# Fox Hunting



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

I am sure that some of you would like to see the ban on fox hunting overturned, but the majority of people in the UK (polls running at 7 in 10 people against the the repeal), want to see this brutal blood sport where it belongs, in history books.

I know that people up and down the country are lobbying their MP's and ours, Andrew Selous, has stated that he fully intends to vote against the ban.

Surely MP's should be backing the views of their constituencies which is why I am asking people to PLEASE sign this petition. It is essentially aimed at people in Bedfordshire, but the more signatures the better.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petiti...?source=facebook-share-button&time=1432726578


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Nina said:


> I am sure that some of you would like to see the ban on fox hunting overturned, but the majority of people in the UK (polls running at 7 in 10 people against the the repeal), want to see this brutal blood sport where it belongs, in history books.
> 
> I know that people up and down the country are lobbying their MP's and ours, Andrew Selous, has stated that he fully intends to vote against the ban.
> 
> ...


Write in the letters column of his/your local paper stating your case and requesting an answer via the medium of the paper! If he knows how many people will read and disagree with his answer you might shame him. There's a misconception that anyone who votes Tory must support hunting, but he needs to appreciate that this crosses political boundaries.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-keep-the-ban-on-fox-hunting-2

This petition seems to be well supported. The more signatures it gets, the more publicity.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Must be forty years since I read a local paper
Does anyone still read them?

*it's a free vote, so number Tories voting no might retain the ban.
But there are 46 SNP MPs and they are abstaining.
This might loose if for the no vote


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Round us the local paper gets very involved in local politics, and if it's a quiet week might even get picked up on and make a headline, which will be on display on the stands in local shops, petrol stations etc etc.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I'd like to know what horrendous things are being slipped in under the radar while people are distracted *again *by this load of wool over eyes.........................

Hunting with hounds will never come back

Keep your eyes open behind you


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

chesspiece said:


> Must be forty years since I read a local paper
> Does anyone still read them?
> 
> *it's a free vote, so number Tories voting no might retain the ban.
> ...


I read mine on-line.

BTW - there are 56 SNP MP's in Parliament and they have not yet decided if they are abstaining from this vote if / when it happens. They are getting a lot of pressure from the Anti-Hunt lobbies to put forward a 'No' vote.

My local MP is very much in favour of a repeal but he is also getting pressure from his constituents to vote no. If he goes against these wishes, he is going to have a very hard time over the remaining course of his 'employ'.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> I read mine on-line.
> 
> BTW - there are 56 SNP MP's in Parliament and they have not yet decided if they are abstaining from this vote if / when it happens. They are getting a lot of pressure from the Anti-Hunt lobbies to put forward a 'No' vote.
> 
> My local MP is very much in favour of a repeal but he is also getting pressure from his constituents to vote no. If he goes against these wishes, he is going to have a very hard time over the remaining course of his 'employ'.


My bad. They gained 46 extra?
That would make it even worse if they abstain
BBC news website wrote they are abstaining


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I have 3 letters from my MP saying he'll vote against a repeal ....

(Ok, the last one was blatantly looking for my vote, but at least I know how strongly he feels about it).


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

chesspiece said:


> My bad. They gained 46 extra?
> That would make it even worse if they abstain
> *BBC news website wrote they are abstaining*


Please could you provide a link to this. The latest I can find is dated yesterday where no decision had yet been made. It is also not being reported by the League Against Cruel Sports and normally they would be amongst the first to advise on an issue like this.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

^. I am watching the queens speech debate live and Angus Robertson has just committed to the house that SNP MP's will abstain from voting on English only matters. Not saying they won't do an about turn but it doesn't look good for the outcome on this issue if he sticks to his word.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Thank you Satori. Could be a very bleak outcome if they don't vote....


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> Thank you Satori. Could be a very bleak outcome if they don't vote....


^ worse still (for this issue)..... There was a debate between the government benches and the SNP wherein John Redwood (I think) was insistent that English votes for English laws could be implemented without legislation but by revision of the standing orders. If they get away with that, then all they have to do is put the hunting vote after those revisions and the SNP would not be allowed to vote anyway.

Exactly as I was typing the above paragraph, Cheryl Gillan has just made the same point to the speaker (in points of order) saying that she hopes the west Lothian question is quickly resolved by the overhaul of standing orders. It really don't look good. Best chance is that a fair number of Conservative MP's vote no. (There's no whip on this vote).


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> Please could you provide a link to this. The latest I can find is dated yesterday where no decision had yet been made. It is also not being reported by the League Against Cruel Sports and normally they would be amongst the first to advise on an issue like this.


