wrong running the poor foxes in to the ground, damage coursed to the horses its all wrong i feel sorry for the foxes the horses and the dogs what i would like to do is get on my horse with a big whip and chase the swines who hunt and see how they like it


What on earth is the damaged caused to the horses? 

They LOVE it and it is a wonderful learning and socialisation experience for them and a great day out. I've never seen an injured horse on a hunt :confused1:


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> Wow, you guys walk your dogs? I let my pack of 3 hoooounds loose in the countryside. Tonight we will eat roast fox that they will track and catch for me. BRING ON THE FOX ROAST!!
> 
> :lol:


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Stafflove, we are (believe it or not) having a good natured discussion about whether hunt saboteurs are right, not whether hunting itself is actually right, although if you think that's relevant to the argument that's entirely up to you. But can I ask you what's wrong with drag hunting? Are you against dogs following a trail that's been laid down for them?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*Only just managed to catch up on this thread after leaving it yesterday. Great to see people putting their points of view across in a respectful manner...whether we agree or not. *


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> Why not?
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me, what doesnt make sense to you?  If you give a dog two different commands at the same time it will confuse it, we are dog folk, we know that  And the dog is likely to ignore both and go off and do its own thing. Imagine the chaos caused when you do that to a large pack of dogs!! Stands to reason the sabs using these horns are *causing* the hunt to lose control of the hounds and inadvertantly allow the dogs to pick up a scent they werent intended to


Well, it might make sense if the hounds were not already following a live trail - but I would dare bet that in 99.999999% of cases sabs blow horns to distract dogs who are already following a trail - so no hun, no prize! Or no, I've changed my mind - you can have the prize for the most tenuous excuse for blaming sabs I've seen on this thread!   :thumbup:


----------



## JANICE199

Spellweaver said:


> Well, it might make sense if the hounds were not already following a live trail - but I would dare bet that in 99.999999% of cases sabs blow horns to distract dogs who are already following a trail - so no hun, no prize! Or no, I've changed my mind - you can have the prize for the most tenuous excuse for blaming sabs I've seen on this thread!   :thumbup:


*LMAO well done you.:lol:*


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> Well, it might make sense if the hounds were not already following a live trail - but I would dare bet that in 99.999999% of cases sabs blow horns to distract dogs who are already following a trail - so no hun, no prize! Or no, I've changed my mind - you can have the prize for the most tenuous excuse for blaming sabs I've seen on this thread!   :thumbup:


Well, unfortunately for your argument your guess that 99.999999% are following a live trail is NOT a fact it is just that, a guess based on nothing solid. In reality, it is equally plausible that 99.999999% of the time the hounds are following a perfect legal trail  Thats the problem with the sabs, 99.999999% of the time they act before engaging brain and cause more trouble that good for their own cause :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> Well, unfortunately for your argument your guess that 99.999999% are following a live trail is NOT a fact it is just that, a guess based on nothing solid. In reality, it is equally plausible that 99.999999% of the time the hounds are following a perfect legal trail  Thats the problem with the sabs, 99.999999% of the time they act before engaging brain and cause more trouble that good for their own cause :lol:


I didn't pretend it was a fact hun - but I'm sure some facts can be dug up from somewhere to prove either my guess or your guess right!


----------



## Spellweaver

Crikey - just came across this site - for anyone who thinks hunters are innocent and only saboteurs are violent, take a look at this humungous list of hunters who have been prosecuted and the things they have been prosecuted for :eek6:

Convicted Hunt Supporters

With hunts doing this kind of thing, I think hunt sabs deserve a medal for trying to stop them.


----------



## Spellweaver

And for anyone who thinks that hunts have not broken any laws since the ban, or that hunts don't do any criminal damage, or that sabs are the only ones who break laws, trespass etc, have a look at this link: 

All this since the ban

Lets hear it for the hunt sabs! :thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> And for anyone who thinks that hunts have not broken any laws since the ban, or that hunts don't do any criminal damage, have a look at this link:
> 
> All this since the ban
> 
> Lets hear it for the hunt sabs! :thumbup:


*Sadly you hear of these stories all too often which is why i stand by my claim that it is considered the norm as far as alot of hunters are concerned, to behave in this manner. The documentary: A Minority Pastime... A letter to David Cameron, shows many cases like this:

Minority Pastime: A Letter to David Cameron

Running time/length of documentary: 1 hour and 45 minutes.*


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Sadly you hear of these stories all too often which is why i stand by my claim that it is considered the norm as far as alot of hunters are concerned, to behave in this manner. The documentary: A Minority Pastime... A letter to David Cameron, shows many cases like this:
> 
> Minority Pastime: A Letter to David Cameron
> 
> Running time/length of documentary: 1 hour and 45 minutes.*


Don't have time to watch it just now hun - but I will save the link and watch it soon, I promise.

Thanks for posting it xxx


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> Crikey - just came across this site - for anyone who thinks hunters are innocent and only saboteurs are violent, take a look at this humungous list of hunters who have been prosecuted and the things they have been prosecuted for :eek6:
> 
> Convicted Hunt Supporters
> 
> With hunts doing this kind of thing, I think hunt sabs deserve a medal for trying to stop them.


I couldn't find any reference to the ones I checked on any other site than Anti sites. I believe that some will be correct but I am skeptical about all of them.
Surely there would be newspaper reports to be found.
I checked 5 of the stories and found nothing


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> Don't have time to watch it just now hun - but I will save the link and watch it soon, I promise.
> 
> Thanks for posting it xxx


*It is an eye opener and i would recommend people watch it if and when they get a chance. (As it is a long documentary, although very informative)....xxx *


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> I couldn't find any reference to the ones I checked on any other site than Anti sites. I believe that some will be correct but I am skeptical about all of them.
> Surely there would be newspaper reports to be found.
> I checked 5 of the stories and found nothing


I doubt if they would be printing things in such details - names, names of hunts, exact amounts of fines etc - if they weren't true, Rona. Think of the money in would cost them in slander prosecutions (or is it libel? I always get those two mixed up )


----------



## rocco33

Beware of what you read / see on the internet.

I find it very sad that people are influenced so much by the internet in so many ways


----------



## Guest

rocco33 said:


> Beware of what you read / see on the internet.
> 
> I find it very sad that people are influenced so much by the internet in so many ways


It's quite frightening isn't it?


----------



## Spellweaver

rocco33 said:


> Beware of what you read / see on the internet.
> 
> I find it very sad that people are influenced so much by the internet in so many ways





rona said:


> It's quite frightening isn't it?


Hmm - it's very sad and frightening for those who have something to hide - their misdeeds can now be accessed and viewed by multitudes. Makes it a bit hard to pay off the magistrate and continue to break the law by hunting illegally, doesn't it?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

rocco33 said:


> Beware of what you read / see on the internet.
> 
> I find it very sad that people are influenced so much by the internet in so many ways





rona said:


> It's quite frightening isn't it?


*Im sure most of us have the sense not to just believe everything you read/watch. But if you dig a little deeper you can usually find other content on the internet to corroborate your first findings. The information is out there and it's easy enough to cross reference to back up your findings from other sources.*


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> Hmm - it's very sad and frightening for those who have something to hide - their misdeeds can now be accessed and viewed by multitudes. Makes it a bit hard to pay off the magistrate and continue to break the law by hunting illegally, doesn't it?


You seem to have a very skewed view.
Can you not admit that it is only a few that are violent much like it is only a few of the sabs who are violent.
I've never hunted but most of those I've met, either mounted on a hunting day or just in their every day lives, seem perfectly pleasant people.
The sabs always look violent because those that are law abiding often get mingled with the hunt followers and the ones which get attention are the rent a mobs


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Im sure most of us have the sense not to just believe everything you read/watch. But if you dig a little deeper you can usually find other content on the internet to corroborate your first findings. The information is out there and it's easy enough to cross reference to back up your findings from other sources.*


That's what I tried to do and could find nothing


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> You seem to have a very skewed view.
> Can you not admit that it is only a few that are violent much like it is only a few of the sabs who are violent.
> I've never hunted but most of those I've met, either mounted on a hunting day or just in their every day lives, seem perfectly pleasant people.
> The sabs always look violent because those that are law abiding often get mingled with the hunt followers and the ones which get attention are the rent a mobs


If I thought that both sides were equally violent, then I would say that I thought both side were equally violent. Unfortunately, we see more prosecutions against hunters than prosecution against saboteurs, so that to me says that hunters are more violent. Now you can called that a skewed view if you want to. I call it a sensible view, formed by reading the evidence and applying common sense.


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> If I thought that both sides were equally violent, then I would say that I thought both side were equally violent. Unfortunately, we see more prosecutions against hunters than prosecution against saboteurs, so that to me says that hunters are more violent. Now you can called that a skewed view if you want to. I call it a sensible view, formed by reading the evidence and applying common sense.


I don't think hunters or their organizations have to put together a list!!!
This may be why the information is one sided


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> I don't think hunters or their organizations have to put together a list!!!
> This may be why the information is one sided


*The information is far from one sided, have you thought that if it comes across that the hunters have more bad press than the sabs its ecause they are the worst offenders?*


----------



## bird

Spellweaver said:


> If I thought that both sides were equally violent, then I would say that I thought both side were equally violent. Unfortunately, we see more prosecutions against hunters than prosecution against saboteurs, so that to me says that hunters are more violent. Now you can called that a skewed view if you want to. I call it a sensible view, formed by reading the evidence and applying common sense.


Have you thought about the possiblity of why there has been more pro hunt prosecutions are because the pro hunters that are arrested tend to have their faces on show and the sabs NOT THE PROTESTERS tend to have their faces covered. 

Also to hark back to the thread where someone said about sabs having their own horns to confuse and cause chaos. Back in the late seventies this is what they did and as a result one hunt lost 3 of their dogs. Not just lost but lost their lives. The sabs actually prided themselves on learning the differing calls.


----------



## bird

JANICE199 said:


> *The information is far from one sided, have you thought that if it comes across that the hunters have more bad press than the sabs its ecause they are the worst offenders?*


The press print what they think will appeal to whoever reads their papers, and they always put their own slant on things.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bird said:


> Have you thought about the possiblity of why there has been more pro hunt prosecutions are because the pro hunters that are arrested tend to have their faces on show and the sabs NOT THE PROTESTERS tend to have their faces covered.


*Actually you will find many hunt followers have their face hidden too. These people are only too happy to be abusive/threatening but don't want to be recognised.*


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *The information is far from one sided, have you thought that if it comes across that the hunters have more bad press than the sabs its ecause they are the worst offenders?*


But like I have said 3 times now, I cannot find much information except on animal rights sites. This is bound to be sensationalized


----------



## Guest

bird said:


> The press print what they think will appeal to whoever reads their papers, and they always put their own slant on things.


To be honest, if I could actually find press reports on these convictions, I would be more likely to believe the figures, but I can't, all info is on Anti sites


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> But like I have said 3 times now, I cannot find much information except on animal rights sites. This is bound to be sensationalized


*Take a look at this rona and tell me who is in the wrong?I'm sure you will see what the courts saw and will have t admit the "sabs" were not at fault.
YouTube - Revenge TV*


----------



## Guest

bird said:


> Have you thought about the possiblity of why there has been more pro hunt prosecutions are because the pro hunters that are arrested tend to have their faces on show and the sabs NOT THE PROTESTERS tend to have their faces covered.
> 
> Also to hark back to the thread where someone said about sabs having their own horns to confuse and cause chaos. Back in the late seventies this is what they did and as a result one hunt lost 3 of their dogs. Not just lost but lost their lives. The sabs actually prided themselves on learning the differing calls.


if they were arrested it wouldnt matter whether they had their faces covered or not they would still have to give their details, the police always tend to back the hunt thats my and my oh's experience anyway, this video shows pretty much how they treat sabs....

http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/ oops you have to click on 'sabbotage a documentary' to see it


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> To be honest, if I could actually find press reports on these convictions, I would be more likely to believe the figures, but I can't, all info is on Anti sites


If you really believe these convictions are made up Rona, I suggest you contact the people on the lists - google them, they are real people and real hunts. Do you think that they would allow this sort of information to be freely available on the net if it were not true? Do you think they would not have prosecuted the sites giving out this information if it was wrong information? Of course they would have. And it would have been plastered across every newspaper in the country if they had. The fact that they have allowed the information to be there, unchallenged, on many sites, speaks for itself.


----------



## Spellweaver

bird said:


> Have you thought about the possiblity of why there has been more pro hunt prosecutions are because the pro hunters that are arrested tend to have their faces on show and the sabs NOT THE PROTESTERS tend to have their faces covered.
> 
> Also to hark back to the thread where someone said about sabs having their own horns to confuse and cause chaos. Back in the late seventies this is what they did and as a result one hunt lost 3 of their dogs. Not just lost but lost their lives. The sabs actually prided themselves on learning the differing calls.


If sabs are arrested, the police will whip their balaclavas off pretty quickly!  And as for hounds and horses being hurt, read the humungous list I posted previously - this one: All this since the ban - to read what hunts themselves have done to their horses and hounds.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Shamen said:


> if they were arrested it wouldnt matter whether they had their faces covered or not they would still have to give their details, the police always tend to back the hunt thats my and my oh's experience anyway, this video shows pretty much how they treat sabs....
> 
> http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/


*In the documentary i put up...it gives you an insight to the police's attitude. There was a lady who had been assaulted/threatened and she was in her car extremely upset and frightened. She phoned the police on many occassions but they never came out to her. Yet on another occassion just because the huntsmen did not like the idea of monitors/sabs being around, called the police who arrived rather swiftly and put a stop to the monitoring/sabs even though nothing illegal, threatening had been done by the monitors. 
Also for those who think it is only the sabs/antis who have a list of offences commited and so is biased...you will see in this documentary there is a body of people set up (abit like crimewatch) for people to report to with any illegal hunts, threatening behaviour, etc and it has plenty of references to the hunts actions. They are logged, documented, etc*


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *In the documentary i put up...it gives you an insight to the police's attitude. There was a lady who had been assaulted/threatened and she was in her car extremely upset and frightened. She phoned the police on many occassions but they never came out to her. Yet on another occassion just because the huntsmen did not like the idea of monitors/sabs being around, called the police who arrived rather swiftly and put a stop to the monitoring/sabs even though nothing illegal, threatening had been done by the monitors.
> Also for those who think it is only the sabs/antis who have a list of offences commited and so is biased...you will see in this documentary there is a body of people set up (abit like crimewatch) for people to report to with any illegal hunts, threatening behaviour, etc and it has plenty of references to the hunts actions. They are logged, documented, etc*


It was filmed by an anti, what else would it portray?


----------



## Guest

I have just run out of reputations - repping all you lovely 'anti-hunt' friends! I agree with population control be it fox/rabbits/ants/ flies whatever what i dont agree with is the stuck up, arrogant toffs who see it as a way to arf arf at every fox they kill. the sick ******** deserve to be ripped apart by their own hounds and for that reason hunt sabs are gods!!! i will be back to rep the rest of you soon xx


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *In the documentary i put up...it gives you an insight to the police's attitude. There was a lady who had been assaulted/threatened and she was in her car extremely upset and frightened. She phoned the police on many occassions but they never came out to her. Yet on another occassion just because the huntsmen did not like the idea of monitors/sabs being around, called the police who arrived rather swiftly and put a stop to the monitoring/sabs even though nothing illegal, threatening had been done by the monitors.
> Also for those who think it is only the sabs/antis who have a list of offences commited and so is biased...you will see in this documentary there is a body of people set up (abit like crimewatch) for people to report to with any illegal hunts, threatening behaviour, etc and it has plenty of references to the hunts actions. They are logged, documented, etc*


thanks Freespirit ive just checked it out, i dare say there will be some who think treatment like that from the police is a rare occurance or that the video is cleverly edited, but shockingly sabs and monitors are 2nd class citizens to the police! some police are even as bad as the hunt supporters,

in all honesty i dont know how anyone who is pro blood sports sleeps at night do they really hate an animal so much to wish that on it?:frown2: even all that noise upsets me can you imagine the terror a fox must feel on hearing that i only went sabbing twice i just couldnt bare it, i have such admiration for those who went time after time and for those who still go today.


----------



## Starlite

What purpose do they serve by shouting their mouths off in all honesty?

Damaging property, attacking hunters, am I the only one who sees this a bit hypocritical when they tend to make out they are "holier than thou"?

They make themselves look no better than the people who harrass/attack doctors who work in abortion clinics and their families imo

If the hunters stay within the law its a complete waste of time which could be spent attempting to change laws or parts of them they find inadequate by going through channels which might actually work


----------



## Guest

Buster's Mummy said:


> I have just run out of reputations - repping all you lovely 'anti-hunt' friends! I agree with population control be it fox/rabbits/ants/ flies whatever what i dont agree with is the stuck up, arrogant toffs who see it as a way to arf arf at every fox they kill. the sick ******** deserve to be ripped apart by their own hounds and for that reason hunt sabs are gods!!! i will be back to rep the rest of you soon xx


thank you for mine Buster is absolutley gorgeous by the way (i presume Buster is your beagle?)


----------



## Guest

Starlite said:


> What purpose do they serve by shouting their mouths off in all honesty?
> 
> Damaging property, attacking hunters, am I the only one who sees this a bit hypocritical when they tend to make out they are "holier than thou"?
> 
> They make themselves look no better than the people who harrass/attack doctors who work in abortion clinics and their families imo
> 
> If the hunters stay within the law its a complete waste of time which could be spent attempting to change laws or parts of them they find inadequate by going through channels which might actually work


they dont stay within the law though do they hence why hunt monitors gather evidence


----------



## Cleo38

When I used to sab the police weren't too bad, there was always the odd one who would tell us that his daughter/son was veggie & 'in to all this sort of stuff' - some people would find it a bit patronising but I thought it showed that some of them could take a different stance & not just side with the hunt.
Am not sure you you could find out about actual statistics regarding arrests/convictions .....


----------



## Starlite

Shamen said:


> they dont stay within the law though do they hence why hunt monitors gather evidence


there are always people who will break the law but i have seen protesters acting no better than football hooligans, its the assumption that they never do anything wrong which irritates me


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> thank you for mine Buster is absolutley gorgeous by the way (i presume Buster is your beagle?)


thankyou, he is my little angel and is treated like a king....I'd never let him hunt!

i don't agree with the way sabs go about their business BUT I also don't agree with the buck toothed...arf arffing, arrogant, snobby, ignorant, men who feel they have the god given right to make an animsal suffer and pray that what goes around comes around three fold!

there are ways to control a pest and ripping them apart, torturing them, smearing their blood on faces and parading their 'catch' like a trophy. they are scum!

oh and im a country lass!!!


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> do they really hate an animal so much to wish that on it?


 I must say, I have been shocked myself at the hatred which is aimed at the fox, not just from huntsmen either. 
They are an animal trying to make the best of their lives, sometimes they overlap with ours in a not very conducive way. Doesn't make them evil.
On the other hand though, I cannot agree with this disney type character that many seem to see them as. 
The main point in all these threads that I cannot get my head around, is that a lot of people don't seem to think a fox would see a human baby as prey. They would


----------



## Cleo38

rona said:


> I must say, I have been shocked myself at the hatred which is aimed at the fox, not just from huntsmen either.
> They are an animal trying to make the best of their lives, sometimes they overlap with ours in a not very conducive way. Doesn't make them evil.
> On the other hand though, I cannot agree with this disney type character that many seem to see them as.
> The main point in all these threads that I cannot get my head around, is that a lot of people don't seem to think a fox would see a human baby as prey. They would


But that is exactky as I see a fox; it's not a vicious, sly, cunning, evil animal. It's simply a predator doing what it's supposed to do. We seem to look at animals in an anthropomorphic way (I'm guilty of this as well) but they are wild animals & behave as such. How can you honestky look at a fox & want to chase it then kill it for fun?!
(Although the twins thing ..... I won't get started on that one )


----------



## Guest

rona said:


> The main point in all these threads that I cannot get my head around, is that a lot of people don't seem to think a fox would see a human baby as prey. They would


LOL and how many human babies do you see floating around in rivers or crawling around the woods and countryside? I'd like to think these human babies had human adults in charge! We aint talking about Moses


----------



## Guest

Buster's Mummy said:


> LOL and how many human babies do you see floating around in rivers or crawling around the woods and countryside? I'd like to think these human babies had human adults in charge! We aint talking about Moses
> 
> I am sure that could be transferred to any animal- foxes, wolves, rats, dogs, lions, tigers, sharks lol!! I seem to remember reading someones blog here about how a family of foxes were spotted and didn't attack the humans?


I don't understand your point??
Of course that applies to other predators


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

Buster's Mummy said:


> thankyou, he is my little angel and is treated like a king....I'd never let him hunt!
> 
> i don't agree with the way sabs go about their business BUT I also don't agree with the buck toothed...arf arffing, arrogant, snobby, ignorant, men who feel they have the god given right to make an animsal suffer and pray that what goes around comes around three fold!
> 
> i wish a painful death on every hunter!!! If I saw a hunter on fire i wouldn't even spit on them! does that register my disgust enough? there are ways to control a pest and ripping them apart, torturing them, smearing their blood on faces and parading their 'catch' like a trophy. they are scum!
> 
> oh and im a country lass!!!


I'm sorry but you are bang out of order, this has been a good humoured debate up until now, and unless you are posting *very tongue in cheek* that is damned well inflammatory.

What makes you think you have the right to describe people in this manner? Shame on you, absolutely bloody shame!!!!!

I've enjoyed debating this thread, until I read this sort of utter rubbish, I'm now leaving well alone.


----------



## tashi

I have to admit this thread is now getting slightly out of hand, I have tryed to stay away from this and only just keeping an eye on it - it has now gone totally off topic and is beginning to be a bit of a witch hunt if it is not brought back on track I have no option but to close it, heavily moderate it and then maybe reopen with just the answers to the original question


----------



## Sleeping_Lion

tashi said:


> I have to admit this thread is now getting slightly out of hand, I have tryed to stay away from this and only just keeping an eye on it - it has now gone totally off topic and is beginning to be a bit of a witch hunt if it is not brought back on track I have no option but to close it, heavily moderate it and then maybe reopen with just the answers to the original question


My preference is to keep it open Tashi, as long as there's no name calling or mud slinging, it had been a good humoured debate until this afternoon, I'm disappointed to see it's gone down this route


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> It was filmed by an anti, what else would it portray?


The truth! Which it obviously does, no matter how pro-hunters try to twist it!


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> The truth! Which it obviously does, no matter how pro-hunters try to twist it!


You have to remember though, that any video or photographic material produced by each faction is bound to be riddled with a certain amount of bias.

Not that I'm saying they do this, but it is fairly easy to edit a video into something that looks quite realistic.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Chillinator said:


> You have to remember though, that any video or photographic material produced by each faction is bound to be riddled with a certain amount of bias.
> 
> Not that I'm saying they do this, but it is fairly easy to edit a video into something that looks quite realistic.


*The documentary i put up here had no reason to edit it to suit an agenda. The whole point of this documentary was then followed up by a letter to David Cameron....Hardly something you'd embark on if you didn't have the proof to substantiate your claims. *


----------



## bucksmum

Buster's Mummy said:


> thankyou, he is my little angel and is treated like a king....I'd never let him hunt!
> 
> i don't agree with the way sabs go about their business BUT I also don't agree with the buck toothed...arf arffing, arrogant, snobby, ignorant, men who feel they have the god given right to make an animsal suffer and pray that what goes around comes around three fold!
> 
> i wish a painful death on every hunter!!! If I saw a hunter on fire i wouldn't even spit on them! does that register my disgust enough? there are ways to control a pest and ripping them apart, torturing them, smearing their blood on faces and parading their 'catch' like a trophy. they are scum!
> 
> oh and im a country lass!!!


It is this sort of mentality that does so much damage to the anti hunt protesters.They cannot debate in an adult and eloquent way so resort to threatening,vicious comments 

You may call hunt supporters arrogant and snobby and yes,some of them may well be but the majority of them have far more manners than to talk like that.
Shame on you


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *The documentary i put up here had no reason to edit it to suit an agenda. The whole point of this documentary was then followed up by a letter to David Cameron....Hardly something you'd embark on if you didn't have the proof to substantiate your claims. *


Fair enough, and after trawling back through recent posts I have found the video, it appears to be real enough. :thumbsup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Chillinator said:


> Fair enough, and after trawling back through recent posts I have found the video, it appears to be real enough. :thumbsup:


*Thank you. 
It is interesting viewing and in my opinion does give a good insight into alot of questions people might have. *


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*An interesting article...shows the inompetence of some police and how the sabs were in their right.

Surrey Police Help Hunt Dig Badger Sett

Also an interesting article on a fox that sabs manage to rescue. It goes against what hunters tell you is a quick kill by a bite to the back of the neck. This fox became known as 'copper' (you can find more on this via the internet)...The name 'copper' was given to this fox after a policeman that had helped the sabs by lending his helmet to place over the hole in which the fox had found refuge, so as to stop the hounds killing it.

http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/evidence/richardedwardsreport.htm*


----------



## Guest

Now I wouldn't have thought it was possible to insult anyone as I can't see any people from here dressing in red coats, jodpurs, starving their hounds ready for the next chase as you all love animals on here! 

As animals lovers you all try and control pests humanely so my comments did not relate to you. And if you do hunt, I am sure you do so with minimal suffering to the animal and therefore I have the utmost respect for all of you! 

I can't see a hunter like the ones I know coming to a place like this as they couldn't give two hoots about animals FULL STOP. 

Now I am off so this peaceful debate can continue sorry for having a strong view on animal cruelty on a pet forum


----------



## JANICE199

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *An interesting article...shows the inompetence of some police and how the sabs were in their right.
> 
> Surrey Police Help Hunt Dig Badger Sett
> 
> Also an interesting article on a fox that sabs manage to rescue. It goes against what hunters tell you is a quick kill by a bite to the back of the neck. This fox became known as 'copper' (you can find more on this via the internet)...The name 'copper' was given to this fox after a policeman that had helped the sabs by lending his helmet to place over the hole in which the fox had found refuge, so as to stop the hounds killing it.
> 
> Report by Richard Edwards MSc MA VetMB MRCVS*


*Once again interesting reading.One would expect better from our police forces,surely they should not be bias.Their job is to uphold the law not lie and arrest innocent people.*


----------



## Jess2308

Busters Mummy - Your back-tracking now is useless. Your posts and opinions in them are shameful, and are infact what I believe the anti-hunt debaters were attempting to prove werent the "norm", but the irrational, violent and extreme side is there for all to see in your posts... Now lets imagine a gang of 20/30/40 people with the same mentality at a hunt and you can see exactly how the sabs get out of hand and violent. Well done for explaining my point of view better than I ever could 

Re the pics you posted, apart from the first pic that looks like a lab (??) which as far as im aware, arent used on hunts (the pic could have come from anywhere!!), i dont see anything wrong. In the other two pics the huntsmaster is clearly taking the already dead fox away and keeping it away from the hounds. What would you rather he do with it? Just leave it on the ground to rot? Im sure your beagle would be incredibly interested in a dead fox also so I dont think the hound showing an interest in it means anything at all other than they are normal dogs. The pics have no date on them so almost certainly were taken before the ban so I dont see what the big issue is.

Thank you for leaving this thread to continue a respectful debate on both sides. I hope you dont have the urge to return, frankly I think you should have been banned for such disgusting comments...!!


----------



## hawksport

Borderers thread got removed for having a pic of a dead fox


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> Report by Richard Edwards MSc MA VetMB MRCVS[/COLOR][/B]


You can find any information you want to on that site 
Veterinary Submission by D Dugdale

A veterinary opinion on the humanity of hunting with hounds

QUOTE
So it is with the fox  incarceration in a cage trap overnight or transport and relocation, particularly when wounded, as reported by Edwards (1999), causes severe distress but hunted in his own territory and in an environment that he knows and the fox is in control. Even at the point of capture when the physiological stress may have become severe, the level of stress is not necessarily overwhelming and probably reversible. There is no scientific evidence that foxes suffer irreversible physiological damage as a result of being chased any more than the extended human athlete. There are no reports of unexplained deaths in healthy foxes shortly after hunting that might be ascribed to severe physical exhaustion. Furthermore an article in the Sunday Times (14 November 1999), alleging irreversible myopathy in hunted foxes, has been refuted entirely by the research worker who was misquoted (T.J.Kreeger, unpublished reply to Sunday Times, November 1999), (Appendix 3).

It must be accepted however that with any hunted animal there may be a variable period of physiological stress in the final phase of the chase when the animal may be deemed to be suffering. Webster (1994) defines that period as when the intensity or complexity of stresses exceeds or exhausts the capacity of the animals to cope, or when the animal is prevented from taking constructive action. This period will be, relative to the duration of the chase, short in time and as long as it takes for the hounds to close with the tiring quarry and dispatch it. Furthermore at the point of capture there is no reason to suppose and no outward evidence to suggest that there is premonition of death. The fox is simply caught up by the leading hound and quickly killed.

The cause of death is probably cervical dislocation and this is confirmed by Cunningham (1999) on the basis of 3 autopsies, carried out some years ago. More recently, (R.E.Baskerville, personal communication) has recorded similar findings post mortem in 4 foxes killed by hounds using X-ray radiography. Further studies on this key issue are in progress.

It must be emphasised that the subsequent dismemberment of the carcass, if it occurs, although not a particularly edifying sight, is carried out on a dead animal. Opponents of hunting, particularly during the debate in the House of Commons on the Foster Bill in 1997, made great anthropomorphic play of the unpleasant sight that it undoubtedly is but it has no relevance to the fox or to the case against hunting. However it is pertinent to note that post mortem damage of this kind to the carcass can compromise subsequent post mortem examination and establishment of the cause of death. So too will human interference with hounds at the point of kill, since it will distract the lead hound from bringing about what normally would be an almost instantaneous death.


----------



## JANICE199

*So that this thread stays open,any posts that members find offensive PLEASE report them and not bring the nasty comments on the forum.*


----------



## Cleo38

rona said:


> You can find any information you want to on that site
> Veterinary Submission by D Dugdale


I wonder if that's written by the same veterinary surgeon (David Dugdale), a *hunt supporter* that was arrested & charged for using threatening words and behaviour during a meet????

Might just be a coincidence......

Convicted Hunt Supporters


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I wonder if that's written by the same veterinary surgeon (David Dugdale), a *hunt supporter* that was arrested & charged for using threatening words and behaviour during a meet????
> 
> Convicted Hunt Supporters


That piece wasn't written by him, the quote is from the second link 

BUSTERS MUM

I think the first picture is a set up picture with a stuffed head and someones pet, as far as I am aware, no one would risk their dog working with a collar on.

*Just for reference, I cannot see any reason to repeal the hunting bill other than for mink. Hunts seem to be surviving perfectly well without setting hounds on a living creature.
I am just trying to get some balance into the conversation *


----------



## bucksmum

Jess2308 said:


> Busters Mummy - Your back-tracking now is useless. Your posts and opinions in them are shameful, and are infact what I believe the anti-hunt debaters were attempting to prove werent the "norm", but the irrational, violent and extreme side is there for all to see in your posts... Now lets imagine a gang of 20/30/40 people with the same mentality at a hunt and you can see exactly how the sabs get out of hand and violent. Well done for explaining my point of view better than I ever could
> 
> Re the pics you posted, apart from the first pic that looks like a lab (??) which as far as im aware, arent used on hunts (the pic could have come from anywhere!!), i dont see anything wrong. In the other two pics the huntsmaster is clearly taking the already dead fox away and keeping it away from the hounds. What would you rather he do with it? Just leave it on the ground to rot? Im sure your beagle would be incredibly interested in a dead fox also so I dont think the hound showing an interest in it means anything at all other than they are normal dogs. The pics have no date on them so almost certainly were taken before the ban so I dont see what the big issue is.
> 
> Thank you for leaving this thread to continue a respectful debate on both sides. I hope you dont have the urge to return, frankly I think you should have been banned for such disgusting comments...!!


Very good,knowledgable post. Once again Buster's mummy has shown how little understanding those who are protesting really have 

Buster's mummy says her beagle doesn't hunt becaused he is fed properly 

She also seems to believe hounds are hunting because they are hungry

Speaks volumes about the anti hunt protesters lack of knowledge.


----------



## Cleo38

rona said:


> That piece wasn't written by him, the quote is from the second link
> 
> BUSTERS MUM
> 
> I think the first picture is a set up picture with a stuffed head and someones pet, as far as I am aware, no one would risk their dog working with a collar on.
> 
> *Just for reference, I cannot see any reason to repeal the hunting bill other than for mink. Hunts seem to be surviving perfectly well without setting hounds on a living creature.
> I am just trying to get some balance into the conversation *


No, I could see that it was just the letter  but if it is the same person then it just goes to show that it's not the 'loutish' sab 'yobs' rolleyes who keep being portrayed as the violent protesters cuasing trouble but actually a middle class vet whose 'expert' opinions could influence laws regarding hunting, being shown up for what he is


----------



## LostGirl

How can an animal thats running for its life not get distressed? who havin a try and fight agaisnt a pack of dogs not get distressed? what utter B*****ks, sod going to a vet like him sounds like a moron.


----------



## hawksport

Cleo38 said:


> No, I could see that it was just the letter  but if it is the same person then it just goes to show that it's not the 'loutish' sab 'yobs' rolleyes who keep being portrayed as the violent protesters cuasing trouble but actually a middle class vet whose 'expert' opinions could influence laws regarding hunting, being shown up for what he is


Was he found guilty?


----------



## Cleo38

hawksport said:


> Was he found guilty?


Don't know - I'll have a look in a bit. But I think it has to be noted that hunt sabs shouldn't always be shown as the aggressors, i know i would say that given my past but the assumption here (it seems) from hunt supporters is that we were always out spoiling for a fight when (in my experience) this couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## Jess2308

rona said:


> That piece wasn't written by him, the quote is from the second link
> 
> BUSTERS MUM
> 
> I think the first picture is a set up picture with a stuffed head and someones pet, as far as I am aware, no one would risk their dog working with a collar on.
> 
> *Just for reference, I cannot see any reason to repeal the hunting bill other than for mink. Hunts seem to be surviving perfectly well without setting hounds on a living creature.
> I am just trying to get some balance into the conversation *


I havent actually said I want it brought back either 

:lol:

I would hate to see the tradition of riding to hounds gone from the countryside for those of us who love it, and the talk of toffs and all those other offensive terms that are used so often certainly indicate that its a vendetta against the people now the hunt has been banned, so i worry that they will soon petition for a complete ban on riding to hounds. But if acceptable measures of pest control with foxes are working (i havent seen any facts but hopefully they are) then i wouldnt necessarily want the actually fox hunting brought back, it doesnt make much difference to me and is not something i feel really, really strongly about  I just like to give a less biased argument to it from personal experience which i hope I have done :thumbup:

Bucksmum - thank you. It is a problem the hunting community suffer with terribly, people sabotaging the hunt without realising its a drag hunt (yes, seriously!!  ) and pulling kids off horses and injuring the horses without having the full facts of what is going on. Im all for freedom of speech and peaceful protest, and there has been violence on both sides that shouldnt be condoned, but if you are going to protest, especially to the point of violence, about something then you MUST have the facts.

I have yet to meet a beagle that wont stop hunting just cos its been fed. And I have several friends who breed them so i've met a LOT of beagles :lol:


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> I wonder if that's written by the same veterinary surgeon (David Dugdale), a *hunt supporter* that was arrested & charged for using threatening words and behaviour during a meet????
> 
> Might just be a coincidence......
> 
> Convicted Hunt Supporters


But this is the crux of the matter, you (as in sab supporters) post videos and pages of imformation that has been written by anti hunt supporter, Rona post something, and you (again not personally but as in sab supporters ) then completely dismiss it because it has been written by a hunt supporter, you can't take everything written as gospel, be it pro or anti, it will always be written with a slant towards which ever camp they stand in.


----------



## hawksport

Cleo38 said:


> Don't know - I'll have a look in a bit. But I think it has to be noted that hunt sabs shouldn't always be shown as the aggressors, i know i would say that given my past but the assumption here (it seems) from hunt supporters is that we were always out spoiling for a fight when (in my experience) this couldn't be further from the truth.


Well if he wasn't found guilty he must be innocent the same as the sab who didn't murder the supporter


----------



## Guest

Daynna said:


> How can an animal thats running for its life not get distressed? who havin a try and fight agaisnt a pack of dogs not get distressed? what utter B*****ks, sod going to a vet like him sounds like a moron.


But that is nature though, predator will alway chase victim, do you worry about the stress levels of a gazelle being chased by a pride of lions?


----------



## tashi

If any member sees anything on here that needs moderating please report it, not an easy thread for me to moderate on


----------



## Cleo38

GreyHare said:


> But this is the crux of the matter, you (as in sab supporters) post videos and pages of imformation that has been written by anti hunt supporter, Rona post something, and you (again not personally but as in sab supporters ) then completely dismiss it because it has been written by a hunt supporter, you can't take everything written as gospel, be it pro or anti, it will always be written with a slant towards which ever camp they stand in.


I wasn't dismissing anything Rona posted, I just googled one of the vet who was mentioned & some stuff came up about threatening behaviour (2 instances actually, there wa snaother incident at a demo in London) & so thought I'd post. It was merely to point out that someone such a a vet who may be asked to give his/her professional opinion regarding suffering for a fox to a government dept may be influenced in his/her judgement if they are involved in hunting & to show that even 'upstanding' members of the community are able to display aggressive actions not just the antis!
I agree that certain videos can be edited accordingly but my opinion is based, not from watching videos or reading certain literature but by actually going to hunts. Although tbh your don't need to edit videos of hunt kills to make them look barbaric .... they just are!
As for lions hunting gazelle......completely differnt.... they are hunting for food, huntswo/men are doing it for FUN!!!


----------



## Guest

Cleo38 said:


> As for lions hunting gazelle......completely differnt.... they are hunting for food, huntswo/men are doing it for FUN!!!


but is it though the fox or gazelle don't know that, they just do what their primal instinct is and run, it's us humans that view it as different as one is 'fun' one is for food.


----------



## JANICE199

GreyHare said:


> But this is the crux of the matter, you (as in sab supporters) post videos and pages of imformation that has been written by anti hunt supporter, Rona post something, and you (again not personally but as in sab supporters ) then completely dismiss it because it has been written by a hunt supporter, you can't take everything written as gospel, be it pro or anti, it will always be written with a slant towards which ever camp they stand in.


*Whilst i agree you can't take everything as gospel that you see or read,the alternative would be to go to a hunt and see it for ourselves.But as was pointed out earlier in the thread,you don't need to see things to know they go on.I myself have just been trying to look up he vet in question but can only find so far that he was charged with using threatening words and behaviour.*


----------



## Jess2308

Cleo38 said:


> As for lions hunting gazelle......completely differnt.... they are hunting for food, huntswo/men are doing it for FUN!!!


Not true. Thats just the excuse the antis use. There are plenty of drag hunts available for the FUN part of hunting, the actual fox hunts were used as the most effective form of pest control to target the weaker/older animals that are unable to outrun the hounds. Something like shooting or trapping and euthanising the foxes will not be so selective and will ultimately affect the genepool as you will be taking as many young, healthy foxes as older foxes which is not a good thing.

Hunting has gone on for centuries and kept the fox population very healthy and at acceptable levels. Since the ban there do seem to be a huge increase of foxes getting closer and closer to humans and, just look at the recent reports of the fox attacking the baby. Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


----------



## JANICE199

Jess2308 said:


> Not true. Thats just the excuse the antis use. There are plenty of drag hunts available for the FUN part of hunting, the actual fox hunts were used as the most effective form of pest control to target the weaker/older animals that are unable to outrun the hounds. Something like shooting or trapping and euthanising the foxes will not be so selective and will ultimately affect the genepool as you will be taking as many young, healthy foxes as older foxes which is not a good thing.
> 
> Hunting has gone on for centuries and kept the fox population very healthy and at acceptable levels. Since the ban there do seem to be a huge increase of foxes getting closer and closer to humans and, just look at the recent reports of the fox attacking the baby. Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


*Firstly can i say that fox hunting is not an effective way of keeping the fox population down.Secondly if the hunters can get as much fun by drag hunting why are they so against the hunting ban?*


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> But that is nature though, predator will alway chase victim, do you worry about the stress levels of a gazelle being chased by a pride of lions?


wild animals are part of an ecosystem...a food chain! how is fox hunting comparable??



Jess2308 said:


> Not true. Thats just the excuse the antis use. There are plenty of drag hunts available for the FUN part of hunting, the actual fox hunts were used as the most effective form of pest control to target the weaker/older animals that are unable to outrun the hounds. Something like shooting or trapping and euthanising the foxes will not be so selective and will ultimately affect the genepool as you will be taking as many young, healthy foxes as older foxes which is not a good thing.
> 
> Hunting has gone on for centuries and kept the fox population very healthy and at acceptable levels. Since the ban there do seem to be a huge increase of foxes getting closer and closer to humans and, just look at the recent reports of the fox attacking the baby. Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


errrm what about cubbing?????


----------



## Cleo38

Jess2308 said:


> Not true. Thats just the excuse the antis use. There are plenty of drag hunts available for the FUN part of hunting, the actual fox hunts were used as the most effective form of pest control to target the weaker/older animals that are unable to outrun the hounds. Something like shooting or trapping and euthanising the foxes will not be so selective and will ultimately affect the genepool as you will be taking as many young, healthy foxes as older foxes which is not a good thing.
> 
> Hunting has gone on for centuries and kept the fox population very healthy and at acceptable levels. Since the ban there do seem to be a huge increase of foxes getting closer and closer to humans and, just look at the recent reports of the fox attacking the baby. Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


Hold on ... so hunts are mainly targetting old or unhealthy foxes??? If so then these animals would just die anyway as they would be unable to hunt for food. Also are you saying that farmers do not shoot/trap/poison foxes if there is a local hunt? Of course they do if the animal is causing them problems so healthy foxes will still be killed.

There is no evidence that fox hunting control foxes or maintains a health fox population at all ......

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/hunting/hh_1c_sharris.pdf

As for a 'huge' increase - where are you getting your figures from? I haven't seen vast numbers around since the ban was introuduced at all


----------



## tashi

*Can I just remind members of the original post and what this thread is all about, now going off topic *

We keep hearing about the fox in the press and on television just lately but i would honestly like this question answerd.Do you think that hunt saboteurs are wrong to try and help our foxes?
Until a few weeks ago i honestly thought all hunt saboteurs were a sandwich short of a picnic.But now i have seen the other side of the coin.Take a look at this short documentry and tell me who are the idiots.
YouTube - Revenge TV

Poll Options
ARE HUNT SABOTEURES WRONG?
YES I THINK THEY ARE
NO THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND THE FOX
NOT BOTHERD 
View Poll Results


----------



## Jess2308

tashi said:


> *Can I just remind members of the original post and what this thread is all about, now going off topic *
> 
> We keep hearing about the fox in the press and on television just lately but i would honestly like this question answerd.Do you think that hunt saboteurs are wrong to try and help our foxes?
> Until a few weeks ago i honestly thought all hunt saboteurs were a sandwich short of a picnic.But now i have seen the other side of the coin.Take a look at this short documentry and tell me who are the idiots.
> YouTube - Revenge TV
> 
> Poll Options
> ARE HUNT SABOTEURES WRONG?
> YES I THINK THEY ARE
> NO THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND THE FOX
> NOT BOTHERD
> View Poll Results


Good point, sorry


----------



## Guest

Daynna said:


> How can an animal thats running for its life not get distressed? who havin a try and fight agaisnt a pack of dogs not get distressed? what utter B*****ks, sod going to a vet like him sounds like a moron.


I think you need to read the whole article, it seemed a very balanced view to me. The bit I highlighted just shows how views can be made to seem valid.



Jess2308 said:


> Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


I really don't think this is the case, the town fox is a very different creature to those timid foxes in the countryside and have exploded in population because of their proximity to human waste 



tashi said:


> *Can I just remind members of the original post and what this thread is all about, now going off topic *


I don't see how this has gone off topic 
It's an evolving conversation, one or two have got a little heated, but generally it's been covering the main points. How can you give an opinion without investigating all sides?