Sorry, was independent newspaper website. Not BBC
IT'S dated today, dont know how to link it
Guessing SNP abstaining as holyrood has autonomy over this issue?
If so, its right they would abstain


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I would suggest that it's worth signing any viable petition. Whilst it's optimistic to hope that they won't bring it back in, it was on their manifesto and it's foolish to be complacent surely?


----------



## Nina (Nov 2, 2007)

People should never underestimate the arrogance of a serving government. There are numerous petitions circulating around the country regarding this issue, but according to our local MP Andrew Selous, foxes must be controlled and hunting with hounds is the most humane way. Yea - really! It is as barbrtic as bull fighting is to Spain!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

_"Reports from the House of Commons suggest that supporters of hunting with dogs are confident that they will get their wish and see the ban lifted. They feel that they now have a majority of MPs in the new parliamentary intake that will allow them to win a free vote on the issue"_
"Our Dogs" May 22nd edition

I've signed just about every petition I've come across, and so have many, many people I know - but in the end I feel it will be of no use. People voted in the one party who were up front about their wish to repeal this ban and so now the vote will go ahead and, sadly, I think that we will go back to having foxes ripped to shreds by packs of hounds.

I do, of course, hope I am proved wrong.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I would suggest that it's worth signing any viable petition. Whilst it's optimistic to hope that they won't bring it back in, it was on their manifesto and it's foolish to be complacent surely?


It was on the manifesto to have a vote


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> It was on the manifesto to have a vote


Hence why I think signing petitions and nagging politicians is so important. As long as they are correctly phrased. There was a rejection for a demand for 'people starting an epatition should be made to pay a £1000 deposit refundable on said epatition reaching 10,000 votes'. Apart from the lunacy of the demand, how on earth does someone spell petition when it's on every page. There was one for enforcing a fridge tax to stop people getting overweight. I'd hate to moderate the UK petition site, one must despair for the future of the human race.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I too have have signed every petition I can find. I have today raised a point on my local paper web-site with a request they do an on-line poll along with a request that our repeal-favouring tory boy honour the outcome of that public vote by voting on the act in accordance with his constituents desires.

I'll be watching and pushing for the local poll before this comes to the House. 

I would urge others to do the same and try to get the message across that the majority of the population do not want this barbaric past-time re-instated.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

I don't think the number of Tory MPs that will vote to support the ban will counter the 56 SNP MPs that will abstain and the number of MPs from other parties besides Conservative that might vote to repeal the ban


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

I can never get my head around why people are so outraged by foxhunting (and rightly so), whilst munching on a chicken sandwich!  :Arghh

Sometimes meme's say more than my words can... (I do love a meme, sorry).


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

chesspiece said:


> My bad. They gained 46 extra?
> That would make it even worse if they abstain
> BBC news website wrote they are abstaining


The BBC and the British media are renowned for misreporting and spreading lies about what is happening politically in Scotland.

We here in Scotland use alternative news avenues such as:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/

http://www.thenational.scot/



Most of us now boycott the BBC.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> The BBC are renowned for misreporting and spreading lies about what is happening politically in Scotland.
> 
> We here in Scotland use alternative news avenues such as:
> 
> ...


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

It is the BBC and the British media in general that are corrupt and spread lies.

Remember Frenchgate/Nicola Sturgeon more recently in The Telegraph? Case in point....

Also as far as I know, the SNP have not declared what they are doing IF there is a vote on Fox Hunting.... it is all just supposition for now by the BIAS media!


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Sorry. My post ended up inside your quote. Patsymatsy see above


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> It is the BBC and the British media in general that are corrupt and spread lies.
> 
> Remember Frenchgate/Nicola Sturgeon more recently in The Telegraph? Case in point....
> 
> Also as far as I know, the SNP have not declared what they are doing IF there is a vote on Fox Hunting.... it is all supposition by the media!


According to satori it was a statement by an SNP MP on tv today?


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

chesspiece said:


> According to satori it was a statement by an SNP MP on tv today?


WRONG! No such statement has been made... I am a fully paid up member of the SNP, and no such thing has been said! Believe me, I am an animal lover, I keep my ear close to the ground on this matter.

If Satori can provide a link, I will eat my hat.... And there are 56 MP's, not just 1 MP to decide. Believe me, if they do vote it will be a collective decision and will be announced as such.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> WRONG! No such statement has been made... I am a fully paid up member of the SNP, and no such thing has been said! Believe me, I am an animal lover, I keep my ear close to the ground on this matter.
> 
> If Satori can provide a link, I will eat my hat.... And there are 56 MP's, not just 1 MP to decide. RBelieve me, if they do vote it will be a collective decision.