----------



## JANICE199

tashi said:


> *Can I just remind members of the original post and what this thread is all about, now going off topic *
> 
> We keep hearing about the fox in the press and on television just lately but i would honestly like this question answerd.Do you think that hunt saboteurs are wrong to try and help our foxes?
> Until a few weeks ago i honestly thought all hunt saboteurs were a sandwich short of a picnic.But now i have seen the other side of the coin.Take a look at this short documentry and tell me who are the idiots.
> YouTube - Revenge TV
> 
> Poll Options
> ARE HUNT SABOTEURES WRONG?
> YES I THINK THEY ARE
> NO THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND THE FOX
> NOT BOTHERD
> View Poll Results


*:lol::lol: lmao tashi i read that and thought..." that reads like my 1st post"...god i can be such a plank sometimes.:lol::lol:*


----------



## Fuzzbugs!x

Where are all these big brave town foxes ? Seriously though, I live in Glasgow and there are lots of foxes who freeze the minute they see you then do the off! Theres soo many in the fields and graveyard that are practically beside my house - yet our bins never get raided ect? I have a cat who is teeny and comes and goes as he pleases - but the foxes dont seem to bother him? Or my neighbours rabbits in the garden? My dad stays in Lanark though and I bumped in to a hunt a few years ago out there. Honestly, the people looked like muppets - screaming, shouting and the dogs were completely out of control. It was madness, barbaric looking. So i'd love for the 'hunt' people to explain this to me .. if the hunt rarely catches a fox, and if they do its an old or sick fox which would die soon anyway, then what is the point in the hunt? I mean does it make it acceptable to chase down and terrify one animal with countless simply because it won't get caught? Does that mean I can shoot at you - as long as I miss, I mean it's no big deal? I'll even get some mates and it can be a social outing for us all! We're supposed to be a civilised society. Think about the deep hatred of bull breeds that is starting to spread through this country - people have more reason to kill them than they do foxes. Countless attacks, various kids dead .. you see where i'm going? BTW i adore bull breeds - but you can hardly sit there and say hunting is okay or a cull of foxes is acceptable then say oh but not dogs! Dogs are a pest to alot of people. I think the hunt sabotuers (sp) have every right to protect foxes - as much as you do to protect your furry family.


----------



## LostGirl

GreyHare said:


> But that is nature though, predator will alway chase victim, do you worry about the stress levels of a gazelle being chased by a pride of lions?


 Actaully yes i do dislike watching those sort of things anyway

Fox hunting is not Natural tho is it, One on one or a small pack of dogs hunting down a fox for food is. A pack of 40 plus dogs Along with horse (who yes i dont know dont kill the fox before anyone tries to be a smart arse) and Humans chasing one apparently Dying/old fox isnt anywhere near a natural act is it?!

From what ive seen/read Actual fox hunting isnt very good as according some post on here they hardly get the fox in the end away so how can it be a good form of pest control?!?

Poor excuses to why people want to see animals ripped apart imo.

sabs if being extreme should be punished, they shouldnt be targetting children e.t.c


----------



## Guest

Daynna said:


> Actaully yes i do dislike watching those sort of things anyway
> 
> Fox hunting is not Natural tho is it, One on one or a small pack of dogs hunting down a fox for food is. A pack of 40 plus dogs Along with horse (who yes i dont know dont kill the fox before anyone tries to be a smart arse) and Humans chasing one apparently Dying/old fox isnt anywhere near a natural act is it?!


A dog chasing another animal is nature though, as you know all dogs decended from wolves who by nature hunt by chasing prey, so it is natural behaviour on behalf of the dogs, the people on horses following the dogs may not be but, yes a dog tracking a scent is natural.

There is nothing more cruel than nature itself.


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> Not true. Thats just the excuse the antis use. There are plenty of drag hunts available for the FUN part of hunting, the actual fox hunts were used as the most effective form of pest control to target the weaker/older animals that are unable to outrun the hounds. Something like shooting or trapping and euthanising the foxes will not be so selective and will ultimately affect the genepool as you will be taking as many young, healthy foxes as older foxes which is not a good thing.
> 
> Hunting has gone on for centuries and kept the fox population very healthy and at acceptable levels. Since the ban there do seem to be a huge increase of foxes getting closer and closer to humans and, just look at the recent reports of the fox attacking the baby. Possibly due to overpopulation in the countryside so they are having to move into towns and come into contact with us?? Hmm...


are you comparing fox hunting to a wild animal hunting its prey?

as i said before hunts go cubbing! this is how they train their young hounds to hunt and kill, the baby foxes are completely and utterly inexperienced and still dependant on their mothers, these arnt old/weak animals so how can anyone justify this?

and its thought that foxes moved into towns in the 1st place because of persecution from the hunts!


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> A dog chasing another animal is nature though, as you know all dogs decended from wolves who by nature hunt by chasing prey, so it is natural behaviour on behalf of the dogs, the people on horses following the dogs may not be but, yes a dog tracking a scent is natural.
> 
> There is nothing more cruel than nature itself.


in nature species evolve alongside one another this creates a balance as only the fittest survive, there is nothing at all natural in training dogs to hunt foxes, wolves wouldnt set out to hunt them either!


----------



## kaz_f

Regarding effectiveness - There are statistics to suggest that twice as many foxes were killed by shooting than by hunting with dogs when it was actually legal to do so, so it's going back a few years (2004 I think) and you wouldn't get any comparable statistics now. Lamp and rifle method returned a far greater number of kills than any hunts could so statistically speaking I don't think there's any way hunting could be argued as an effective control method.

I'm not promoting lamping please don't get me wrong but if we are talking merely about stats and instantaneous death* (*in the vast majority of cases) lamping would come out as way more effective. I think therefore that it needs to be considered in the bag along with other methods as an alternative but of course each method comes with its own different set of considerations and potential problems.

Sorry - I sound really blunt but to me it is the blatant cruelty element of it that for me is the biggest problem and is what I feel should be stamped out effectively and permanently.

I hear what people are saying about tradition and whilst I kind of understand the wish to hold onto traditions there are lots of wholly unacceptable traditions that we have lost and I am not convinced that the decision on hunting should be based on tradition alone and I really feel that it isn't possible to argue it as an effective control method.

The other argument I guess people pull out of the hat is fun...

We'll never all agree on this issue but still it's good to hear everyones viewpoints - you're an interesting lot!

BTW I'd like to add that before anyone accuses me of being a 'townie' or not having witnessed hunts - you'd be about as wrong as it's possible to be.


----------



## kaz_f

And sorry I've just realised that's really off topic!


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> in nature species evolve alongside one another this creates a balance as only the fittest survive, there is nothing at all natural in training dogs to hunt foxes, wolves wouldnt set out to hunt them either!


Thats untrue a wolf would kill any other predator that it found within its territory as it is competing for resources. There was a very good program about the Wolves in Yellow Stone Park and they not only kill foxes and their cubs they will also kill other wolves if caught within their territory.

The balance would have been kept by nature here but unfortunately we removed the predators that would have kept them in check wolves being one of their predators (look at the reintroduction into Scotland and the fuss that has caused) so we have to maintain numbers that is our responsibility for destroying their habitat and environment.


----------



## LostGirl

GreyHare said:


> A dog chasing another animal is nature though.


did i not just say that??!


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> of course they keep rabbits in check its their main prey source(i dont mean urban foxes) heres a bit of info for you ........
> 
> Rabbits cause most agricultural losses but farmers tend to underestimate their losses due to rabbit grazing. At 1998 prices, one study estimated that, each year, a single rabbit would cost a farmer £6.50 eating winter wheat, £1.40 eating spring barley and £3.40 eating grazing pasture.
> 
> Rabbit make up the largest proportion of the diet of foxes in rural areasIn rural areas of Britain, 45% to 70% of the diet of foxes is made up by rabbits. During its lifetime, by eating rabbits each fox might be worth £150-£900 in increased revenue to farmers.
> 
> In areas with high levels of predator control, where fox density is lower, rabbit density is higher and there seems to a negative link between predator control and rabbit abundance, i.e. rabbits seem to thrive where there are fewer foxes.
> 
> dont really see what point youre trying to make in your next paragraph but i pretty much agree with you on most of it anyway, im passionate about all aspects of the environment and use to help out at a local hedgehog hospital before it was closed through lack of funding :frown:
> 
> it was tragic what happened to the twins but i dont agree with the persecution of all the innocent foxes in the vicinity. And if bringing hunting with hounds to the fore does the fox favours then i shall continue to do so


1998 is an awful long time ago and alot has changed since then including rabbit populations and management. If foxes made such a large impact myxomatosis would never have been introduced to kill off Rabbit populations and we wouldn't have starvation of foxes during large parts of the year because of over population.

Regarding the twins if they cannot identify the animal that did it then they HAVE to cull those local as these particular foxes do keep visiting the area and you can't risk children. That would be totally unacceptable and it also where the fox becomes a PEST as it is categorised by legal legislation.

I don't agree with killing for the sake of killing but I do agree with keeping the balance and unless you have a suitable cost effect alternative that can cover the same amount of ground as a fox hound pack then you aren't really helping the fox your just creating more of a problem and eventually more will be killed.

You might feel better that its not by hounds but would you be happy if as a direct result of your actions, your beliefs that more foxes were killed?? How is that winning the battle in favour of the fox??

Someone has to take up the slack and if its a person with a gun there is no distinction between old and young.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> 1998 is an awful long time ago and alot has changed since then including rabbit populations and management. If foxes made such a large impact myxomatosis would never have been introduced to kill off Rabbit populations and we wouldn't have starvation of foxes during large parts of the year because of over population.
> 
> Regarding the twins if they cannot identify the animal that did it then they HAVE to cull those local as these particular foxes do keep visiting the area and you can't risk children. That would be totally unacceptable and it also where the fox becomes a PEST as it is categorised by legal legislation.
> 
> I don't agree with killing for the sake of killing but I do agree with keeping the balance and unless you have a suitable cost effect alternative that can cover the same amount of ground as a fox hound pack then you aren't really helping the fox your just creating more of a problem and eventually more will be killed.
> 
> You might feel better that its not by hounds but would you be happy if as a direct result of your actions, your beliefs that more foxes were killed?? How is that winning the battle in favour of the fox??
> 
> Someone has to take up the slack and if its a person with a gun there is no distinction between old and young.


I've never heard about foxes starving. Where did this fact come from?
I think fox hunting is still such an issue because so many people have participated in the "sport" for much of their lives and there seemed to be huge financial gains for the rural communities surrounding hunting.
What a lot of hunts seem to have found is that they now have more people participating than ever before. Mainly due to the fact that people can now go and have a good ride on a drag hunt and not have to participate in the death of an animal.
Just my own views here.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> Thats untrue a wolf would kill any other predator that it found within its territory as it is competing for resources. There was a very good program about the Wolves in Yellow Stone Park and they not only kill foxes and their cubs they will also kill other wolves if caught within their territory.
> 
> The balance would have been kept by nature here but unfortunately we removed the predators that would have kept them in check wolves being one of their predators (look at the reintroduction into Scotland and the fuss that has caused) so we have to maintain numbers that is our responsibility for destroying their habitat and environment.


I never said they wouldnt kill a fox i meant a pack of wolves wouldnt waste their energy hunting down a fox like a pack of hounds are trained to do!

and actually foxes are thriving in yellowstone since the reintroduction of the wolf

Without wolves, their smaller cousins, the coyotes, became more numerous. Coyotes feed on everything from elk calves to insects. But they eat mostly small rodents such as ground squirrels. With too many coyotes, life became harder for other small predators like foxes and badgers.

i'll reply to your other post when i get back.


----------



## nfp20

There have been some great BBC wildlife programs that have highlighted the starvation of rural foxes who have had to resort taking family pets (rabbits, chickens, guineapigs, fruit and veg as they will eat anything going) and going through the rubbish to survive normally they wouldn't have to resort to coming anywhere near people and you would rarely see them. Rescue centres are also a good place they help to recover foxes whose condition isn't just as a result of injury.

You will also find in poorly managed populations that the old and those say for an example that suffer from mange who would usually be dispatched by the hunt before they become to far gone often starve to death its a common problem sadly.

Even on some of the food programs like Nigel Slaters Simple Suppers have highlighted issues with foxes this weeks program they were eating his courgettes  I'm not a fan of those so they are welcome to them :thumbup:

I think to make a complaint you have to be able to provide a suitable alternative and sadly very rarely do people making complaints actively participate in a resolution of the problem, if you give a good and usable solution then you find they have less of a defence for using methods you don't agree with its no use just using the fluffy argument of I don't like to see an animal killed - you see it everytime you watch a wildlife program nature is cruel.


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> I never said they wouldnt kill a fox i meant a pack of wolves wouldnt waste their energy hunting down a fox like a pack of hounds are trained to do!
> 
> and actually foxes are thriving in yellowstone since the reintroduction of the wolf
> 
> Without wolves, their smaller cousins, the coyotes, became more numerous. Coyotes feed on everything from elk calves to insects. But they eat mostly small rodents such as ground squirrels. With too many coyotes, life became harder for other small predators like foxes and badgers.
> 
> i'll reply to your other post when i get back.


The benefit of keeping the balance... :thumbup:

A wolf pack will actually follow another preditor in their territory mercilessly for miles similar to a hound pack if its new scent.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> The benefit of keeping the balance... :thumbup:
> 
> A wolf pack will actually follow another preditor in their territory mercilessly for miles similar to a hound pack if its new scent.


omg im never going to get any work done

im 100% for restoring a 'natural' balance but our wolves have gone and actually i find it hard to believe a whole pack would follow a fox for miles to kill it, this is very interesting...Foxes - Foxes have been observed stealing from wolf kills, wolves have been know to steal fox dens, wolves have been known to kill foxes, though it is rare, more often than not they ignore these tiny predators.

but my point is a wolf hunting in a pack just to kill a fox would be rare and a complete waste of their energy, foxes arnt much competition to wolves, wolves prey on much bigger animals in saying that i have no doubt that a wolf would kill any unsuspecting fox it came across, but training dogs to hunt them is unnatural and inhumane, it does nothing to restore a balance as i said previously hunts encourage foxes to breed by creating artificial earths for them anyway, also i believe far more foxes are killed on our roads,by farmers etc then would ever have been killed by wolves so this reduces their numbers by the thousands!


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> if fox hunting is really about controlling populations Why do hunts encourage foxes to breed by creating artificial dens?
> 
> and ive scoured the net and cant find a single scrap of evidence that proves foxes kills foals they dont even kill many lambs so i find it hard to believe they tackle something a large as a foal who has an even larger mother, its more likely to have been a loose dog.


The internet doesn't report everything  And you would have to troll through an awful lot of info on hunting before you got to any reports.

We had several foals killed all taken within the first 24hrs of life and this happened a few years in a row with one adult teaching her young to do it nr Arundel. Hence the gun that was kept to kill it loaded with shot covered in rat poison that I ended up being shot with and I know the details of my own shooting and I would hate to be called a liar.

I certainly paid the price personally for that fox, if it hadn't been doing the damage that it was then the gun would never have been in the house and I would not as a consequence have been shot.

I presume this was not the sort of thing that the national press were interested in when the story was a 10yr old child being shot near fatal in the head so I doubt that it got reported about the foals although my shotgun accident was in detail in the local papers. The gun was not owned by a farmer but a Horse Yard. Originally it was thought to be dogs they were just as surprised when it turned out to be a fox.

They actually hung around during the birth when the mare was weak and unable to defend herself or her foal in the early hours of the morning. Sadly she wasn't a horse that could be boxed and birthed her foals in her field usually very successfully. You can't watch them 24hrs and the people I worked for had a business to run. I am sure it is rare but it does happen.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> The internet doesn't report everything  And you would have to troll through an awful lot of info on hunting before you got to any reports.
> 
> We had several foals killed all taken within the first 24hrs of life and this happened a few years in a row with one adult teaching her young to do it nr Arundel. Hence the gun that was kept to kill it loaded with shot covered in rat poison that I ended up being shot with and I know the details of my own shooting and I would hate to be called a liar.
> 
> I certainly paid the price personally for that fox, if it hadn't been doing the damage that it was then the gun would never have been in the house and I would not as a consequence have been shot.
> 
> I presume this was not the sort of thing that the national press were interested in when the story was a 10yr old child being shot near fatal in the head so I doubt that it got reported about the foals although my shotgun accident was in detail in the local papers. The gun was not owned by a farmer but a Horse Yard. Originally it was thought to be dogs they were just as surprised when it turned out to be a fox.
> 
> They actually hung around during the birth when the mare was weak and unable to defend herself or her foal in the early hours of the morning. Sadly she wasn't a horse that could be boxed and birthed her foals in her field usually very successfully. You can't watch them 24hrs and the people I worked for had a business to run. I am sure it is rare but it does happen.


then im sorry for your losses and really sorry to hear you were injured, but as you say its a rare occurence so why persecute all foxes? it seems very irrational to me, sadly this is the fate of all predators when they come into conflict with man the whole species is persecuted.


----------



## Jess2308

It is called fox "control" not fox "persecution" 

The intention is merely to keep numbers at a manageable level, not to wipe the species out altogether as you seem to imply. With fox hunting going as long as it has, if that was the aim then there would be no foxes left, they'd have become extinct decades ago. Instead they have flourished with healthy gene pools due to careful control of them. As mentioned previously, their only natural predator is no longer here, so if left to go out of control it would mean a real problem for the rest of our native wildlife.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Jess2308 said:


> It is called fox "control" not fox "persecution"
> 
> The intention is merely to keep numbers at a manageable level, not to wipe the species out altogether as you seem to imply. With fox hunting going as long as it has, if that was the aim then there would be no foxes left, they'd have become extinct decades ago. Instead they have flourished with healthy gene pools due to careful control of them. As mentioned previously, their only natural predator is no longer here, so if left to go out of control it would mean a real problem for the rest of our native wildlife.


*Fox population does not need controlling as they regulate themselves. I have no idea why this keeps being said when wildlife experts will tell you this themselves.*


----------



## Jess2308

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Fox population does not need controlling as they regulate themselves. I have no idea why this keeps being said when wildlife experts will tell you this themselves.*


If there were no humans in the world it would be fine. But if fox populations are not controlled and the overpopulation of them in the (diminishing) countryside is not alleviated we will have more and more moving into towns to live and feed and then we will have yet more stories of them attacking pets/people *and then* we will have yet more "persecution" of the species as they will soon lose favour with people if more stories of them attacking children appear.


----------



## piggybaker

I started to read this thread but then it started to swim in front of my eyes with an age old arguement,,,, 

I am going to have a say,, I think people who claim to be saboteurs really only care about causeing trouble and use it as a good excuse for a punch up, the real ones who care about the fox seem to have their heads screwed on properly.


----------



## Jess2308

piggybaker said:


> I started to read this thread but then it started to swim in front of my eyes with an age old arguement,,,,
> 
> I am going to have a say,, I think people who claim to be saboteurs really only care about causeing trouble and use it as a good excuse for a punch up, the real ones who care about the fox seem to have their heads screwed on properly.


Agree 100%, very well said :thumbup:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Jess2308 said:


> If there were no humans in the world it would be fine. But if fox populations are not controlled and the overpopulation of them in the (diminishing) countryside is not alleviated we will have more and more moving into towns to live and feed and then we will have yet more stories of them attacking pets/people *and then* we will have yet more "persecution" of the species as they will soon lose favour with people if more stories of them attacking children appear.


*Here are a few links (yes i have read them)...There are many more to be found that prove hunting does NOT make any difference to the population of foxes. Moreover the problem with urban foxes would be down to people's negligence...I.E...leaving their rubbish/food scraps out, feeding them, etc.....as foxes regulate their breeding due to the availibilty of food.

Learning to live with urban foxes - Scotland on Sunday

Foxes

Fox Hunting and How to Stop It

The fox website | FAQs | Foxhunting*


----------



## Guest

Jess2308 said:


> It is called fox "control" not fox "persecution"
> 
> The intention is merely to keep numbers at a manageable level, not to wipe the species out altogether as you seem to imply. With fox hunting going as long as it has, if that was the aim then there would be no foxes left, they'd have become extinct decades ago. Instead they have flourished with healthy gene pools due to careful control of them. As mentioned previously, their only natural predator is no longer here, so if left to go out of control it would mean a real problem for the rest of our native wildlife.


can you answer me this then..if fox hunting is about 'control' Why do hunts encourage foxes to breed?

and i would say the car and man are responsible for far more fox casualties than the wolf ever was.

this makes an interesting read

Foxes & agriculture: Agricultural benefits

Rabbits are one of the main agricultural pests in Britain. In the mid-1980s, damage by rabbits caused an estimated loss of £120 million, compared to badgers, causing losses of up to £60 million, and brown rats and house mice together, caused losses of up to £30 million.

Foxes caused about £12 million of losses but this needs to be put in perspective by considering that rabbits are the main prey of foxes in rural areas. By eating rabbits, the adult fox population provides an indirect economic benefit to farmers of at least £7 million annually (using a conservative estimate). Because fox benefits to agriculture largely offset their costs, foxes are probably economically neutral to farmers.

A few numbers
Rabbits cause most agricultural losses but farmers tend to underestimate their losses due to rabbit grazing. At 1998 prices, one study estimated that, each year, a single rabbit would cost a farmer £6.50 eating winter wheat, £1.40 eating spring barley and £3.40 eating grazing pasture.

Rabbit make up the largest proportion of the diet of foxes in rural areas.

In rural areas of Britain, 45% to 70% of the diet of foxes is made up by rabbits. During its lifetime, by eating rabbits each fox might be worth £150-£900 in increased revenue to farmers.

In areas with high levels of predator control, where fox density is lower, rabbit density is higher and there seems to a negative link between predator control and rabbit abundance, i.e. rabbits seem to thrive where there are fewer foxes



piggybaker said:


> I started to read this thread but then it started to swim in front of my eyes with an age old arguement,,,,
> 
> I am going to have a say,, I think people who claim to be saboteurs really only care about causeing trouble and use it as a good excuse for a punch up, the real ones who care about the fox seem to have their heads screwed on properly.


well ive never had a good punch up in my life


----------



## JANICE199

piggybaker said:


> I started to read this thread but then it started to swim in front of my eyes with an age old arguement,,,,
> 
> I am going to have a say,, I think people who claim to be saboteurs really only care about causeing trouble and use it as a good excuse for a punch up, the real ones who care about the fox seem to have their heads screwed on properly.


*So are you saying the sabs are in the right or the hunters? If you read some of the links given you will find most of the trouble is caused by the hunters.*


----------



## piggybaker

JANICE199 said:


> *So are you saying the sabs are in the right or the hunters? If you read some of the links given you will find most of the trouble is caused by the hunters.*


No I am saying that some sabs not all of them the ones who are honest and are fighting the cause don't cause the trouble they realise the things are delicate and do no want to exsabate(SP) the situation
But the ones who are out for the rumble and you know what i mean just give the sabs a bad name so the hunters tar them all with the same brush,,, god I hate not being able to speak face to face on these subjects..

do you get what i mean now..


----------



## JANICE199

piggybaker said:


> No I am saying that some sabs not all of them the ones who are honest and are fighting the cause don't cause the trouble they realise the things are delicate and do no want to exsabate(SP) the situation
> But the ones who are out for the rumble and you know what i mean just give the sabs a bad name so the hunters tar them all with the same brush,,, god I hate not being able to speak face to face on these subjects..
> 
> do you get what i mean now..


*Haha i'm the same,i find it much easier talking face to face,and yes i got what you meant.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

piggybaker said:


> No I am saying that some sabs not all of them the ones who are honest and are fighting the cause don't cause the trouble they realise the things are delicate and do no want to exsabate(SP) the situation
> But the ones who are out for the rumble and you know what i mean just give the sabs a bad name so the hunters tar them all with the same brush,,, god I hate not being able to speak face to face on these subjects..
> 
> do you get what i mean now..


*I agree and have said before i DO NOT condone any violence by extremists. They do not help the cause they actually harm the cause we are fighting for. But the extremists really are in the minority and should be dealt with accordingly so as the rest of us who are genuinely only caring about wildlife/animal welfare won't get tarred with the same brush. *


----------



## bucksmum

piggybaker said:


> I started to read this thread but then it started to swim in front of my eyes with an age old arguement,,,,
> 
> I am going to have a say,, I think people who claim to be saboteurs really only care about causeing trouble and use it as a good excuse for a punch up, the real ones who care about the fox seem to have their heads screwed on properly.


Best post there has been on this debate  sums it all up fantastically


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *So are you saying the sabs are in the right or the hunters? If you read some of the links given you will find most of the trouble is caused by the hunters.*


This covers all breaches of the act, not just fox hunters
There is a table lower down the page  
Convictions: Hunting Act 2004: 30 Mar 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

I couldn't find the numbers on Sabs.


----------



## nfp20

Jess2308 said:


> It is called fox "control" not fox "persecution"
> 
> The intention is merely to keep numbers at a manageable level, not to wipe the species out altogether as you seem to imply. With fox hunting going as long as it has, if that was the aim then there would be no foxes left, they'd have become extinct decades ago. Instead they have flourished with healthy gene pools due to careful control of them. As mentioned previously, their only natural predator is no longer here, so if left to go out of control it would mean a real problem for the rest of our native wildlife.





Jess2308 said:


> If there were no humans in the world it would be fine. But if fox populations are not controlled and the overpopulation of them in the (diminishing) countryside is not alleviated we will have more and more moving into towns to live and feed and then we will have yet more stories of them attacking pets/people *and then* we will have yet more "persecution" of the species as they will soon lose favour with people if more stories of them attacking children appear.


Jess is absolutely right it is about 'keeping the balance' not about persecution of a species. If we don't other species are effected the fox in yellow stone park is a good example that was pointed out to have improved with the introduction of a larger predatory species.


----------



## Cleo38

nfp20 said:


> Jess is absolutely right it is about 'keeping the balance' not about persecution of a species. If we don't other species are effected the fox in yellow stone park is a good example that was pointed out to have improved with the introduction of a larger predatory species.


But there is no evidence to suggest that fox hunting controls numbers


----------



## Guest

Well! here is where I am on this one! Walking into a chicken shed as a five year old and finding 29 bodies out of 30, YEp there are areas where the fox needs controlling. Should foxes be ripped to shreeds after running to exhaustion - purely for the enjoyment of men?? NO the answer is no!


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> then im sorry for your losses and really sorry to hear you were injured, but as you say its a rare occurence so why persecute all foxes? it seems very irrational to me, sadly this is the fate of all predators when they come into conflict with man the whole species is persecuted.


You do me an injustice I don't hold the fox responsible the gun caused my injury not the fox itself  I certainly don't want to persecute or kill an animal unnecessarily far from it. I shoot myself and I actively (when not on mummy duties) work my dogs in a beating line on several shoots. I believe in knowing where my food has come from and providing it where possible. If you have to be a meat eater you should be personally accountable from birth to death.

If this debate had been lacking in a good defense for the fox I would have played devils advocate


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Cleo38 said:


> But there is no evidence to suggest that fox hunting controls numbers


*I have said this many times and have showed proof that it does NOT control numbers but oddly this seems to be overlooked. *


----------



## kaz_f

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *I have said this many times and have showed proof that it does NOT control numbers but oddly this seems to be overlooked. *


Same here...


----------



## JANICE199

*For those of you still having doubts please take a look at this.Its not propaganda it will answer many of the questions you might want to know.
SAVE ME 2010 | Lame Claims - Brian May's answers to pro-hunt lame claims!*


----------



## nfp20

Is there any proof it doesn't? Sorry but I have seen two very good hunts and the areas they help to manage and they are effective. The foxes are in good condition, produce litters in safety without the loss of the parent to a gun or alternative and the areas are still productive (both have good pheasant shoots on the ground and they help by popping some carcuses into specific areas when they are available for the foxes) not everyone in the countryside is out to kill them on sight some actually just want to keep a healthy population. These also have the benefit of beetle banks which the foxes also benefit from.


----------



## Guest

For anyone that is interested, but I doubt there are many that are :lol:

Leading animal rights activist defects to Countryside Alliance - and now says hunting with dogs is 'beneficial' | Mail Online

ASA - ASA Adjudication on Lush Retail Ltd


----------



## Cleo38

In post 392 I posted a link form the DEFRA website that detailed studies in to fox population & control - no evidence that hunting (with hounds) had any impact.
There seems to be 2 arguements here regarding the of hunting foxes; some people have said that they rarely see foxes caught so there is minmal imapct/suffering to foxes but then others are saying that hunting control the fox population???? I'm confused 

Why don't people just admit that they like a nice day out in the countryside & either -

couldn't care less that an animal suffers at the end of it
enjoy killing an animal for fun
All the other reasons seem like poor excuses really!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

nfp20 said:


> Is there any proof it doesn't? Sorry but I have seen two very good hunts and the areas they help to manage and they are effective. The foxes are in good condition, produce litters in safety without the loss of the parent to a gun or alternative and the areas are still productive (both have good pheasant shoots on the ground and they help by popping some carcuses into specific areas when they are available for the foxes) not everyone in the countryside is out to kill them on sight some actually just want to keep a healthy population. These also have the benefit of beetle banks which the foxes also benefit from.


*I posted many links with proof showing it does not control fox population as they regulate themselves depending on how scarce food is.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Cleo38 said:


> In post 392 I posted a link form the DEFRA website that detailed studies in to fox population & control - no evidence that hunting (with hounds) had any impact.
> There seems to be 2 arguements here regarding the of hunting foxes; some people have said that they rarely see foxes caught so there is minmal imapct/suffering to foxes but then others are saying that hunting control the fox population???? I'm confused
> 
> Why don't people just admit that they like a nice day out in the countryside & either -
> 
> couldn't care less that an animal suffers at the end of it
> enjoy killing an animal for fun
> All the other reasons seem like poor excuses really!


*You've hit the nail on the head there. As much as im against bloodsports i would respect someone more for admitting their real reasons for taking part in such activities rather than make excuses which are always proved unfounded.*


----------



## Spellweaver

yorkigirl said:


> 36 pages of debate and the antis begin to show there true colours


Just catching up so apologies if someone has said this already - but this post is unfair. This debate has been a good and friendly debate on both sides - pro-hunters and anti-hunters alike. To tar all anti hunters on this thread with the colours of one extremist is wrong - but by doing this you have inadvertantly given a very good example of how pro-hunters try to convince people that all sabs are violent because of the actions of an odd few.


----------



## Spellweaver

nfp20 said:


> I think to make a complaint you have to be able to provide a suitable alternative and sadly very rarely do people making complaints actively participate in a resolution of the problem, if you give a good and usable solution then you find they have less of a defence for using methods you don't agree with its no use just using the fluffy argument of I don't like to see an animal killed - you see it everytime you watch a wildlife program nature is cruel.


I think you will find that several times the people complaining about fox hunting have provided good and usable solutions to how to deal with the problem of foxes as a pest - from making livestock more secure to setting humane traps from which animals can either be released or killed safely and humanely. It's not the fact that an animal is being killed that most anti-hunters are angry about - it's the method of that killing, and the fact that all the suffering it causes is totally unnecessary.


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Fox population does not need controlling as they regulate themselves. I have no idea why this keeps being said when wildlife experts will tell you this themselves.*


It is being said because it gives the hunters an excuse to hunt!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> It is being said because it gives the hunters an excuse to hunt!


*That's the trouble though, isn't it?....They are full of excuses but have nothing to back those excuses up with...BUT when we respond giving proof of how their excuses do not hold up, oddly they fail to read those posts.*


----------



## Spellweaver

Cleo38 said:


> In post 392 I posted a link form the DEFRA website that detailed studies in to fox population & control - no evidence that hunting (with hounds) had any impact.
> There seems to be 2 arguements here regarding the of hunting foxes; some people have said that they rarely see foxes caught so there is minmal imapct/suffering to foxes but then others are saying that hunting control the fox population???? I'm confused
> 
> Why don't people just admit that they like a nice day out in the countryside & either -
> 
> couldn't care less that an animal suffers at the end of it
> enjoy killing an animal for fun
> All the other reasons seem like poor excuses really!


Spot on, hun!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*An interesting article (the same guy Shamen has in their siggy) about a huntsman who found it cruel and sickening, changed his opinion and then joined 'League against cruel sports'.

He tells of a pregnant vixen who was ripped open by the hounds and how the master put the heel of his boot on them and crushed them into the ground.

I saw pregnant vixen have her pups torn from her stomach and crushed under the Master's heels; Ex-huntsman tells of barbarity. - Free Online Library
*


----------



## Trackerbob

Personally, having been heavily involved in hunting in the past, I feel that it is important to draw a distinction between _hunting_ and _killing_.

I support the act of hunting in so far as hounds following a scent, however I am against the act of hunting an animal with a view to kill it.

I own 5 hounds, and have worked with packs in the past, and I know for a fact that they hunt purely because they love it, and it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the hound whether they are hunting an artificial scent or an animal, and it has already been proven that the 'pest control' argument is irrelevant.

So bearing this in mind, I feel that Hunt _Monitors_ are a legitimate means to ensure a hunt is practicing within the boundaries of the Act (which we all know they don't,) and when Hunts do not comply, it is reasonable that individuals or organisations (aka Saboteurs) would seek to disrupt any illegal activities, in the same way one might prevent a Burglar from entering a neighbour's premises.

Unfortunately Hunt Saboteurs often resort to extreme methods in disrupting hunting, which ultimately portrays them as being the villains, rather than practicing more legitimate, peaceful, and well considered actions to prevent the violent death of a quarry.


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> 1998 is an awful long time ago and alot has changed since then including rabbit populations and management. If foxes made such a large impact myxomatosis would never have been introduced to kill off Rabbit populations and we wouldn't have starvation of foxes during large parts of the year because of over population.
> 
> Regarding the twins if they cannot identify the animal that did it then they HAVE to cull those local as these particular foxes do keep visiting the area and you can't risk children. That would be totally unacceptable and it also where the fox becomes a PEST as it is categorised by legal legislation.
> 
> I don't agree with killing for the sake of killing but I do agree with keeping the balance and unless you have a suitable cost effect alternative that can cover the same amount of ground as a fox hound pack then you aren't really helping the fox your just creating more of a problem and eventually more will be killed.
> 
> You might feel better that its not by hounds but would you be happy if as a direct result of your actions, your beliefs that more foxes were killed?? How is that winning the battle in favour of the fox??
> 
> Someone has to take up the slack and if its a person with a gun there is no distinction between old and young.


1998 was only 12yrs ago rabbit populations have fluctuated before and since then and only a few weeks ago on another fox thread several hunt supporters were saying how they have to go out and control rabbit populations in their area.

please dont tell me that hunts only target sick or old foxes they target what ever they happen to flush out, and will anyone tell me what they think about 'cubbing'??????????



nfp20 said:


> If this debate had been lacking in a good defense for the fox I would have played devils advocate


Naughty!


----------



## Cleo38

yorkigirl said:


> On every post the antis disagrred with they have come back with an answer. The fact that non answered this post made me think you all agreed with it. If in the field and on here you distanced yourself from people like this and condemed there actions you might have a bit more credibility. *If you ship transit van loads of people like this to hunt meets it is hardly suprising one or two followers get a bit upset and give them a tap with a crop.* Had one of the pros had written this I am sure the other pros would of shown there ojection to the post. The only thing that suprises me is you havnt tried to claim she was a pro posing as an anti trying to get the thread closed


So basically if hunt sabs turn up & get a 'tap with a crop' (aka a good kicking!) it's their fault for protesting??!!!


----------



## Guest

yorkigirl said:


> On every post the antis disagrred with they have come back with an answer. The fact that non answered this post made me think you all agreed with it. If in the field and on here you distanced yourself from people like this and condemed there actions you might have a bit more credibility. If you ship transit van loads of people like this to hunt meets it is hardly suprising one or two followers get a bit upset and give them a tap with a crop. Had one of the pros had written this I am sure the other pros would of shown there ojection to the post. The only thing that suprises me is you havnt tried to claim she was a pro posing as an anti trying to get the thread closed


The thread so far has been well tempered and generally pretty rational. There is no point dragging it down by focussing on one irrational post, that didnt really bring anything to the table.

Sadly, yes the extremists do ruin the argument for anti's, as they do for the pro's - this is the way in any walk of life that may seem controversial - and as the extremists activities make better reading for propaganda and media purposes, they are the ones that tar the majority of the group. The man that ran over a teenager stands out for the hunters, and the idiots that lob paint at horses in protest stand out - so that is what either side think of when they consider the other side.
(you never read about the uneventful protests, where no one was hurt!)

This is a good example of tarring a whole group based on a single individuals post, ignoring the other 40odd pages of rational discussion.

back on track though, can someone pls enlighten me as to what happens on a normal "sab" or protest (non extremist)?
I am not really allowed to be involved in any such animal rights activities, or affiliated with any animal rights groups, due to my work - so i find it hard to make a real judgement without knowing exactly what is involved


----------



## Spellweaver

yorkigirl said:


> On every post the antis disagrred with they have come back with an answer. The fact that non answered this post made me think you all agreed with it.


Making assumptions like this is dangerous. In the main, answering posters like the disruptive one prolongs the disruptions. It is much better to report the posts and get them edited or deleted - as they have been. You have no way of knowing how many of the posters on here (pro or anti) have reported the post, nor do you know how many of us have condemned this post in pms. You make assumptions without taking all the facts into account and, not surprisingly, you come to the wrong conclusion. Thank you for providing another absolutely typical example of a pro-hunter - someone who doesn't take all the facts into account and so comes to the wrong conclusions.



yorkigirl said:


> If in the field and on here you distanced yourself from people like this and condemed there actions you might have a bit more credibility.


If you read the posts on here and actually take in what you are reading, you will see that every single one of the anti-hunters has stated that they do not agree with violence. You seem to be ignoring this because it does not fit in with your argument. Again, typical pro-hunt mentality - ignore all the facts that don't fit in with your blood-thirsty wish to chase an animal for miles and then watch it being ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs. Facts such as hunting is a cruel and dreadful way of killing animals and that there are much better ways to enjoy riding horses (drag hunting). Facts such as fox hunting is an ineffective means of pest control and humane trapping and either release or safe and humane killing would be much more effective in controlling the fox population.



yorkigirl said:


> If you ship transit van loads of people like this to hunt meets it is hardly suprising one or two followers get a bit upset and give them a tap with a crop


Ignoring facts again. Hunters have been prosecuted for more horrendous crimes than a tap on the head - and crimes against inocent people too. There was a huge list posted on one of my posts waaaay back - but obviously you have either not read that (selective reading?) or you have chosen to ignore it because it will interfere with your portrayal of huntsmen as angels who merely "tap" people who object to their cruelty.



yorkigirl said:


> The only thing that suprises me is you havnt tried to claim she was a pro posing as an anti trying to get the thread closed


My mum, bless her, had a saying: "You judge people on your own standards". My standards are high. I am truthful - I would never try to claim something that is not true, and it would not occur to me that anyone else would. The fact that _you_ think someone would speaks for itself.


----------



## Cleo38

It really does depend as each hunt meeting I attended (as a sab) was different & as you pointed out quite boring at times! Although these were the best as usually no foxes were killed!
We used to all meet up very early on a Saturday/Sunday morning, pile in to a dirty, clapped out, uncomfortable old Bedford van & drive to where the hunt met.
It was then a case of keeping up on foot, or if we couldn't keep up that way back in the van (when it wans't breaking down!) to go to where we thought they were heading.
Back in those days (!) we didn't have mobile phones so it was harder to know where each group (of sabs ) were if we got split up or if someone had been arrested/beaten up, etc so you were actually quite vunerable at times as no one knew exactly where everyone was.
There were a few occasions when sabs were beaten up buy the hunt heavies, I was never punched but did get a riding crop round my head! 
It was generally a long day of running through muddy fields getting soaking wet in the winter (my poor feet as I was a vegan then & didn't wear leather shoes ) & then boiling hot in the summer.
When we followed on foot it was mainly using a hunting horn to distract the hounds & confuse them. With alot of the hunts we targetted this wasn't too difficult as they were all over the place.
At times the fox would go to ground & police would hold us back so all we could usually do was watch as the fox was dug out. It was awful knowing you were that close to an animal but could do nothing - it was at these times that tensions usually errupted & abuse was shouted & people were arrested for minor public order offenses (usually just to get them out of the way, then released without charge).
On the whole there was only a few instances of violence at the meets I attended, as I said in an earlier post we always seemed to end up with a couple of hounds following us so at the end of the day we'd have to drive back to the kennles to drop the dogs off which was always a bit awkward!


----------



## Jess2308

Cleo38 said:


> It really does depend as each hunt meeting I attended (as a sab) was different & as you pointed out quite boring at times! Although these were the best as usually no foxes were killed!
> We used to all meet up very early on a Saturday/Sunday morning, pile in to a dirty, clapped out, uncomfortable old Bedford van & drive to where the hunt met.
> It was then a case of keeping up on foot, or if we couldn't keep up that way back in the van (when it wans't breaking down!) to go to where we thought they were heading.
> Back in those days (!) we didn't have mobile phones so it was harder to know where each group (of sabs ) were if we got split up or if someone had been arrested/beaten up, etc so you were actually quite vunerable at times as no one knew exactly where everyone was.
> There were a few occasions when sabs were beaten up buy the hunt heavies, I was never punched but did get a riding crop round my head!
> It was generally a long day of running through muddy fields getting soaking wet in the winter (my poor feet as I was a vegan then & didn't wear leather shoes ) & then boiling hot in the summer.
> *When we followed on foot it was mainly using a hunting horn to distract the hounds & confuse them. With alot of the hunts we targetted this wasn't too difficult as they were all over the place.*
> At times the fox would go to ground & police would hold us back so all we could usually do was watch as the fox was dug out. It was awful knowing you were that close to an animal but could do nothing - it was at these times that tensions usually errupted & abuse was shouted & people were arrested for minor public order offenses (usually just to get them out of the way, then released without charge).
> On the whole there was only a few instances of violence at the meets I attended, as I said in an earlier post we always seemed to end up with a couple of hounds following us so at the end of the day we'd have to drive back to the kennles to drop the dogs off which was always a bit awkward!


How awful it must be to know that your actions with the horn may well have caused the fox to be killed when it may well have escaped - hounds confused and with no clear commands, they will just follow the closest scent..  Not a sensible idea.


----------



## Cleo38

Jess2308 said:


> How awful it must be to know that your actions with the horn may well have caused the fox to be killed when it may well have escaped - hounds confused and with no clear commands, they will just follow the closest scent..  Not a sensible idea.


Eh??? How did you work that one out???


----------



## Jess2308

Cleo38 said:


> Eh??? How did you work that one out???


I think i explained it in the post... You blow horn to distract hounds, all it does is confuse them, means the hunt master loses control of them as they dont know which command to follow and as with any pack of dogs, they will then go off on their own until the stupid sabs stop blowing the horns and they can be brought back under control. A pack of fox hounds (or any other hounds!) will most likely pick up a scent to follow if they dont know what they're supposed to do... So, you probably dont save the fox anyway, AND endanger the life of the hounds in the process as they then run the risk of getting onto roads/railways as they are confused.

Its a very irresponsible thing to do.


----------



## JANICE199

Jess2308 said:


> How awful it must be to know that your actions with the horn may well have caused the fox to be killed when it may well have escaped - hounds confused and with no clear commands, they will just follow the closest scent..  Not a sensible idea.


 Could you explain that statement please..You said the hounds follow the closest scent.Do horns give out scent?


----------



## hawksport

JANICE199 said:


> Could you explain that statement please..You said the hounds follow the closest scent.Do horns give out scent?


If the hounds were following a drag trail and a sab called the hounds with a horn it would be possible for them to be taken off the drag and put onto a fox scent


----------



## Cleo38

Jess2308 said:


> I think i explained it in the post... You blow horn to distract hounds, all it does is confuse them, means the hunt master loses control of them as they dont know which command to follow and as with any pack of dogs, they will then go off on their own until the stupid sabs stop blowing the horns and they can be brought back under control. A pack of fox hounds (or any other hounds!) will most likely pick up a scent to follow if they dont know what they're supposed to do... So, you probably dont save the fox anyway, AND endanger the life of the hounds in the process as they then run the risk of getting onto roads/railways as they are confused.
> 
> Its a very irresponsible thing to do.


Er, I think if you read back to my previous posts you will see that we always considered the safety of the hounds & horses during our time out. If it was decided that we were close to main roads & animals (hounds or horses included) could be in danger then it wasn't used. well not by us anyway.
When the hounds were confused the pack split & didn't appear to do much, that's why we used to end up having a couple join us. the huntmaster would then have to take charge again, regroup the hounds with some assitance & refocus them therefore wasting time & giving the fox more time to get away.
The horn was used when the hounds were following a scent so were distracted during this time ... maybe I'm missing somehting but I don't understand how distracting hounds whilst they are pursuing a scent can be harmful to a fox


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> I think i explained it in the post... You blow horn to distract hounds, all it does is confuse them, means the hunt master loses control of them as they dont know which command to follow and as with any pack of dogs, they will then go off on their own until the stupid sabs stop blowing the horns and they can be brought back under control. A pack of fox hounds (or any other hounds!) will most likely pick up a scent to follow if they dont know what they're supposed to do... So, you probably dont save the fox anyway, AND endanger the life of the hounds in the process as they then run the risk of getting onto roads/railways as they are confused.
> 
> Its a very irresponsible thing to do.


Jess - I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this post. You seem to be saying:

1. Hunters and hounds follow a trail (which, if it isn't interrupted, will end up in a fox either being caught and ripped to shreds, or a fox going to ground, being dug out, then flung to the pack to be ripped to shreds. This is ok (in your view)

2. Sabs try to stop the hounds following the trail (this is not ok in your view)

3. Sometimes the sabs are successful in stopping the hounds and the fox goes to earth and then is dug out by the hunt and thrown to the pack to be ripped to shreds because the police will not let sabs intervene at this stage. (this is not ok in your view because you think the sabs have caused this by facilitating the fox being able to go to earth.)