 Read his post above..

Live tv apparently
.SNP have policy not voting on English only matters.

The vote is planned to be a free vote, not party whipped


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

there's yir dinner (as we say north of the border).










http://www.snp.org/node/15739


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> There's yir dinner (as we say north of the border).
> 
> http://www.snp.org/node/15739
> 
> View attachment 232515


Can't open it
.id speak to satori
He told us
I never saw it
Although have heard SNP does have general policy not voting English only matters?
Which seems like an admirable principle


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

chesspiece said:


> Read his post above..
> 
> Live tv apparently
> .SNP have policy not voting on English only matters.
> ...


It may not be a party whipped decision, but I can guarantee you all 56 will vote against a vote on fox hunting, IF they do decide to vote on this matter I can promise you that!

I suspect (just suspect mind) that the 56 WILL vote on this matter.  It is an emotive subject, and pressure will be put on for them to vote, animals lives depend on it! Lives/cruelty is a good reason to abandon "principle" on occassion....

What the attachment said, that you cannot open, the SNP party website (OFFICIAL LINE ON THE MATTER):

*Fox Hunting - Will the SNP vote to repeal the fox hunting act?*
Legislation over fox hunting is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and Scotland took the opportunity to ban fox hunting in 2002, some two years before the legislation passed south of the border. There are no plans to repeal this legislation.As regards any legislation to repeal the ban in England and Wales, the SNP Group at Westminster has not yet decided its stance. While SNP MPs have tended not to participate in votes on domestic English/Welsh legislation which do not apply to Scotland, the party's Westminster Group will not decide a position on this matter until such time as any proposed legislation can be studied and assessed.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> It may not be a party whipped decision, but I can guarantee you all 56 will vote against a vote on fox hunting, IF they do decide to vote on this matter I can promise you that!
> 
> I suspect (just suspect mind) that the 56 WILL vote on this matter.  It is an emotive subject, and pressure will be put on for them to vote, animals lives depend on it! Lives/cruelty is a good reason to abandon "principle" on occassion....


I'm torn
Dont want repeal
But really strongly agree with SNP on principle they shouldn't vote on English matters
So think they should abstain
Shouldn't been a vote in first place, but then again I didnt vote Tory in GE and it was in their manifesto


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

chesspiece said:


> I'm torn
> Dont want repeal
> But really strongly agree with SNP on principle they shouldn't vote on English matters
> So think they should abstain
> Shouldn't been a vote in first place, but then again I didnt vote Tory in GE and it was in their manifesto


The official party line for now.... they haven't decided! But suspect they will vote.... hell Westminster still decides a lot of what happens in Scotland. Therefore I believe (have faith) they will make an exception on this vote. We are a caring progressive party, I would be shocked if we turned our backs on the foxes. But I could be wrong, time will tell!

*Fox Hunting - Will the SNP vote to repeal the fox hunting act?*
Legislation over fox hunting is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and Scotland took the opportunity to ban fox hunting in 2002, some two years before the legislation passed south of the border. There are no plans to repeal this legislation.As regards any legislation to repeal the ban in England and Wales, the SNP Group at Westminster has not yet decided its stance. While SNP MPs have tended not to participate in votes on domestic English/Welsh legislation which do not apply to Scotland, the party's Westminster Group will not decide a position on this matter until such time as any proposed legislation can be studied and assessed.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> WRONG! No such statement has been made... I am a fully paid up member of the SNP, and no such thing has been said! Believe me, I am an animal lover, I keep my ear close to the ground on this matter.
> 
> If Satori can provide a link, I will eat my hat.... And there are 56 MP's, not just 1 MP to decide. Believe me, if they do vote it will be a collective decision and will be announced as such.


It may have escaped your attention but today was the state opening of parliament. Some of use watched every single speech - live, and plan to do so for the next week as every aspect of the Queen's speech is debated. There are no links to that. Grow up.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> ...


How do you know people are against it and meat eaters? I can never get my head round why people make such sweeping statements...


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> The official party line for now....
> 
> *Fox Hunting - Will the SNP vote to repeal the fox hunting act?*
> Legislation over fox hunting is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and Scotland took the opportunity to ban fox hunting in 2002, some two years before the legislation passed south of the border. There are no plans to repeal this legislation.As regards any legislation to repeal the ban in England and Wales, the SNP Group at Westminster has not yet decided its stance. While SNP MPs have tended not to participate in votes on domestic English/Welsh legislation which do not apply to Scotland, the party's Westminster Group will not decide a position on this matter until such time as any proposed legislation can be studied and assessed.


Old news. Get up to date.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Satori said:


> Old news. Get up to date.