So if a fox gets caught its the fault of the sabs? Not the fault of the hunt that set out to catch it anyway?

This post now has the Spellweaver prize for the most far-fetched excuse for supporting fox hunting so far!


----------



## bucksmum

Jess2308 said:


> I think i explained it in the post... You blow horn to distract hounds, all it does is confuse them, means the hunt master loses control of them as they dont know which command to follow and as with any pack of dogs, they will then go off on their own until the stupid sabs stop blowing the horns and they can be brought back under control. A pack of fox hounds (or any other hounds!) will most likely pick up a scent to follow if they dont know what they're supposed to do... So, you probably dont save the fox anyway, AND endanger the life of the hounds in the process as they then run the risk of getting onto roads/railways as they are confused.
> 
> Its a very irresponsible thing to do.


Totally agree and having witnessed 3 hounds killed on a road after being confused by anti hunt protesters,it was hearbreaking


----------



## suzy93074

bucksmum said:


> Totally agree and having witnessed 3 hounds killed on a road after being confused by anti hunt protesters,it was hearbreaking


I dont understand how you can find this heartbreaking but perfectly acceptable to see a fox which is another live breathing animal ripped to shreds or ran to exhaustion and killed how can you defend one animal within a blood sport but not the other??


----------



## Cleo38

I would find the death/injury of any of the animals involved dreadful - any sab that would deliberately endanger a hound or horse is a rarity & I would never condone his/her actions.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand?!


----------



## Spellweaver

suzy93074 said:


> I dont understand how you can find this heartbreaking but perfectly acceptable to see a fox which is another live breathing animal ripped to shreds or ran to exhaustion and killed how can you defend one animal within a blood sport but not the other??


This is one thing that also confuses me. It's as if hunters suffer from some sort of blindness - or definitely double standards. Deliberately killing an animal in a dreadful and blood-thirsty way is fine, but an accidental killing is to be mourned ..........? It just doesn't add up somehow. Surely true animal lovers would mourn all unnecessary killing? Surely true animal lovers could not participate in something that culminates in a live animal being ripped to shreds?

Hounds being killed accidentally is awful, and I would think that is the last thing that hunt sabs would want - but there are as many stories of hunts drivng hounds across roads and their being killed as there are of sabs confusing them so that they go across roads and are killed.

And while we are on the subject of double standards, how do pro-hunters (who all profess to be animal lovers) put to one side the fact that hunts cull up to 10,000 hounds a year and yet at the same time mourn the odd few hounds killed accidentally? If people did this with show dogs who are past their prime, there would be (and rightly so) a huge outcry. So why is it ok for the hunting fraternity to do this?


----------



## JANICE199

suzy93074 said:


> I dont understand how you can find this heartbreaking but perfectly acceptable to see a fox which is another live breathing animal ripped to shreds or ran to exhaustion and killed how can you defend one animal within a blood sport but not the other??


*Totaly agree with you suzy.I honestly wish those on the side of hunting would come up with some good reasons as to why they find killing ANY animal acceptable.*


----------



## Spellweaver

JANICE199 said:


> *Totaly agree with you suzy.I honestly wish those on the side of hunting would come up with some good reasons as to why they find killing ANY animal acceptable.*


Bet they come up with pest control Janice - that's the excuse they always use, totally ingoring the fact that the excuse doesn't work because there are far more efficient and humane ways of pest control.


----------



## suzy93074

Spellweaver said:


> This is one thing that also confuses me. It's as if hunters suffer from some sort of blindness - or definitely double standards. Deliberately killing an animal in a dreadful and blood-thirsty way is fine, but an accidental killing is to be mourned ..........? It just doesn't add up somehow. Surely true animal lovers would mourn all unnecessary killing? Surely true animal lovers could not participate in something that culminates in a live animal being ripped to shreds?
> 
> Hounds being killed accidentally is awful, and I would think that is the last thing that hunt sabs would want - but there are as many stories of hunts drivng hounds across roads and their being killed as there are of sabs confusing them so that they go across roads and are killed.
> 
> And while we are on the subject of double standards, how do pro-hunters (who all profess to be animal lovers) put to one side the fact that hunts cull up to 10,000 hounds a year and yet at the same time mourn the odd few hounds killed accidentally? If people did this with show dogs who are past their prime, there would be (and rightly so) a huge outcry. So why is it ok for the hunting fraternity to do this?


Yep I fully agree it just doesnt make sense to me - I have also heard stories that many hounds get killed whilst on the hunt due to accidents etc - im sure these far outweigh the hounds being killed by confusion from the sabs and also what about the horses?? there must have been some incidents where maybe the horses have fallen and been injured some maybe beyond repair and consequently put down - where are any of these animals benefiting??? simple answer is they are not.


----------



## suzy93074

JANICE199 said:


> *Totaly agree with you suzy.I honestly wish those on the side of hunting would come up with some good reasons as to why they find killing ANY animal acceptable.*


Exactly Jan - I KNOW I could never watch any animal being ripped to shreds etc it would break my heart - I cannot even watch any clips on the net or read stories about animals being treated cruelly it just upsets me so much - I dont think any of the pro hunters can actually justify what they do because ultimately imo a hunt is about an animal being killed for fun - and that can NEVER be right.


----------



## Jess2308

As someone else said, hounds following a "fake" scent on a drag hunt can be put onto a real scent in the confusion. This is more common than the anti's will admit, i have seen these sort of things happen myself when i took part in drag hunts before the ban, the antis didnt realise (or care?) it was a drag hunt and tried to confuse the hounds, the hounds all end up going in different directions while the hunt try to get them under control. In this case a small group of hounds ended up on a real scent, but thankfully they were brought under control by the hunt (with the antis having been chased off by police and dealt with) before they caught up with the fox as i believe it was.

Also, as someone who enjoys drag hunting (i dont see whats wrong in admitting that??? no animals are intended to be hurt anyway!!) I would hate to think the actions of ill-informed antis would endanger the life of the hounds as blowing the horns which, for those who dont seem to realise, gives commands to the hounds does. I have been on many drag hunts and I think there were only one or two where the sabs didnt turn up. Despite being TOLD it was a drag hunt they refused to listen and just hurled abuse (and heavy objects!!) at the hunt and persisted in disrupting the hounds and endangering everyone involved.


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> Yep I fully agree it just doesnt make sense to me - I have also heard stories that many hounds get killed whilst on the hunt due to accidents etc - im sure these far outweigh the hounds being killed by confusion from the sabs and also what about the horses?? there must have been some incidents where maybe the horses have fallen and been injured some maybe beyond repair and consequently put down - where are any of these animals benefiting??? simple answer is they are not.


Horses get injured and have to be put down every day unfortunately, and not only in the benefit of their owners (eg competition). My own horse was having a gallop and a buck in his field, slipped, broke his hock and the vet wanted to put him down. Thankfully I said no and we treated him and he is absolutely fine, but most times he would have been put down. And unfortunately, accidents around the yard, field and on hacks are far more common than accidents at competitions or on a hunt. I have seen plenty of people fall off on a hunt, but never seen a horse injured.


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> As someone else said, hounds following a "fake" scent on a drag hunt can be put onto a real scent in the confusion. This is more common than the anti's will admit, i have seen these sort of things happen myself when i took part in drag hunts before the ban, the antis didnt realise (or care?) it was a drag hunt and tried to confuse the hounds, the hounds all end up going in different directions while the hunt try to get them under control. In this case a small group of hounds ended up on a real scent, but thankfully they were brought under control by the hunt (with the antis having been chased off by police and dealt with) before they caught up with the fox as i believe it was.
> 
> Also, as someone who enjoys drag hunting (i dont see whats wrong in admitting that??? no animals are intended to be hurt anyway!!) I would hate to think the actions of ill-informed antis would endanger the life of the hounds as blowing the horns which, for those who dont seem to realise, gives commands to the hounds does. I have been on many drag hunts and I think there were only one or two where the sabs didnt turn up. Despite being TOLD it was a drag hunt they refused to listen and just hurled abuse (and heavy objects!!) at the hunt and persisted in disrupting the hounds and endangering everyone involved.


I can understand that drag hunting is completely different and wouldnt have a problem with that personally but I still dont understand what the thrill would be - although I can see where it must be frustrating if the sabs are aware it is drag but still continue with abuse etc - imo that is not acceptable - maybe they didnt believe it was drag???


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> I can understand that drag hunting is completely different and wouldnt have a problem with that personally - and I can see where it must be frustrating if the sabs are aware it is drag but still continue with abuse etc - imo that is not acceptable - maybe they didnt believe it was drag???


Im assuming they didnt, but the fact is that it was a drag hunt and their actions could have left people or animals doing nothing illegal or cruel injured or dead. I would assume there is someone involved in these anti attacks on hunts who checks facts, they must do to know where the hunts are, drag hunts are clearly advertised as that so it is not difficult to verify whether it is a "real" hunt or a drag hunt.

My theory is that a certain number of the saboteurs dont really care about whether it is real or drag, they just like the violence and chaos they cause.

ETA: The thrill for me is riding in a large group through countryside that is not normally open to horse riders and spending the day out in the company of other horse riders. And for my horse it is a very enjoyable day (anyone who would say horses dont enjoy it clearly havent seen a hunt, they love it!!), great for their fitness and most of all for me with my youngster who i plan to hunt this year, it is the most fantastic opportunity for socialisation and learning manners in a large group of horses, and will also help us teach her canter as she is struggling with that at the moment  What is so wrong with that?? Would you throw things and endanger a group of joggers or cyclists for enjoying their hobby?? It is no different to me if no foxes are involved.

I dont do it cos i enjoy seeing animals killed which is why 99% of the time i opted for a drag hunt. And was still subjected to injury and abuse!!


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> Horses get injured and have to be put down every day unfortunately, and not only in the benefit of their owners (eg competition). My own horse was having a gallop and a buck in his field, slipped, broke his hock and the vet wanted to put him down. Thankfully I said no and we treated him and he is absolutely fine, but most times he would have been put down. And unfortunately, accidents around the yard, field and on hacks are far more common than accidents at competitions or on a hunt. I have seen plenty of people fall off on a hunt, but never seen a horse injured.


Yes but those sorts of accidents where the horse is in his field etc are accidents that could not be avoided and has to be put down to nature - on a hunt they are put in a specific situation which is potentially dangerous by humans - they do not have a choice.


----------



## bucksmum

Spellweaver said:


> Bet they come up with pest control Janice - that's the excuse they always use, totally ingoring the fact that the excuse doesn't work because there are far more efficient and humane ways of pest control.


Personally i don't use the pest control reason.As i have said i am married to a keeper and i know he shots 70 to 80 foxes a year on the lamp,with plenty more pushed out of the woods towards guns on a fox shot.

Being a keepers wife you would think i would partake but i have witnessed foxes shot with shotguns and crawl off.The majority of shots with a rifle are a clean kill BUT there is always going to be the odd occasion when,no matter how experienced the person handling the rifle, a fox is wounded.On these occasions we have gone home to get our dogs to track the fox to save him a lingering death.To find a fox in the dark in undergrowth would be impossible without the dogs noses.

You never get that wounded fox escape with a pack of hounds.This is the reason i find it a more humane method of killing a fox in an area that is not lampable(too much cover).I HATE seeing foxes shot at with shotguns for the reasons above,they are nowhere near as accurate as a rifle unless at very close range and snares are extremely cruel and we do not use them on our shoot.

So to answer your question,yes in certain areas to kill with a gun would not be practical (too much cover),snares are cruel,shotguns for foxes are cruel (through my experience) so hunting them sometimes is the best alternative.

Please don't try to portray people that hunt as cruel.There is a difference between killing an animal and causing suffering and i have seen an animal suffer far more after being shotgunned and caught in a snare than i ever have being caught by hounds


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> Yes but those sorts of accidents where the horse is in his field etc are accidents that could not be avoided and has to be put down to nature - on a hunt they are put in a specific situation which is potentially dangerous by humans - they do not have a choice.


You could argue that by putting horses in enclosed fields, or stables, is putting them into a situation which is potentially dangerous. Same with putting collars on dogs and cats that could potentially be dangerous to them.


----------



## Spellweaver

Can I ask a question of the posters who have voted "not bothered" in the original poll - have you been swayed one way or the other by any of the arguments put forward? Ok, so I'm nosy  but posters on both sides of the argument obviously hold strong feelings for their point of view and I doubt if anyone will manage to change the mind of anyone on the "other" side, so to speak. I just wondered how the whole argument looked to someone who hasn't got strong feelings either way, and whether or not any of the arguments you've read have swayed you one way or the other?


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> You could argue that by putting horses in enclosed fields, or stables, is putting them into a situation which is potentially dangerous. Same with putting collars on dogs and cats that could potentially be dangerous to them.


Yes any situation can be potentially dangerous I agree but the odds are going to be more in favour of a situation where a) there are more horses around,2) the fox 3) the hounds themselves 4) the humans 5) the terrain - all of this together means there is MORE likelihood of an accident or injury to all animals involved - but it could be avoidable by not doing it at all.


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> Yes any situation can be potentially dangerous I agree but the odds are going to be more in favour of a situation where a) there are more horses around,2) the fox 3) the hounds themselves 4) the humans 5) the terrain - all of this together means there is MORE likelihood of an accident or injury to all animals involved - but it could be avoidable by not doing it at all.


But if we all avoided anything that might potentially cause an accident then we wouldnt step outside the house, us horse owners would never ride our horses, we'd never walk our dogs... etc etc etc.

Accidents are avoidable in all aspects of life, why do you feel you can judge someones hobby? If the foxes arent being chased and killed (as i clearly stated they arent in drag hunting) then why should you say that i am intentionally endangering my horse and shouldnt be doing it? Yes, they could have an injury, but they could having a gallop on any hack. At least if im on a hunt i have plenty of experienced horse people around to help me, whereas on a hack im all on my own. Should i not hack my horses?

ETA: Sorry to go off topic but that has really annoyed me.


----------



## Spellweaver

bucksmum said:


> Personally i don't use the pest control reason.As i have said i am married to a keeper and i know he shots 70 to 80 foxes a year on the lamp,with plenty more pushed out of the woods towards guns on a fox shot.
> 
> Being a keepers wife you would think i would partake but i have witnessed foxes shot with shotguns and crawl off.The majority of shots with a rifle are a clean kill BUT there is always going to be the odd occasion when,no matter how experienced the person handling the rifle, a fox is wounded.On these occasions we have gone home to get our dogs to track the fox to save him a lingering death.To find a fox in the dark in undergrowth would be impossible without the dogs noses.
> 
> You never get that wounded fox escape with a pack of hounds.This is the reason i find it a more humane method of killing a fox in an area that is not lampable(too much cover).I HATE seeing foxes shot at with shotguns for the reasons above,they are nowhere near as accurate as a rifle unless at very close range and snares are extremely cruel and we do not use them on our shoot.
> 
> So to answer your question,yes in certain areas to kill with a gun would not be practical (too much cover),snares are cruel,shotguns for foxes are cruel (through my experience) so hunting them sometimes is the best alternative.
> 
> Please don't try to portray people that hunt as cruel.There is a difference between killing an animal and causing suffering and i have seen an animal suffer far more after being shotgunned and caught in a snare than i ever have being caught by hounds


Trying to make out that fox hunting is acceptable because the only alternatives are either a)shooting at foxes in the wild (and risking injury and suffering) or b)using snares (and causing injury and suffering) is an invalid argument. There are alternatives that will not cause suffering. Humane traps can be set, traps that do not kill the animal. Animals other than foxes caught inadvertantly can then be released. Foxes caught can be killed safely and humanely, with no suffering.

And sorry if it offends you, but in my book *anyone* who would deliberately cause suffering to any animal, be it a fox-hunter revelling in an animal being ripped to shreds, or someone who sets snares, or someone who takes pot shots at foxes in the wild, is cruel. I do not have to portray people who hunt as cruel. Their own actions do that.


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> But if we all avoided anything that might potentially cause an accident then we wouldnt step outside the house, us horse owners would never ride our horses, we'd never walk our dogs... etc etc etc.
> 
> Accidents are avoidable in all aspects of life, why do you feel you can judge someones hobby? If the foxes arent being chased and killed (as i clearly stated they arent in drag hunting) then why should you say that i am intentionally endangering my horse and shouldnt be doing it? Yes, they could have an injury, but they could having a gallop on any hack. At least if im on a hunt i have plenty of experienced horse people around to help me, whereas on a hack im all on my own. Should i not hack my horses?
> 
> ETA: Sorry to go off topic but that has really annoyed me.


I have not judged your hobby! in none of my posts have I said otherwise in fact if you read back I said drag hunting I dont have a problem with - you are entitled to do what you want as a hobby and I would never question you as a person - I resent you saying I do actually! you have just used incidents that may happen and have been a bit predantic imo - - I just think there could be more risk to the animals involved than if they were grazing in a field


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> I have not judged your hobby! in none of my posts have I said otherwise in fact if you read back I said drag hunting I dont have a problem with - you are entitled to do what you want as a hobby and I would never question you as a person - I resent you saying I do actually! you have just used incidents that may happen and have been a bit predantic imo - - I just think there could be more risk to the animals involved than if they were grazing in a field


Your exact words:

_"I can understand that drag hunting is completely different and wouldnt have a problem with that personally but I still dont understand what the thrill would be"_

And then you went on to say about the injuries caused to horses on hunts and how that is avoidable etc etc etc.

Seems pretty judgemental to me


----------



## Cleo38

I have no problem with drag hunting - why would I? I used to ride (years ago now ) & can completely understand how this can be a fantastic day out.
As for sabs turning up at a drag hunt, maybe they didn't belive it was a fake scent & the hunt was just using the drag hunt as a cover for a proper fox hunt. No idea.... I certainly wouldn't have turned up when I was younger ... i liked my bed too much to have bothered with that 
As for putting animals in danger then you can argue this from all angles but as I said before if it is a deliberate intention or through someones stupidity (& I do mean both sides here!) then it is not acceptable.


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> Your exact words:
> 
> _"I can understand that drag hunting is completely different and wouldnt have a problem with that personally but I still dont understand what the thrill would be"_
> 
> And then you went on to say about the injuries caused to horses on hunts and how that is avoidable etc etc etc.
> 
> Seems pretty judgemental to me


Seems pretty judgemental - therefore that is how you have looked at the text and then made your own judgement - I have not said anywhere that YOU are in the wrong etc I have merely given my opinion hence the word PERSONALLY - I had earlier also said that if it is a drag race then any sabs causing trouble were in the wrong and its unnacceptable - you didnt quote that though.......Im not looking to argue with you


----------



## Jess2308

Cleo38 said:


> I have no problem with drag hunting - why would I? I used to ride (years ago now ) & can completely understand how this can be a fantastic day out.
> As for sabs turning up at a drag hunt, maybe they didn't belive it was a fake scent & the hunt was just using the drag hunt as a cover for a proper fox hunt. No idea.... I certainly wouldn't have turned up when I was younger ... i liked my bed too much to have bothered with that
> As for putting animals in danger then you can argue this from all angles but as I said before if it is a deliberate intention or through someones stupidity (& I do mean both sides here!) then it is not acceptable.


From an inside point of view, is there someone who does some sort of fact checking before the sabs decide to attend a hunt? I ask because like i said, it is something that has happened on the majority of drags hunts I have attended and there is no telling them, they just wont listen!!

Maybe we just have a particularly out of control group of sabs down here, but it would be nice to know what sort of process there is for picking which hunts to go to


----------



## Cleo38

It was years ago when I used to go out & can't really remember how it was decided. There were no clear groups (again I am talking from my own past experience) really it's more a group of people getting together. Although we all sort of knew each other anyway.
We used to sab the local hunt back then & I don't think there were many drag hunts around then or if they were we never bothered. I'd have been over the moon if we'd have turned up & then realised it was a drag hunt!!! No running around for me & go home back to bed for a lay in 
I'm suprised they would bother as all the driving around costs money in fuel which we all had to pay for (& not from the money we got by being paid :lol
We did keep in contact with local groups of the HSA but it was sort of against principles to have people 'in charge' so to speak.


----------



## JANICE199

Just need to point out very quickly i'm not ignoring replies but my laptop is playing up and i'm trying to sort the problem out.I posted 2 posts that didn't come out,lets hope this one works.:mad2:


----------



## Jess2308

Hmm... So possibly if this area is unlucky to have a particular group of people who are just out to cause trouble rather than to fight fox hunting, they literally could just be getting together and turning up at any hunt to start fights...

That could explain why i've had a particularly unpleasant experience with sabs! :lol:


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> Hmm... So possibly if this area is unlucky to have a particular group of people who are just out to cause trouble rather than to fight fox hunting, they literally could just be getting together and turning up at any hunt to start fights...
> 
> That could explain why i've had a particularly unpleasant experience with sabs! :lol:


As I have said previously that is unacceptable - I dont condone any violence from either side.


----------



## Cleo38

Maybe it's worth having a look to see if your local HSA group has a website & contacting them through that to explain what a drag hunt is & query why they are turning up to it?
As far as I remember drag hunting was always used to demonstrate that there already was a viable alternative fox hunting & was actively encouraged.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Personally i don't use the pest control reason.As i have said i am married to a keeper and i know he shots 70 to 80 foxes a year on the lamp,with plenty more pushed out of the woods towards guns on a fox shot.
> 
> Being a keepers wife you would think i would partake but i have witnessed foxes shot with shotguns and crawl off.The majority of shots with a rifle are a clean kill BUT there is always going to be the odd occasion when,no matter how experienced the person handling the rifle, a fox is wounded.On these occasions we have gone home to get our dogs to track the fox to save him a lingering death.To find a fox in the dark in undergrowth would be impossible without the dogs noses.
> 
> You never get that wounded fox escape with a pack of hounds.This is the reason i find it a more humane method of killing a fox in an area that is not lampable(too much cover).I HATE seeing foxes shot at with shotguns for the reasons above,they are nowhere near as accurate as a rifle unless at very close range and snares are extremely cruel and we do not use them on our shoot.
> 
> So to answer your question,yes in certain areas to kill with a gun would not be practical (too much cover),snares are cruel,shotguns for foxes are cruel (through my experience) so hunting them sometimes is the best alternative.
> 
> Please don't try to portray people that hunt as cruel.There is a difference between killing an animal and causing suffering and i have seen an animal suffer far more after being shotgunned and caught in a snare than i ever have being caught by hounds


From a non hunting person, this is the explanation that always makes the most sense to me.
I have also seen foxes wounded by shotguns and even worse, their battle for life caught in a snare


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> Trying to make out that fox hunting is acceptable because the only alternatives are either a)shooting at foxes in the wild (and risking injury and suffering) or b)using snares (and causing injury and suffering) is an invalid argument. There are alternatives that will not cause suffering. Humane traps can be set, traps that do not kill the animal. Animals other than foxes caught inadvertantly can then be released. Foxes caught can be killed safely and humanely, with no suffering.
> 
> And sorry if it offends you, but in my book *anyone* who would deliberately cause suffering to any animal, be it a fox-hunter revelling in an animal being ripped to shreds, or someone who sets snares, or someone who takes pot shots at foxes in the wild, is cruel. I do not have to portray people who hunt as cruel. Their own actions do that.


Those that have worked with wildlife and farm animals will tell you that animals can and many do die of stress, being caught in a live trap will cause immeasurable stress.
Part of the sabs argument is the stress that a fox is supposed to suffer while being chased.
How is the stress of being in a live trap any different?


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> Those that have worked with wildlife and farm animals will tell you that animals can and many do die of stress, being caught in a live trap will cause immeasurable stress.
> Part of the sabs argument is the stress that a fox is supposed to suffer while being chased.
> How is the stress of being in a live trap any different?


I can't begin to get inside the mind of a wild animal, and neither can anyone else on this forum. All we can do is make assumptions based upon our experiences and common sense. My common sense is telling me that the stress of being in a cage for a short while is nowhere near as great as the stress of being hunted by a pack of dogs. And, even if the stress levels could be proved to be equal, can you really advocate that being ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds is a much better end to the stress than either being set free from the cage, or being shot humanely, cleanly and safely?


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> I can't begin to get inside the mind of a wild animal, and neither can anyone else on this forum. All we can do is make assumptions based upon our experiences and common sense. My common sense is telling me that the stress of being in a cage for a short while is nowhere near as great as the stress of being hunted by a pack of dogs. And, even if the stress levels could be proved to be equal, can you really advocate that being ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds is a much better end to the stress than either being set free from the cage, or being shot humanely, cleanly and safely?


I do think you are wrong with your first statement, any person who has dealt with animals for a period of time can estimate stress levels in a given situation, but we will have to agree to disagree, as it cannot be proved. 
As I have never seen a fox in a live trap and never seen a fox being chased by hounds, I cannot give an informed judgment 
I was making a point


----------



## Jess2308

I cant give any opinion about foxes in cages, other than to say that any human interaction, even just picking them up would add considerably to their already high stress levels.

When people chased by hounds the foxes will always make a run back to their dens, this indicates that they are thinking about where they are going and not just dashing around in a blind panic which probably would suggest their stress levels arent as high as, for example, a fox caught in a trap/snare that will chew its one limbs off to escape (as shown not too long ago on a documentary i saw, the aftermath of the event - not nice, and much, much more gory than anything i've witnessed hunting, or watching videos of hunting.

But this is something i suspect no one will ever come to an agreement too as i imagine its impossible to know for sure the stress levels in these situations.


----------



## nfp20

I don't like snares they aren't 100% effective swiftly and they don't always catch the species they are supposed to.

This has been a very interesting topic and it is nice to see that although this is a pet forum there has been a varied view and with the exception of the odd person it has remained a debate and not a witch hunt. Very refreshing.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

nfp20 said:


> I don't like snares they aren't 100% effective swiftly and they don't always catch the species they are supposed to.
> 
> This has been a very interesting topic and it is nice to see that although this is a pet forum there has been a varied view and with the exception of the odd person it has remained a debate and not a witch hunt. Very refreshing.


*Totally agree with you about the snares...I have also done my fair bit petitioning to ban these too. Not just because pets or a species not meant to be caught can be caught in them but i find them extremely cruel.
As for your second part about about this is a very interesting topic and nice to see it hasn't turned into a witch hunt.....I totally agree. *


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Totally agree with you about the snares...I have also done my fair bit petitioning to ban these too. Not just because pets or a species not meant to be caught can be caught in them but i find them extremely cruel.
> As for your second part about about this is a very interesting topic and nice to see it hasn't turned into a witch hunt.....I totally agree. *


I really don't understand this preoccupation with fox hunting, when only a few animals suffer, while millions go unnoticed suffering horrific deaths and maiming in snares and traps


----------



## nfp20

there aren't that many in this country most people choose not to use them as they are time consuming to maintain. 

There are other forms of pests that require control mink, grey squirrel, etc etc but that would be a different topic


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> there aren't that many in this country most people choose not to use them as they are time consuming to maintain.
> 
> There are other forms of pests that require control mink, grey squirrel, etc etc but that would be a different topic


I beg to differ on that. My experience is that they are used fairly regularly as pest control methods.
They are something that I do have first hand experience of


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

rona said:


> I really don't understand this preoccupation with fox hunting, when only a few animals suffer, while millions go unnoticed suffering horrific deaths and maiming in snares and traps


*In my mind Rona (and i can only speak for myself)...I cannot base my opinion just on the numbers. I think ALL cruelty to ANY animal is sick. So i try my best to do my part to put a stop to it. I have petitioned against many cruel activities, im a member of many groups against cruelty to ALL types of animals. This particular case regarding fox hunting is taking up alot of my time at the moment because of David Cameron's threat to repeal the hunting ban. *


----------



## simplysardonic

yorkigirl said:


> *On every post the antis disagrred with they have come back with an answer.* The fact that non answered this post made me think you all agreed with it. If in the field and on here you distanced yourself from people like this and condemed there actions you might have a bit more credibility. If you ship transit van loads of people like this to hunt meets it is hardly suprising one or two followers get a bit upset and give them a tap with a crop. Had one of the pros had written this I am sure the other pros would of shown there ojection to the post. The only thing that suprises me is you havnt tried to claim she was a pro posing as an anti trying to get the thread closed


So have the pro lobby Sorry been away from this thread a while & this was the 1st comment to jump out at me
Why is so little mentioned about drag hunting (although I have to say I've heard a couple of negative things about the treatment of the hounds, I'm sure anyone who wants to hear my views will send me a PM ) surely if people feel the need to run around on horseback, & I appreciate that it must be very enjoyable, with hounds why they feel the need to have a live target
On the other hand I'd happily hunt paedophiles on horseback with hounds as they are far more monstrous than any fox


----------



## simplysardonic

nfp20 said:


> there aren't that many in this country most people choose not to use them as they are time consuming to maintain.
> 
> There are other forms of pests that require control mink, grey squirrel, etc etc but that would be a different topic


and violent criminals could do with controlling too


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Jess2308 said:


> How about we hunt supporters chase murders, child molesters and rapists with our hounds! Would anyone object to that?? It would be doing society a favour i think :lol:


*See we can agree on something. :thumbup:
Think you've just invented a new sport that most people would agree with and no sabs would attend...only supporters...lol*


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *In my mind Rona (and i can only speak for myself)...I cannot base my opinion just on the numbers. I think ALL cruelty to ANY animal is sick. So i try my best to do my part to put a stop to it. I have petitioned against many cruel activities, im a member of many groups against cruelty to ALL types of animals. This particular case regarding fox hunting is taking up alot of my time at the moment because of David Cameron's threat to repeal the hunting ban. *


Do be careful what you believe though, I have seen reports on cruelty to pigs that to the lay person looks dreadful, but to me just shows natural behaviour.
I worked with them for 17 years


----------



## simplysardonic

Jess2308 said:


> How about we hunt supporters chase murders, child molesters and rapists with our hounds! Would anyone object to that?? It would be doing society a favour i think :lol:


totally:thumbup: I think we should lobby the new Gov't post haste. It will save a fortune in prison XBox 360 & Sky telly bills:lol:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

rona said:


> Do be careful what you believe though, I have seen reports on cruelty to pigs that to the lay person looks dreadful, but to me just shows natural behaviour.
> I worked with them for 17 years


*Im not easily fooled Rona and as ive already stated i campaign,petition to stop cruelty to all kinds of animals in all countries.*


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> When people chased by hounds the foxes will always make a run back to their dens, .


Where they will be dug out and flung alive to the pack to be ripped apart. Wonder how much stress that causes?



Jess2308 said:


> this indicates that they are thinking about where they are going and not just dashing around in a blind panic which probably would suggest their stress levels arent as high as, for example, a fox caught in a trap/snare that will chew its one limbs off to escape (as shown not too long ago on a documentary i saw, the aftermath of the event - not nice, and much, much more gory than anything i've witnessed hunting, or watching videos of hunting..


Snares are awful and I don't think you would find anyone on here who wouldn't agree with that - although you may do, because in my opinion hunting is just as bad and people agree with hunting. However, trying to use the fact that foxes get caught in snares as an excuse for hunting them instead is a non-starter.


----------



## Spellweaver

rona said:


> I really don't understand this preoccupation with fox hunting, when only a few animals suffer, while millions go unnoticed suffering horrific deaths and maiming in snares and traps


It doesn't have to be either/or. Most true animal lovers will be concerned with EVERY aspect of cruelty. No-one on here is pre-occupied with fox hunting - they are speaking about fox hunting because that is what the thread is about. Fox hunting is about to be brought back by this new government and so there are likely to be more hunts attracting more hunt sabs. On a thread about whether hunt sabs should be doing what they do, a discussion of hunting is pertinent.

If snares had been made illegal and were abut to be made legal again, and the thread were about snares, you would probably find the same people up in arms about that too. Trying to say you should stop worring about hunting and concentrate on snares instead is like saying you should stop worrying about paedophiles and worry about rapists instead. BOTH are wrong. BOTH deserve fighting against.

And trying to justify one because the other is worse is just doesn't even begin to make it as a valid argument.


----------



## Guest

Spellweaver said:


> And trying to justify one because the other is worse is just doesn't even begin to make it as a valid argument.


Where have I tried to justify either? 
Just bringing another slant to a thread which is going round and round in circles


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> Snares are awful and I don't think you would find anyone on here who wouldn't agree with that - although you may do, because in my opinion hunting is just as bad and people agree with hunting. However, trying to use the fact that foxes get caught in snares as an excuse for hunting them instead is a non-starter.


I certainly do not agree with snares. If animals are going to be killed then it should be done as efficiently as possible with no chance of an injured animal escaping to suffer a long, agonising death. There is no risk of that with hunting :thumbup: If the fox is caught it is a very quick death as discussed in articles posted previously.

BTW, i have not actually said i agree with fox hunting (as in, not drag hunting that i have taken part in mostly), but i think it is important to have a balanced argument with facts or opinions based on experience not gossip. This thread would be pointless if it was entirely one sided after all  Just because I have done it a couple of times when i was younger does not mean i would do it not if the ban were lifted.


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> I certainly do not agree with snares. If animals are going to be killed then it should be done as efficiently as possible with no chance of an injured animal escaping to suffer a long, agonising death. There is no risk of that with hunting :thumbup: If the fox is caught it is a very quick death as discussed in articles posted previously.
> 
> .


If only that were really true Jess! Do you believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Great Pumpkin as well?


----------



## Jess2308

Spellweaver said:


> If only that were really true Jess! Do you believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the Great Pumpkin as well?


Of course, dont you? :lol:

How can you say it isnt true though? Where are the facts?  Strong evidence has already been posted to support the fact that hunting gives a quick/efficient and relatively stress free death. Where is your evidence to show it isnt? Or is this more opinion?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*This article shows the rules Sabs are given/advised to use to help save the fox.

Sabbing a Fox Hunt*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Jess2308 said:


> Of course, dont you? :lol:
> 
> How can you say it isnt true though? Where are the facts?  Strong evidence has already been posted to support the fact that hunting gives a quick/efficient and relatively stress free death. Where is your evidence to show it isnt? Or is this more opinion?


*I posted evidence that a quick kill is NOT the norm and im sure Spellweaver and others posted evidence too.*


----------



## suzy93074

I dont think we can talk for all hunts and say foxes are killed humanely and quickly - just like we cannot say all sabs are violent etc - I think like with all things in life there will be those that adhere to the rules and there will be those that blatantly take the mickey.


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> I dont think we can talk for all hunts and say foxes are killed humanely and quickly - just like we cannot say all sabs are violent etc - I think like with all things in life there will be those that adhere to the rules and there will be those that blatantly take the mickey.


I wasnt saying that, just that it is far more humane and quick than a snare.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*An article showing a hunter clearly putting not only peoples lives in danger but had no regard for the life of his horse either.

Hunters who targeted MP's train condemned - Yorkshire Post*


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> I really don't understand this preoccupation with fox hunting, when only a few animals suffer, while millions go unnoticed suffering horrific deaths and maiming in snares and traps


*Why do you see trying to save even 1 animal from being killed as a preocuupation? This worls is a cruel place and we will not change it over night.The fact of the matter is,the subject of fox hunting being raised at the moment is thanks to this countries primemister.*


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> I wasnt saying that, just that it is far more humane and quick than a snare.


I agree that snares are terrible but hunting a fox down in any shape or form imo is not humane - sorry but I cannot see how it is.


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *An article showing a hunter clearly putting not only peoples lives in danger but had no regard for the life of his horse either.
> 
> Hunters who targeted MP's train condemned - Yorkshire Post*


A lot of stories and footage on this thread is from the time when feeling were running very high and the hunting debate was at it's peak.
Has anyone got information from the last two years?
I personally don't believe that the hunting ban will be repealed, I think it was part of an election campaign


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *Why do you see trying to save even 1 animal from being killed as a preocuupation? This worls is a cruel place and we will not change it over night.The fact of the matter is,the subject of fox hunting being raised at the moment is thanks to this countries primemister.*


I know, but snares and traps have hardly ever had publicity, it needs to be highlighted more.
If any of you are members of animal rights groups, I really think that you should be shouting about this.
Your voices will disappear amongst the thousands of others on the fox issue.


----------



## Jess2308

suzy93074 said:


> I agree that snares are terrible but hunting a fox down in any shape or form imo is not humane - sorry but I cannot see how it is.


But unfortunately numbers have to be controlled. It would be wonderful if humans could allow the wildlife to have their space and leave them be but thats just not the case. We destroy more and more of their natural habitat to build out towns and homes. Therefore as i have already said the countryside is too overpopulated, food is scarce and they move into the towns. If numbers arent controlled in the countryside this will only increase. If you can find me a more humane method of controlling their numbers that doesnt involve re-releasing them (not really a solution long term) i will be more than happy to support it, but really there is no choice but to try to control their numbers by killing them as quickly and efficiently as possible. I dont claim to *know* which method is the best, but i certainly have my own opinion on it


----------



## JANICE199

rona said:


> I know, but snares and traps have hardly ever had publicity, it needs to be highlighted more.
> If any of you are members of animal rights groups, I really think that you should be shouting about this.
> Your voices will disappear amongst the thousands of others on the fox issue.


*lol rona this is not about animals being snared.We could debate a WHOLE lot of subjects on cruelty.*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

rona said:


> A lot of stories and footage on this thread is from the time when feeling were running very high and the hunting debate was at it's peak.
> Has anyone got information from the last two years?
> I personally don't believe that the hunting ban will be repealed, I think it was part of an election campaign


*Rona i, as have many others have posted more recent proof. It is not my fault that people feel they neither have the time, effort or inclination to read/watch the evidence that has been put up on this thread. Even for those that think/feel certain articles/footage may be proaganda i HAVE also posted a link to a documentary on this thread which was follwed up by the lady writing to David Cameron....Hardly something someone would do if they did not have the proof to substantiate their claims.
The documentary is called: A Minority Pastime...A letter to David Cameron.

Minority Pastime: A Letter to David Cameron *


----------



## suzy93074

Jess2308 said:


> But unfortunately numbers have to be controlled. It would be wonderful if humans could allow the wildlife to have their space and leave them be but thats just not the case. We destroy more and more of their natural habitat to build out towns and homes. Therefore as i have already said the countryside is too overpopulated, food is scarce and they move into the towns. If numbers arent controlled in the countryside this will only increase. If you can find me a more humane method of controlling their numbers that doesnt involve re-releasing them (not really a solution long term) i will be more than happy to support it, but really there is no choice but to try to control their numbers by killing them as quickly and efficiently as possible. I dont claim to *know* which method is the best, but i certainly have my own opinion on it


And u are more than entitled to your own opinoiin hun 

Im not disputing that some animals have to be killed i.e, for food etc I do understand that numbers have to be kept down but there are people employed to do this ie pest control - I wouldnt like to see them in action but I know it is necessary - but I disagree that hunting is a way to do that -and that some huntspeople think that they are justifiable in doing so - it is a sport ultimately - where an animal is killed or hurt for fun - I just cannot condone that - just as I dont condone any blood sport which involves animals.


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> Of course, dont you? :lol:
> 
> How can you say it isnt true though? Where are the facts?  Strong evidence has already been posted to support the fact that hunting gives a quick/efficient and relatively stress free death. Where is your evidence to show it isnt? Or is this more opinion?


Well, maybe the Great Pumpkin! :lol:

Seriously though Jess, there are several posts on this thread with links to video footage and pictures to show that the foxes' deaths are horrific. Some sabs have reported eye witness accounts - again on this thread - of the terrible things they have seen hounds and huntsmen do to a live fox. Don't say you have missed them all? Or is this another example of the selective blindness of the hunter?

(pictures scene of a hunter with fingers in ears and eyes closed going "La lal la! Not listening! Not looking! Foxes like being hunted and have a nice death! La la la)  

There's my evidence. Where's yours, other than the opinions of pro-hunters on here?


----------



## Spellweaver

Jess2308 said:


> really there is no choice but to try to control their numbers by killing them as quickly and efficiently as possible.


I agree with you there. Fox hunting is neither quick nor efficient, however.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Jess2308 said:


> But unfortunately numbers have to be controlled. It would be wonderful if humans could allow the wildlife to have their space and leave them be but thats just not the case. We destroy more and more of their natural habitat to build out towns and homes. Therefore as i have already said the countryside is too overpopulated, food is scarce and they move into the towns. If numbers arent controlled in the countryside this will only increase. If you can find me a more humane method of controlling their numbers that doesnt involve re-releasing them (not really a solution long term) i will be more than happy to support it, but really there is no choice but to try to control their numbers by killing them as quickly and efficiently as possible. I dont claim to *know* which method is the best, but i certainly have my own opinion on it


*NOT TRUE....Foxes do NOT need controlling. If this was the case in the countryside then WHY are artificial earths created to encourage foxes to breed for hunting? If in urban areas, still NO need to control as foxes regulate their breeding depending on how scarce food is....So the answer is to get people not to leave their rubbish, food scraps out and to stop feeding them.*


----------



## JANICE199

*Is this behaviour what you think happens on a hunt? It does,like it or not.

YouTube - Marles attacks monitor - does Cameron think this is OK?

The courts sentenced this pompus "person" to 6 months in prison.Are the courts fooled and hoodwinked too?
Farringdon huntsman jailed, Christopher Marles | Exeter News | This Is Exeter*


----------



## Zaros

Jess2308 said:


> But unfortunately numbers have to be controlled. It would be wonderful if humans could allow the wildlife to have their space and leave them be but thats just not the case. We destroy more and more of their natural habitat to build out towns and homes.


I really think the wrong end of the solution is being sought here. Why don't we simply control our numbers. This way we wouldn't need to destroy more of the countryside which inevitably invades the Fox's natural habitat.
The Fox is not a pest, and I have previously stated my reaons behind that opinion, and is a useful animal it controls the numbers of rodents and rabbits. Rabbits are destructive to crops. Rodents are destructive to just about anything and spread disease. They're incontinent (Sorry rodent lovers but it's true) Take your pick the Fox or the Rat? :confused1:


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Zaros said:


> I really think the wrong end of the solution is being sought here. Why don't we simply control our numbers. This way we wouldn't need to destroy more of the countryside which inevitably invades the Fox's natural habitat.
> The Fox is not a pest, and I have previously stated my reaons behind that opinion, and is a useful animal it controls the numbers of rodents and rabbits. Rabbits are destructive to crops. Rodents are destructive to just about anything and spread disease. They're incontinent (Sorry rodent lovers but it's true) Take your pick the Fox or the Rat? :confused1:


*Very true...great post. *


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *lol rona this is not about animals being snared.We could debate a WHOLE lot of subjects on cruelty.*


Sorry, I thought it was important.
I will bow out now 



FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Rona i, as have many others have posted more recent proof. It is not my fault that people feel they neither have the time, effort or inclination to read/watch the evidence that has been put up on this thread. Even for those that think/feel certain articles/footage may be proaganda i HAVE also posted a link to a documentary on this thread which was follwed up by the lady writing to David Cameron....Hardly something someone would do if they did not have the proof to substantiate their claims.
> The documentary is called: A Minority Pastime...A letter to David Cameron.
> 
> Minority Pastime: A Letter to David Cameron *


And what a totally biased bit of silly irrelevant film :lol:
Nothing was fact and they kept saying about how they felt intimidated and watched. How would law abiding drag hunting people feel at someone obviously anti filming and harassing them. 
Sorry but that is laughable


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

rona said:


> Sorry, I thought it was important.
> I will bow out now
> 
> And what a totally biased bit of silly irrelevant film :lol:
> Nothing was fact and they kept saying about how they felt intimidated and watched. How would law abiding drag hunting people feel at someone obviously anti filming and harassing them.
> Sorry but that is laughable


*How on earth can you say this is a silly, biased BIT of film? Did you not watch the whole documentary which lasts 1 hour and 45 minutes?
Your statement about law abiding drag hunting shows you know very little and that MANY (not all) drag hunts are infact carrying out real hunting still under the pretence of drag hunting. As for your point about LAW ABIDING....Monitors/sabs are law abiding infact the whole purpose of them attending such events is to make sure the LAW is upheld...the law of THE BAN.
ANY extremists whether pro or anti hunting is WRONG in my opinion. I DO NOT condone violence of any kind.*


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> *lol rona this is not about animals being snared.We could debate a WHOLE lot of subjects on cruelty.*


exactly!



FREE SPIRIT said:


> *NOT TRUE....Foxes do NOT need controlling. If this was the case in the countryside then WHY are artificial earths created to encourage foxes to breed for hunting? .*


nobody has ever answered this question...i wonder why



Zaros said:


> I really think the wrong end of the solution is being sought here. Why don't we simply control our numbers. This way we wouldn't need to destroy more of the countryside which inevitably invades the Fox's natural habitat.
> The Fox is not a pest, and I have previously stated my reaons behind that opinion, and is a useful animal it controls the numbers of rodents and rabbits. Rabbits are destructive to crops. Rodents are destructive to just about anything and spread disease. They're incontinent (Sorry rodent lovers but it's true) Take your pick the Fox or the Rat? :confused1:


Excellent post couldnt agree more!


----------



## Guest

rona said:


> Sorry, I thought it was important.
> I will bow out now
> 
> And what a totally biased bit of silly irrelevant film :lol:
> Nothing was fact and they kept saying about how they felt intimidated and watched. How would law abiding drag hunting people feel at someone obviously anti filming and harassing them.
> Sorry but that is laughable


this monitor was trying to film a drag hunt, do you think this footage is bias also?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7883626.stm


----------



## Natik

Shamen said:


> nobody has ever answered this question...i wonder why


not wanting to get really involved in this thread but been following it and have seen this question pop up several times and totally being ignored by those who are pro hunt.

Im really interested to hear their comments on this point, been interested the whole thread through in this particular question tbh but no luck in any sort of comments so far lol


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Natik said:


> not wanting to get really involved in this thread but been following it and have seen this question pop up several times and totally being ignored by those who are pro hunt.
> 
> Im really interested to hear their comments on this point, been interested the whole thread through in this particular question tbh but no luck in any sort of comments so far lol


*Exactly Natik....Many of us would like this question answered. *


----------



## kaz_f

Ok - it's a long one.

First off my stance is against hunting with dogs but the reason I find this debate interesting is that there are so many issues surrounding foxes and their habitats and the species that are their usual prey and I think its worth thinking about some of these in the bag along with everything else.

I think we have interfered with populations of a lot of creatures to the point now where its difficult not to because an immediate stop of population control on all sorts of species (foxes included) would have a huge short term effect on other sensitive wildlife species  this is a fact - as effectively, large numbers of hungry animals would need to search for other foods. What Im saying is that when you change the population numbers of something, _anything_, whether thats dramatically decreasing or artificially increasing numbers it cant help but have a knock on effect on other species and force them to act differently breed more/breed less/adopt different survival strategies and even seek out different food sources/types. Most creatures (although not all) are relatively good at adapting in the face of change.

Obviously if there is a large availability of a particular food source that has poor survival skills in the wild  lets say for arguments sake hand reared pheasants or partridges then foxes will more than likely exploit that food source especially if its within easy striking distance and relatively easy to get. This then brings them onto the radar of gamekeepers or livestock managers as a problem because obviously theres loss of money involved. Wild game birds that are better adapted to survive predators like foxes are less abundant because of the changes in our landscape and degrading/loss of the habitats in which they lived and so large numbers of hand reared birds are introduced. Obviously gamekeepers/farmers and a variety of other people then start to perceive foxes as a pest.

I personally wish we hadnt interfered but the reality is that we have over the years and therefore we have to take a measured and considered approach about what should be done. I think that if the reality is that people are going to seek to control foxes on their land then I think theres room for a variety of different approaches working alongside eachother. An example of this might be better actual barriers, different types of fencing, different farming practices, targeted (but humane!!) culling in hotspots where there is a severe problem, all these measures with a view to reducing losses if that is what you are interested in doing. Why do we so often tend to look for a one size fits all solution?

Theres always a reason behind everything, you cant just say fox populations are huge and foxes are a problem  if you believe this to be the case of course!, and think about solutions without considering the changes that we have made to the landscape over the years and what problems we might have ourselves induced. We reap what we sow in some ways. We will always feel the need to control stuff I accept that even if I dont entirely agree with it but we have a responsibility to think about things not just as isolated issues and we should have a responsibility to use effective and humane solutions wherever we possibly can. I further believe that if we dont see effective and humane solutions as our first choice then the law should force us to.


----------



## Guest

Is there actual proof that Huntsmen have created artifical earths, and as for fox populations self regulating they do and they will fight to death when over populated or starve to death, or encroach on suburbs/gardens, which is why I found a dead fox in my back garden last month, it was killed by the resident fox and it sounded brutal, probably because it was.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

kaz_f said:


> Ok - it's a long one.
> 
> First off my stance is against hunting with dogs but the reason I find this debate interesting is that there are so many issues surrounding foxes and their habitats and the species that are their usual prey and I think its worth thinking about some of these in the bag along with everything else.
> 
> I think we have interfered with populations of a lot of creatures to the point now where its difficult not to because an immediate stop of population control on all sorts of species (foxes included) would have a huge short term effect on other sensitive wildlife species  this is a fact - as effectively, large numbers of hungry animals would need to search for other foods. What Im saying is that when you change the population numbers of something, _anything_, whether thats dramatically decreasing or artificially increasing numbers it cant help but have a knock on effect on other species and force them to act differently breed more/breed less/adopt different survival strategies and even seek out different food sources/types. Most creatures (although not all) are relatively good at adapting in the face of change.
> 
> Obviously if there is a large availability of a particular food source that has poor survival skills in the wild  lets say for arguments sake hand reared pheasants or partridges then foxes will more than likely exploit that food source especially if its within easy striking distance and relatively easy to get. This then brings them onto the radar of gamekeepers or livestock managers as a problem because obviously theres loss of money involved. Wild game birds that are better adapted to survive predators like foxes are less abundant because of the changes in our landscape and degrading/loss of the habitats in which they lived and so large numbers of hand reared birds are introduced. Obviously gamekeepers/farmers and a variety of other people then start to perceive foxes as a pest.
> 
> I personally wish we hadnt interfered but the reality is that we have over the years and therefore we have to take a measured and considered approach about what should be done. I think that if the reality is that people are going to seek to control foxes on their land then I think theres room for a variety of different approaches working alongside eachother. An example of this might be better actual barriers, different types of fencing, different farming practices, targeted (but humane!!) culling in hotspots where there is a severe problem, all these measures with a view to reducing losses if that is what you are interested in doing. Why do we so often tend to look for a one size fits all solution?
> 
> Theres always a reason behind everything, you cant just say fox populations are huge and foxes are a problem  if you believe this to be the case of course!, and think about solutions without considering the changes that we have made to the landscape over the years and what problems we might have ourselves induced. We reap what we sow in some ways. We will always feel the need to control stuff I accept that even if I dont entirely agree with it but we have a responsibility to think about things not just as isolated issues and we should have a responsibility to use effective and humane solutions wherever we possibly can. I further believe that if we dont see effective and humane solutions as our first choice then the law should force us to.


*Excellent post. *


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

GreyHare said:


> Is there actual proof that Huntsmen have created artifical earths, and as for fox populations self regulating they do and they will fight to death when over populated or starve to death, or encroach on suburbs/gardens, which is why I found a dead fox in my back garden last month, it was killed by the resident fox and it sounded brutal, probably because it was.


*There is plenty of proof about hunts creating artificial earths.
Fox regulating themselves due to the availibilty of food, isn't a fact of them fighting each other but the fact they wont breed when food is scarce. 
Also if foxes are removed from their territory, then another family of foxes will move into that territory.*


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> Is there actual proof that Huntsmen have created artifical earths, and as for fox populations self regulating they do and they will fight to death when over populated or starve to death, or encroach on suburbs/gardens, which is why I found a dead fox in my back garden last month, it was killed by the resident fox and it sounded brutal, probably because it was.


......More hunts in fox-breeding scandal - News - The Independent


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *There is plenty of proof about hunts creating artificial earths.
> Fox regulating themselves due to the availibilty of food, isn't a fact of them fighting each other but the fact they wont breed when food is scarce.
> Also if foxes are removed from their territory, then another family of foxes will move into that territory.*


So then surely there was/is no need for artifical earths to be dug then as a new fox family would have surely taken up resident in the earth where the previous fox was hunted then.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*Just one of many articles to be found proving hunts create artificial earths.
*

*WARNING CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES.*

*Artificial Earths*


----------



## Spellweaver

GreyHare said:


> So then surely there was/is no need for artifical earths to be dug then as a new fox family would have surely taken up resident in the earth where the previous fox was hunted then.


Unless of course the hunts are breeding more so that they can chase and kill more?


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

GreyHare said:


> So then surely there was/is no need for artifical earths to be dug then as a new fox family would have surely taken up resident in the earth where the previous fox was hunted then.


*The more foxes available to hunt, the better it is for the huntsmen.*


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> ......More hunts in fox-breeding scandal - News - The Independent


Did any prosecutions arise from this though as the article only makes claims.


----------



## Spellweaver

Shamen said:


> ......More hunts in fox-breeding scandal - News - The Independent


An excellent link. Quite apart from it proving the point about artificial earths, the following quote from it is really telling:

_Clifford Pellow, a kennelman and huntsman for 23 years, said .......... "The theory of pest control is a joke. Hunting people have hundreds of excuses but really no justification for what they do."_

Proof from someone with years of experience in hunting agreeing with what we anti-hunters on here have been saying!


----------



## suzy93074

I think some of the Pro Hunters are being a little cockish here - it seems to me that many are saying that the huntsmen never do anything "underhand". The fact that so many hunts do still go on when it is banned is proof of that - so the thought that they create artificial earths does not sound impossible to me. Like all things that are banned but there is still access to - people will become sly and sneaky to get it - there is no way we can say that ALL huntsmen are above board and comply with the rules.


----------



## JANICE199

*


rona said:



Sorry, I thought it was important.
I will bow out now 

And what a totally biased bit of silly irrelevant film :lol:
Nothing was fact and they kept saying about how they felt intimidated and watched. How would law abiding drag hunting people feel at someone obviously anti filming and harassing them. 
Sorry but that is laughable

Click to expand...

Sorry rona but i'm confused.Which video clip are you refering to,the one i posted ot the one FREE SPIRIT posted?
In the clip i posted,a woman was pushed to the ground by a huntsman using his horse,along with another bystander.The guy on the horse was given a 6 month jail sentence.So i can't find any humour in that post.
In the link that FREE SPIRIT posted there are quite a few acts of cruelty,like the lady who's cat had been torn to bits by hounds.The lady who keep goats and lost how many to hounds running riot over her property.Yes the list goes on.But once again i didn't find any part of the video funny or silly.*


----------



## bucksmum

Just going back to the anti hunting suggestion of live trapping and then releasing foxes can i ask where you suggest the foxes are released.

Foxes are territorial and if you release one on anothers territory they are not going to play happy families.
We had several foxes dumped (or released if you see it that way) from a sanctuary on the shoot.Thye had no idea where they were or where to go and my husband shot 7 in one night.Not being cruel....it's his job.

He has also caught foxes in larsen traps (cages to catch corvids live) and when found (traps are checked twice daily) the foxes are extremely distressed and have often nasty head injuries where they have been headbutting the cage to escape.We have now changed our supplier of these traps to a version impossible for a fox to enter to avoid this happening as it is no way to catch and restrain an animal.

Hours panicking in a cage trap causes extreme suffering so much more than the seconds it takes a large hound to kill a fox.


----------



## Guest

suzy93074 said:


> I think some of the Pro Hunters are being a little cockish here - it seems to me that many are saying that the huntsmen never do anything "underhand". The fact that so many hunts do still go on when it is banned is proof of that - so the thought that they create artificial earths does not sound impossible to me. Like all things that are banned but there is still access to - people will become sly and sneaky to get it - there is no way we can say that ALL huntsmen are above board and comply with the rules.


But exactly the same can be said for the sabs too, as all the posters on here who have been to hunts to protest have never seen any violence from the sabs, but it does happen and i don't think anyboby has stated catagorically that either side is whiter than white, although the Hunters are obiviously worse because ya know they are hunters


----------



## suzy93074

GreyHare said:


> But exactly the same can be said for the sabs too, as all the posters on here who have been to hunts to protest have never seen any violence from the sabs, but it does happen and i don't think anyboby has stated catagorically that either side is whiter than white, although the Hunters are obiviously worse because ya know they are hunters


Yes I have said in an earlier thread that those sabs that are violent etc are not acceptable - I think both sides will have good and bad in them but it just seems to me that in order to create a defense some of the pro hunters are seeming to say that a lot of hunts are above board etc and I dont think this is the case we cannot possibly know that.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Just going back to the anti hunting suggestion of live trapping and then releasing foxes can i ask where you suggest the foxes are released.
> 
> Foxes are territorial and if you release one on anothers territory they are not going to play happy families.
> We had several foxes dumped (or released if you see it that way) from a sanctuary on the shoot.Thye had no idea where they were or where to go and my husband shot 7 in one night.Not being cruel....it's his job.
> 
> He has also caught foxes in larsen traps (cages to catch corvids live) and when found (traps are checked twice daily) the foxes are extremely distressed and have often nasty head injuries where they have been headbutting the cage to escape.We have now changed our supplier of these traps to a version impossible for a fox to enter to avoid this happening as it is no way to catch and restrain an animal.
> 
> Hours panicking in a cage trap causes extreme suffering so much more than the seconds it takes a large hound to kill a fox.


what sanctuary was it to just dump seven foxes like that?? wildlife sanctuaries have soft release sites where foxes are acclimatised before release!

if you were a fox please dont tell me you'd rather be persued across the countyside by baying hounds for god knows how long then torn to shreds


----------



## bucksmum

Shamen said:


> what sanctuary was it to just dump seven foxes like that?? wildlife sanctuaries have soft release sites where foxes are acclimatised before release!
> 
> if you were a fox please dont tell me you'd rather be persued across the countyside by baying hounds for god knows how long then torn to shreds


But what could the alternative method be?

From what i have seen for myself i know how much a fox will suffer in a live trap As i have already explained rifle shooting is not always possible and shotgunning foxes cruel unless extremely close and a heavy gauge shot is used.

Live cage trapping foxes causes hours of stress,far longer than a kill from a large hound.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> But what could the alternative method be?
> 
> From what i have seen for myself i know how much a fox will suffer in a live trap As i have already explained rifle shooting is not always possible and shotgunning foxes cruel unless extremely close and a heavy gauge shot is used.
> 
> Live cage trapping foxes causes hours of stress,far longer than a kill from a large hound.


can i just ask again what sanctuary dumped the foxes? 

as has been said (quite a lot) hunts create artificial earths proving fox hunting isnt about predator control at all

im of the same opinion as Zaros try leaving the foxes alone to kill the rabbits and rodents! studies have proved they do a good job keeping them in check!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> But what could the alternative method be?
> 
> From what i have seen for myself i know how much a fox will suffer in a live trap As i have already explained rifle shooting is not always possible and shotgunning foxes cruel unless extremely close and a heavy gauge shot is used.
> 
> Live cage trapping foxes causes hours of stress,far longer than a kill from a large hound.


*Why is the death of a fox the answer?*


----------



## bucksmum

Shamen said:


> can i just ask again what sanctuary dumped the foxes?
> 
> as has been said (quite a lot) hunts create artificial earths proving fox hunting isnt about predator control at all
> 
> im of the same opinion as Zaros try leaving the foxes alone to kill the rabbits and rodents! studies have proved they do a good job keeping them in check!


Firstly,i have no idea which sanctuary dumped the foxes but having lamped the ground almost every night for months and to then have several very tame,confused,dopey foxes actually coming towards the truck it's not hard to work out that they had be kept in captivity 

We run a a pheasant shoot,never have set up an artificial earth,never will 

A pheasant shoot will not survive on a rabbit and rodent population,surprisingly it needs pheasants!!!! It is my husbands job to control the vermin on the estate including rabbits and rats (as surprisingly a fox just CANNOT eat all the rabbits an 4000 acres!!) but his main problem is foxes.

If he left them to kill his birds he would be sacked end of,and don't say 'well he should make the pen more secure' as pheasants are released into a pen in the woods which they are gradually released from and foxy will take them after they have left the pen and are coming down from roost.


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> Firstly,i have no idea which sanctuary dumped the foxes but having lamped the ground almost every night for months and to then have several very tame,confused,dopey foxes actually coming towards the truck it's not hard to work out that they had be kept in captivity
> 
> We run a a pheasant shoot,never have set up an artificial earth,never will
> 
> A pheasant shoot will not survive on a rabbit and rodent population,surprisingly it needs pheasants!!!! It is my husbands job to control the vermin on the estate including rabbits and rats (as surprisingly a fox just CANNOT eat all the rabbits an 4000 acres!!) but his main problem is foxes.
> 
> If he left them to kill his birds he would be sacked end of,and don't say 'well he should make the pen more secure' as pheasants are released into a pen in the woods which they are gradually released from and foxy will take them after they have left the pen and are coming down from roost.


what do you mean by dopey as in drugged? so they could have been released by anyone and you're just surmising they came from a sanctuary then, i cant believe any wildlife centre would be responsible thats for sure, and tbh im quite shocked your oh could just shoot them:frown:

sorry but this really does put me off estates who rear pheasents, pheasents arnt even a native species yet our indiginous predators have to suffer...greedy landowners:thumbdown:


----------



## bucksmum

Shamen said:


> what do you mean by dopey as in drugged? so they could have been released by anyone and you're just surmising they came from a sanctuary then, i cant believe any wildlife centre would be responsible thats for sure, and tbh im quite shocked your oh could just shoot them:frown:
> 
> sorry but this really does put me off estates who rear pheasents, pheasents arnt even a native species yet our indiginous predators have to suffer...greedy landowners:thumbdown:


I use the term 'dopey' in the sense they were not acting as a 'wild' fox does .They were approaching us obviously completely unafraid of humans. They were certainly not foxes that had been born and grew up on the estate.

They have to be shot.As i explained if left he would be sacked....the sad fact is that foxes that have been released and are not as skilled at hunting as a fox grown up in the wild are more of a danger to our livelihood as pheasant poults are such easy prey,far more so than rabbits


----------



## jeanie

I feel i must agree with Shamen here, i also dont like pheasant shooting, but to be honest how someone can look a fox in the eye and shoot i feel must be very hard hearted, to me its much like looking at a small dog, i wonder how many people could shoot a dog, its a fact they do keep the numbers of rabbits and small vermin down, but how do they get the chance if shot every few mins, i do live in the country and friendly with farmers who do not shoot foxes or allow hunts over there land, as with everything else i think it all comes down to money , same with pheasant shoots people pay lots to attend , sod the poor wildlife only money is important in this world today,  im sorry but it really makes me feel sick to my stomach .


----------



## tashi

ok have 'roughly' moderated this one, if anyone sees anything that needs sorting then report it please, this thread is to be given another chance 

However please remember that some people have a job of work to do, I have stayed away until now and really hoped someone else would moderate it, my parents both worked in hunt service as it was a job, jobs were few and far between then and my fathers only other choice was to go down the mines, so I was born and brought up in the world of hunting, I guess I will now find out who my real friends are and those that will judge me because it is something that I actually 'lived' with, I adore hounds and also admire foxes, I am now retiring to the bunker with my tin hat on. Please keep it a debate and not a slanging match.

This is one of the hardest things I have had to do, but hey ho


----------



## Guest

Shamen said:


> sorry but this really does put me off estates who rear pheasents, pheasents arnt even a native species yet our indiginous predators have to suffer...greedy landowners:thumbdown:


Rabbits aren't native to this country either yet are considered a integral part of the countryside.

The reason for alot of hunts and shoots are that are farmers are struggling to live and need to earn money from other revenue sources and shoots can be very profitable, and the birds are shot for purpose and are eaten, sold to local butchers etc so it's not just for fun.


----------



## JANICE199

tashi said:


> ok have 'roughly' moderated this one, if anyone sees anything that needs sorting then report it please, this thread is to be given another chance
> 
> However please remember that some people have a job of work to do, I have stayed away until now and really hoped someone else would moderate it, my parents both worked in hunt service as it was a job, jobs were few and far between then and my fathers only other choice was to go down the mines, so I was born and brought up in the world of hunting, I guess I will now find out who my real friends are and those that will judge me because it is something that I actually 'lived' with, I adore hounds and also admire foxes, I am now retiring to the bunker with my tin hat on. Please keep it a debate and not a slanging match.
> 
> This is one of the hardest things I have had to do, but hey ho


*Thankyou Tashi for reopening this thread.I personaly will report any post that starts getting out of hand.xx*


----------



## Guest

GreyHare said:


> Rabbits aren't native to this country either yet are considered a integral part of the countryside.
> 
> The reason for alot of hunts and shoots are that are farmers are struggling to live and need to earn money from other revenue sources and shoots can be very profitable, and the birds are shot for purpose and are eaten, sold to local butchers etc so it's not just for fun.


i agree rabbits are now an integral part of our countryside they are wild and have a chance of evading predators unlike the millions of pheasents bred for the shoot who are hand reared and naive!...not very 'sporting' shooting a tame bird imo! Animal Aid : Pheasant Shooting Campaign

i find this part rather interesting...

Not surprisingly, both bird and mammalian predators are attracted to these unnaturally large concentrations of birds, and pay the price for it in large-scale predator control programmes. Captive-reared birds are unable to protect themselves against attack in the same way their wild cousins can, which means that up to 4.5 million mammals and birds of prey are sacrificed each year on the altar of game bird management. (4) Sometimes even protected species are slaughtered. Between 1990 and 1997, 2,300 birds of prey were reported killed to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). In one year, 118 incidents involved poison misuse and 174 involved shooting and other prohibited means. (9) As a consequence of these programmes, hen harriers face extinction in England. In 1997 alone, the number of specially protected birds known to have been killed included eight red kites, nine peregrine falcons and one golden eagle. Twenty-eight common buzzards were also reported killed. Many other victims would not have come to public attention.


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

tashi said:


> However please remember that some people have a job of work to do, I have stayed away until now and really hoped someone else would moderate it, my parents both worked in hunt service as it was a job, jobs were few and far between then and my fathers only other choice was to go down the mines, so I was born and brought up in the world of hunting, I guess I will now find out who my real friends are and those that will judge me because it is something that I actually 'lived' with, I adore hounds and also admire foxes, I am now retiring to the bunker with my tin hat on. Please keep it a debate and not a slanging match.
> 
> This is one of the hardest things I have had to do, but hey ho


*Tashi, im sure i speak for most when i say this....I will certainly not be judging you or anyone else who is pro hunting. Infact a couple of pro hunters have contributed alot to this thread which after all is a good topic to debate. I also believe both pro's and antis have been respectful to each other when putting across their views. I would hate to see this thread which holds a wealth of information get closed or deleted. *


----------



## owieprone

bucksmum said:


> So to answer your question,yes in certain areas to kill with a gun would not be practical (too much cover),snares are cruel,shotguns for foxes are cruel (through my experience) so hunting them sometimes is the best alternative.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't agree.. shooting is MUCH quicker, the fox knows nothing about it until it's hit, it can crawl away for a few mins max but will then be put down as quickly as possible bythe shooter.
> 
> on a fox hunt the fox is hunted for HOURS then mauled to death, i know i'd prefer to be shot, much less likelihood of suffering.
> 
> on the flip side, much higher likelihood of being shot than a hunt coming across me


----------



## bucksmum

owieprone said:


> bucksmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to answer your question,yes in certain areas to kill with a gun would not be practical (too much cover),snares are cruel,shotguns for foxes are cruel (through my experience) so hunting them sometimes is the best alternative.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't agree.. shooting is MUCH quicker, the fox knows nothing about it until it's hit, it can crawl away for a few mins max but will then be put down as quickly as possible bythe shooter.
> 
> on a fox hunt the fox is hunted for HOURS then mauled to death, i know i'd prefer to be shot, much less likelihood of suffering.
> 
> on the flip side, much higher likelihood of being shot than a hunt coming across me
> 
> 
> 
> Owieprone,i can see your point but ONLY if it's a clean kill with a rifle which infortunatley no matter how good the rifleman is, sometimes a fox is wounded and it is not always possible to track the fox to put him out of his misery.I have seen foxes run like stink with a huge bullet hole in never to be found. It is on occasions like this we go to get the dogs to track the wounded animal if possible and have saved a few foxes a long lingering gangrenous death by finding them. Shotguns as i have already explained are ,imo, very cruel for killing foxes as you have to be very close and use a heavy gauge shot to ensure a instant kill
> 
> You are right that you have a far higher likelhood of being shot than caught by a hunt in fact (just trying to get back on topic) on the estate we work the landowner has stopped the hunt coming on NOT because he disagrees with hunting but he is so damn sick of the trouble the anti hunt protesters cause and had several cases of criminal damage by them on vehicles and property.
Click to expand...


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

bucksmum said:


> [QUOTE1689133]
> 
> You are right that you have a far higher likelhood of being shot than caught by a hunt in fact (just trying to get back on topic) on the estate we work the landowner has stopped the hunt coming on NOT because he disagrees with hunting but he is so damn sick of the trouble the anti hunt protesters cause and had several cases of criminal damage by them on vehicles and property.


*There are many, many cases of farmers, landowners being against hunts because of the damage they cause. Both damage to property and harm to livestock and pets.*


----------



## vivienne

To answer the original question yes I think hunt sabs are in the wrong, not because I agree with hunting, I don't but because it only serves to give a negative view of the anti hunt lobby to the general public.
I have seen and heard this topic debated many times and both sides are firm and inflexible in their views and both sides give out so called facts which are untrue.
I live in the countryside and reluctantly acknowledge that sometimes animals need to be controlled. We have very occasionally killed moles and rabbits on our land but I hate having to do it and only do so as a last resort. Also I have no hatred for these animals on the contrary I respect and value them and it causes me great sadness to see a dead mole - a delightful and beautiful creature.
What I despise about hunting is the idea that it is a sport i.e. killing for the pleasure of it. I also do not like the way many pro hunting people talk about foxes- always seeking to villify them by calling them vermin etc. Presumably to try and justify their "sport"
I am sick of hearing the same old propoganda " well if you had seen what a fox can do in a chicken run... ".
Well I keep chickens and I have seen what a fox can do and yes I still like foxes! It is up to the chicken keeper to protect their flock.
Foxes are beautiful wild animals trying to survive . 
As for urban foxes there are so many of those because there is so much waste food left all over the place by members of the human race.
People need to clean up their act (and be less wasteful).


----------



## kaz_f

vivienne said:


> To answer the original question yes I think hunt sabs are in the wrong, not because I agree with hunting, I don't but because it only serves to give a negative view of the anti hunt lobby to the general public.
> I have seen and heard this topic debated many times and both sides are firm and inflexible in their views and both sides give out so called facts which are untrue.
> I live in the countryside and reluctantly acknowledge that sometimes animals need to be controlled. We have very occasionally killed moles and rabbits on our land but I hate having to do it and only do so as a last resort. Also I have no hatred for these animals on the contrary I respect and value them and it causes me great sadness to see a dead mole - a delightful and beautiful creature.
> What I despise about hunting is the idea that it is a sport i.e. killing for the pleasure of it. I also do not like the way many pro hunting people talk about foxes- always seeking to villify them by calling them vermin etc. Presumably to try and justify their "sport"
> I am sick of hearing the same old propoganda " well if you had seen what a fox can do in a chicken run... ".
> Well I keep chickens and I have seen what a fox can do and yes I still like foxes! It is up to the chicken keeper to protect their flock.
> Foxes are beautiful wild animals trying to survive .
> As for urban foxes there are so many of those because there is so much waste food left all over the place by members of the human race.
> People need to clean up their act (and be less wasteful).


Yes I've kept hens for donkeys years. At the previous place where I lived which was in the middle of nowhere I kept Welsummers and you could basically see foxes from the windows of my house at night if you shined a torch around - I never ever lost one hen. Same with where I live now. You could say I've been very lucky but that's not the case I just spent time completely and utterly fox proofing their run because basically it's my responsibility to keep them safe.


----------



## Dingle

nfp20 said:


> the fox that attacked the toddler in Brighton would not have been dispatched by the hunt it was a town fox and they unlike their country cousins they are far too friendly because they are fed by people all the time so to be perfectly honest this was to be expected. A fox can and has brought down new born foals so why should a toddler be any different. In that area there are numerous foxes and several of the residents in their stupidity feed them with household left overs which encourages them. They have no real fear of people at all. I used to live near there and they were to be honest a complete nightmare and kept attacking the cats so much so mine had to stay housecats till I moved.
> 
> Personally I think hunt Sabs are totally irresponsible they put themselves, the riders and the huntstaff as well as the dogs at risk with some of their antics and to be perfectly honest the hunt does a job that is sadly necessary in the countryside. They help to keep the balance.


totally agree!

I have no problem with hunting or lamping


----------



## owieprone

bucksmum said:


> owieprone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owieprone,i can see your point but ONLY if it's a clean kill with a rifle which infortunatley no matter how good the rifleman is, sometimes a fox is wounded and it is not always possible to track the fox to put him out of his misery.I have seen foxes run like stink with a huge bullet hole in never to be found. It is on occasions like this we go to get the dogs to track the wounded animal if possible and have saved a few foxes a long lingering gangrenous death by finding them. Shotguns as i have already explained are ,imo, very cruel for killing foxes as you have to be very close and use a heavy gauge shot to ensure a instant kill
> 
> You are right that you have a far higher likelhood of being shot than caught by a hunt in fact (just trying to get back on topic) on the estate we work the landowner has stopped the hunt coming on NOT because he disagrees with hunting but he is so damn sick of the trouble the anti hunt protesters cause and had several cases of criminal damage by them on vehicles and property.
> 
> 
> 
> yes but the number of times 'missing' a kill-hit will be less than the suffering caused by hunts directly (in which case no matter how it is killed the fox suffers). hunting can NEVER give a clean/quick death, shooting at least will give a clean wound (which may or may not prove fatal) and 9 to 8 out of 10 times (guess) a quick death. there's a difference between knowing your bleeding out to having chunks ripped out of you while you're alive and trying to escape. (bit graphic there maybe?  lol)
> 
> i was of course talking BIG lol 50 cal would be my choice lmao.. legally though ...i'm not sure what i'd choose, i'd probably start 'normal' and work my way up to what's best.. as and when money and legislature allowed
> yes yes i'm a gun nut and i'm not even american :lol:
> 
> yeah hunts are very disruptive and damaging and they don't always follow the farmers rules for which field(s) they can hunt through. hunting is in my eyes not a 'culling' method at all. once maybe when farming methods, populations (human and foxes) weren't as rife etc it was effective, but now? nah as i said.. i see more foxes squashed on the highway that my mate when on hunts each month.
Click to expand...


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

vivienne said:


> To answer the original question yes I think hunt sabs are in the wrong, not because I agree with hunting, I don't but because it only serves to give a negative view of the anti hunt lobby to the general public.
> I have seen and heard this topic debated many times and both sides are firm and inflexible in their views and both sides give out so called facts which are untrue.
> I live in the countryside and reluctantly acknowledge that sometimes animals need to be controlled. We have very occasionally killed moles and rabbits on our land but I hate having to do it and only do so as a last resort. Also I have no hatred for these animals on the contrary I respect and value them and it causes me great sadness to see a dead mole - a delightful and beautiful creature.
> What I despise about hunting is the idea that it is a sport i.e. killing for the pleasure of it. I also do not like the way many pro hunting people talk about foxes- always seeking to villify them by calling them vermin etc. Presumably to try and justify their "sport"
> I am sick of hearing the same old propoganda " well if you had seen what a fox can do in a chicken run... ".
> Well I keep chickens and I have seen what a fox can do and yes I still like foxes! It is up to the chicken keeper to protect their flock.
> Foxes are beautiful wild animals trying to survive .
> As for urban foxes there are so many of those because there is so much waste food left all over the place by members of the human race.
> People need to clean up their act (and be less wasteful).





kaz_f said:


> Yes I've kept hens for donkeys years. At the previous place where I lived which was in the middle of nowhere I kept Welsummers and you could basically see foxes from the windows of my house at night if you shined a torch around - I never ever lost one hen. Same with where I live now. You could say I've been very lucky but that's not the case I just spent time completely and utterly fox proofing their run because basically it's my responsibility to keep them safe.


*Both great posts. *


----------



## bucksmum

owieprone said:


> bucksmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes but the number of times 'missing' a kill-hit will be less than the suffering caused by hunts directly (in which case no matter how it is killed the fox suffers). hunting can NEVER give a clean/quick death, shooting at least will give a clean wound (which may or may not prove fatal) and 9 to 8 out of 10 times (guess) a quick death. there's a difference between knowing your bleeding out to having chunks ripped out of you while you're alive and trying to escape. (bit graphic there maybe?  lol)
> 
> i was of course talking BIG lol 50 cal would be my choice lmao.. legally though ...i'm not sure what i'd choose, i'd probably start 'normal' and work my way up to what's best.. as and when money and legislature allowed
> yes yes i'm a gun nut and i'm not even american :lol:
> 
> yeah hunts are very disruptive and damaging and they don't always follow the farmers rules for which field(s) they can hunt through. hunting is in my eyes not a 'culling' method at all. once maybe when farming methods, populations (human and foxes) weren't as rife etc it was effective, but now? nah as i said.. i see more foxes squashed on the highway that my mate when on hunts each month.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunatley although the wound may be 'clean' when new it very often turn gangrenous.We have also shot and caught with the terriers foxes that have been peppered with shotguns several weeks earlier (most often on neighbouring estates) and are getting weaker due to their inability to hunt for food
> You can tell the wound is a shotgun hit and in some cases a fox will have a leg blown off from a rifle (yes,i know ) and has survived on three legs obviously in great discomfort.
> 
> I just cannot see how being caught by a strong lead hound is causing more suffering than a fox wounded by an unfortunate gunshot  that did not result in a clean kill.
Click to expand...


----------



## JANICE199

bucksmum said:


> owieprone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunatley although the wound may be 'clean' when new it very often turn gangrenous.We have also shot and caught with the terriers foxes that have been peppered with shotguns several weeks earlier (most often on neighbouring estates) and are getting weaker due to their inability to hunt for food
> You can tell the wound is a shotgun hit and in some cases a fox will have a leg blown off from a rifle (yes,i know ) and has survived on three legs obviously in great discomfort.
> 
> I just cannot see how being caught by a strong lead hound is causing more suffering than a fox wounded by an unfortunate gunshot  that did not result in a clean kill.
> 
> 
> 
> *Can i ask,why are shotguns used,ie. the ones that can leave pepered wounds? Watching the programe on more4 on sunday the guy that was there to shoot the foxes didn't use such a gun.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

JANICE199 said:


> bucksmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Can i ask,why are shotguns used,ie. the ones that can leave pepered wounds? Watching the programe on more4 on sunday the guy that was there to shoot the foxes didn't use such a gun.*
> 
> 
> 
> It's mainly down to licensing laws as shotgun licenses are fairly easy to get where as a Rifle comes under a fire arms license and is much harder to get and is much much stricter and that you need a justifiable reason to have a rifle rather than a shotgun, for instance if you take your gun in the car, a shot gun it can just travel in the car with you, a rifle need to be in a locked box that is secured by being attatched to the car chassis.
Click to expand...


----------



## bucksmum

JANICE199 said:


> bucksmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Can i ask,why are shotguns used,ie. the ones that can leave pepered wounds? Watching the programe on more4 on sunday the guy that was there to shoot the foxes didn't use such a gun.*
> 
> 
> 
> Shotguns are used mainly to shoot foxes on the run so often used in 'gun packs'. (foxes flushed out of woods towards waiting guns)
> 
> I have seen many foxes go away wounded during this and now will not partake.The main way we control the foxes on the estate is through rifle shooting.
> Hunting with hounds would be very helpful to us as there is a huge area of woodland that is not possible to see the foxes to shoot with rifles but unfortunatley as i explained before there was so much criminal damage caused by ant hunt protesters that the estate owners has stopped the hunt coming in
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

bucksmum said:


> owieprone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just cannot see how being caught by a strong lead hound is causing more suffering than a fox wounded by an unfortunate gunshot  that did not result in a clean kill.
> 
> 
> 
> because from the moment the persuit of the terrified fox begins its 'Inhumane', and then for an animal to get torn to shreds by a pack of dogs it is totally and utterly 'Barbaric'!
Click to expand...


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Tashi, im sure i speak for most when i say this....I will certainly not be judging you or anyone else who is pro hunting. Infact a couple of pro hunters have contributed alot to this thread which after all is a good topic to debate. I also believe both pro's and antis have been respectful to each other when putting across their views. I would hate to see this thread which holds a wealth of information get closed or deleted. *


I agree totally with this. I can really appreciate how you feel about this Tashi, and think you have done an absolutely stirling job in moderating what must have been a very difficult thread for you to moderate. You are an asset to the forum .......... and a good friend too!


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*Another interesting article.*

*Warning contains GRAPHIC images.*

*The True Face of Foxhunting in the UK*


----------



## JANICE199

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *Another interesting article.*
> 
> *Warning contains GRAPHIC images.*
> 
> *The True Face of Foxhunting in the UK*


*I see from that link even though the ban is in place the pro hunters think they are above the law. I quote
" 50,000 hunters have signed a declaration saying that they will defy the ban on hunting"....And they say money doesn't talk? lol the hell it doesn't.*


----------



## nfp20

Shamen said:


> bucksmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> because from the moment the persuit of the terrified fox begins its 'Inhumane', and then for an animal to get torn to shreds by a pack of dogs it is totally and utterly 'Barbaric'!
> 
> 
> 
> Its very easy to take that stand its easy to be emotional but the reality is a whole pack would not actually be able to get around it to do the type of damage you are talking about until its dead when the lead hounds will have discarded it having completed their job.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

nfp20 said:


> Shamen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its very easy to take that stand its easy to be emotional but the reality is a whole pack would not actually be able to get around it to do the type of damage you are talking about until its dead when the lead hounds will have discarded it having completed their job.
> 
> 
> 
> lmao well i think a lot of eye witnesses would beg to differ(my oh being one!), and what about the tons of video footage which totally disproves what you have just said, i also mentioned the chase itself being inhumane obviously you disagree, and what about if the fox manages to go to ground and has to endure the terror of being dug out...do you also consider this humane treatment of an animal?
> 
> ive not put any grapic links up of foxes being ripped apart whilst alive because they turn my stomach but do you think this fox would have died instantly with just a nip to the back of the neck if the sabs hadnt saved him? YouTube - Hunt Saboteurs Save Fox. Ledbury Hunt Nov 2008
Click to expand...


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

*My MP's response: 

Thank you for your email. 
Please be assured that I do not support fox hunting. However, I do support a repeal of the current law which simply isn't working and is illogical inasmuch as it still allows hunting with dogs, provided only two hounds are involved. Being torn apart by two dogs doesn't seem to me to be any better than being torn apart by twenty. I would like to see the existing Bill replaced by one that is actually based on animal welfare. *

*Needless to say i will be replying stating the obvious...that the law/ban needs enforcing NOT repealing. 
*


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *My MP's response:
> 
> Thank you for your email.
> Please be assured that I do not support fox hunting. However, I do support a repeal of the current law which simply isn't working and is illogical inasmuch as it still allows hunting with dogs, provided only two hounds are involved. Being torn apart by two dogs doesn't seem to me to be any better than being torn apart by twenty. I would like to see the existing Bill replaced by one that is actually based on animal welfare. *
> 
> *Needless to say i will be replying stating the obvious...that the law/ban needs enforcing NOT repealing.
> *


*My reply:

Thank you for taking the time to reply. May i ask why you would support a repeal of the ban rather than making sure the present ban is enforced and tougher sentencing for those that break the law? Surely if the attitude that just because people are not sticking to laws that are in place we should take away that law....This logic would apply to many criminals that break many laws? I agree hunting with two hounds is/can be just as cruel as hunting with many hounds. Therefore, why not make an outright ban? This barbaric practice needs to be resigned to the history books as it is such practices that take the 'Great' out of 'Great Britain'.
*


----------



## JANICE199

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *My reply:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply. May i ask why you would support a repeal of the ban rather than making sure the present ban is enforced and tougher sentencing for those that break the law? Surely if the attitude that just because people are not sticking to laws that are in place we should take away that law....This logic would apply to many criminals that break many laws? I agree hunting with two hounds is/can be just as cruel as hunting with many hounds. Therefore, why not make an outright ban? This barbaric practice needs to be resigned to the history books as it is such practices that take the 'Great' out of 'Great Britain'.
> *


*I get the impression the mp that wrote that is a sandwich short of a picnic.They state they dont want hunting to come back and agree it cruel but wont enforce the law already in place....
I can't wait to see the next reply you get.*


----------



## dobermummy

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *My reply:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply. May i ask why you would support a repeal of the ban rather than making sure the present ban is enforced and tougher sentencing for those that break the law? Surely if the attitude that just because people are not sticking to laws that are in place we should take away that law....This logic would apply to many criminals that break many laws? I agree hunting with two hounds is/can be just as cruel as hunting with many hounds. Therefore, why not make an outright ban? This barbaric practice needs to be resigned to the history books as it is such practices that take the 'Great' out of 'Great Britain'.
> *


i wonder what their reply to that will be...


----------



## owieprone

Shamen said:


> nfp20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lmao well i think a lot of eye witnesses would beg to differ(my oh being one!), and what about the tons of video footage which totally disproves what you have just said, i also mentioned the chase itself being inhumane obviously you disagree, and what about if the fox manages to go to ground and has to endure the terror of being dug out...do you also consider this humane treatment of an animal?
> 
> ive not put any grapic links up of foxes being ripped apart whilst alive because they turn my stomach but do you think this fox would have died instantly with just a nip to the back of the neck if the sabs hadnt saved him? YouTube - Hunt Saboteurs Save Fox. Ledbury Hunt Nov 2008
> 
> 
> 
> i think the point nfp's is trying to make is that 20 dogs cannot get around 1 fox and all get a bite in at the same time. Foxes just aren't big enough for that. They might vie for it or get in later after the lead hounds have finished with it etc.
Click to expand...


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

nfp20 said:


> 1689645 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its very easy to take that stand its easy to be emotional but the reality is a whole pack would not actually be able to get around it to do the type of damage you are talking about until its dead when the lead hounds will have discarded it having completed their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JANICE199 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I get the impression the mp that wrote that is a sandwich short of a picnic.They state they dont want hunting to come back and agree it cruel but wont enforce the law already in place....
> I can't wait to see the next reply you get.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mumof5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wonder what their reply to that will be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Notice even in the MP's reply he acknowledges foxes are ripped apart even if by two hounds.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *My reply:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply. May i ask why you would support a repeal of the ban rather than making sure the present ban is enforced and tougher sentencing for those that break the law? Surely if the attitude that just because people are not sticking to laws that are in place we should take away that law....This logic would apply to many criminals that break many laws? I agree hunting with two hounds is/can be just as cruel as hunting with many hounds. Therefore, why not make an outright ban? This barbaric practice needs to be resigned to the history books as it is such practices that take the 'Great' out of 'Great Britain'.
> *


nice one FreeSpirit! i really admire people who dont just sit back and accept things


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Shamen said:


> nice one FreeSpirit! i really admire people who dont just sit back and accept things


*I'll never accept animal cruelty and will do all i can to put a stop to such evil. *


----------



## Guest

owieprone said:


> Shamen said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think the point nfp's is trying to make is that 20 dogs cannot get around 1 fox and all get a bite in at the same time. Foxes just aren't big enough for that. They might vie for it or get in later after the lead hounds have finished with it etc.
> 
> 
> 
> lol oh right i see what theyre saying now, thanks Owieprone.. of course its just the lead hounds that rip them to shreds!
Click to expand...


----------



## owieprone

Shamen said:


> owieprone said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol oh right i see what theyre saying now, thanks Owieprone.. of course its just the lead hounds that rip them to shreds!
> 
> 
> 
> I realise this is a emotional topic for you but nae need for that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

owieprone said:


> Shamen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realise this is a emotional topic for you but nae need for that.
> 
> 
> 
> nae need for what
Click to expand...


----------



## owieprone

Shamen said:


> owieprone said:
> 
> 
> 
> nae need for what
> 
> 
> 
> sarcasm, i was only pointing out your misread.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

owieprone said:


> Shamen said:
> 
> 
> 
> sarcasm, i was only pointing out your misread.
> 
> 
> 
> i wasnt being sarcastic towards you Owieprone, i was genuinly thanking you because i hadnt realised what Nfp was meaning, sorry if it came across that way i just found it funny that nfp had tried to make it seem some how more acceptable by saying it was the lead dogs who did the deed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spellweaver

FREE SPIRIT said:


> *My reply:
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to reply. May i ask why you would support a repeal of the ban rather than making sure the present ban is enforced and tougher sentencing for those that break the law? Surely if the attitude that just because people are not sticking to laws that are in place we should take away that law....This logic would apply to many criminals that break many laws? I agree hunting with two hounds is/can be just as cruel as hunting with many hounds. Therefore, why not make an outright ban? This barbaric practice needs to be resigned to the history books as it is such practices that take the 'Great' out of 'Great Britain'.
> *


Great reply hun. Wanted to give you some rep for this but the computer says I have to spread it around a bit before I can rep you again. (  Spread it around? This sounds like one of the sites my mother used to warn me about!  )


----------



## FREE SPIRIT

Spellweaver said:


> Great reply hun. Wanted to give you some rep for this but the computer says I have to spread it around a bit before I can rep you again. (  Spread it around? This sounds like one of the sites my mother used to warn me about!  )


*Thanks 
Fancy the forum encouraging us members to spread it around.  :lol:*


----------



## Dingle

personally i love a good hunt & a bit of lamping too


----------



## JANICE199

Dingle said:


> personally i love a good hunt & a bit of lamping too


*Hi Dingle i have no problem with hunting for food.I do however draw the line at hunting for fun.*


----------



## Guest

Dingle said:


> personally i love a good hunt & a bit of lamping too


so do i:thumbup:


----------