You are WRONG Satori. I also watched it all.... I am a SNP party member, and keep abreast of these issues. The SNP will take direction from their members and the wider electorate on this one, believe me....

You are spreading lies, as all you Tories do. You are the old news....

I find you continually offensive Satori, I will ignore your lies and spin from now on.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Satori said:


> It may have escaped your attention but today was the state opening of parliament. Some of use watched every single speech - live, and plan to do so for the next week as every aspect of the Queen's speech is debated. There are no links to that. Grow up.


You can utter the lie as many times as you like, it does not make it fact! I suggest you search the parliament channel on youtube to find this imaginary MP's announcement, if you want any of the members here to believe you.... I won't hold my breath though!

Do you always have to be so insulting? I guess that is a Tory voting trait you have... us "plebs" eh?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Satori said:


> It may have escaped your attention but today was the state opening of parliament. Some of use watched every single speech - live, and plan to do so for the next week as every aspect of the Queen's speech is debated. There are no links to that. Grow up.


Actually, I am wrong - sorry. There is a link to that. Here it is .......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wnjcm

The content is not up yet, but it will be in the morning.

Enjoy.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Satori said:


> Actually, I am wrong - sorry. There is a link to that. Here it is .......
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wnjcm
> 
> ...


I will make it easy for you, is this the MP (Angus) you are talking about? Because he said no such thing that you are implying... I have watched it ALL!






Quote "Although traditionally SNP MPs do not vote on legislation that only affects England and Wales, both the party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Westminster leader Angus Robertson have hinted that they may be reconsidering this position".

The SNP "will break the rules".... oh yes we will!

The speaker was out of line, is it only English MP's that are allowed to clap? Double standards much!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> I have watched it ALL!


You are a liar.

If your statement were true, you would have been able to refute my post with evidence, as opposed to insult.

If your statement were true, you would not have had to ask me for a link. (Which I provided).

If your statement were true, you would not just have posted into your last post, the wrong part of his speech.

You are a liar.

Putting you on ignore now you grubby little troll.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Satori said:


> You are a liar.
> 
> If your statement were true, you would have been able to refute my post with evidence, as opposed to insult.
> 
> ...


I watched it on TV (Parliament channel live), I did not record it!

There are only a handful of clips on youtube available at this moment in time! I only used the clip to identify which MP (Angus) you were lying about!

I repeat, I am a SNP member, therefore I know more about these matters, that you "claim" (pretend) to know about.

Quote "Although traditionally SNP MPs do not vote on legislation that only affects England and Wales, both the party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Westminster leader Angus Robertson have hinted that they may be reconsidering this position".

You always resorting to name calling and lies, says a lot about you Satori!

http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/...land-tomorrow-nicola-has-summoned-him.399128/


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> You can utter the lie as many times as you like, it does not make it fact! I suggest you search the parliament channel on youtube to find this imaginary MP's announcement, if you want any of the members here to believe you.... I won't hold my breath though!
> *
> Do you always have to be so insulting? I guess that is a Tory voting trait you have..*. us "plebs" eh?


So its OK for you to insult anyone who voted Tory is it Belinda?


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So its OK for you to insult anyone who voted Tory is it Belinda?


Ha ha ha I am ALWAYS polite, you are grasping at straws to discredit what I have to say (as always). Satori has been open on other threads that he voted Tory. I was only stating fact! Cameron and the Tories insulted and lied about Scotland during the general election, therefore a Tory "trait"! Twist it how you like.

Satori, on the other hand has been constantly insulting and rude since I joined this forum. I have even had racist slurs thrown at me on other threads.

My name is not Belinda, how many times do I have to say it to you? For heavens sake. Can't you see your hypocrisy on the insulting/name calling front?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> ...


Foxes aren't hunted for the pot, haven't ever been as far as I am aware. Chickens (if they were 'wild' and hunted of course) would be. Carnivore/meat heavy diet omnivore flesh such as dog or cat tends to be much less palateable than avian or herbivore flesh. Obviously there are some exceptions, but otherwise it's basic biology, really.



patsymatsy said:


> Ha ha ha I am ALWAYS polite, you are grasping at straws to discredit what I have to say (as always). Satori has been open on other threads that he voted Tory. I was only stating fact! Cameron and the Tories insulted and lied about Scotland during the general election, therefore a Tory "trait"! Twist it how you like.
> 
> Satori, on the other hand has been constantly insulting and rude since I joined this forum. I have even had racist slurs thrown at me on other threads.
> 
> My name is not Belinda, how many times do I have to say it to you? For heavens sake. Can't you see your hypocrisy on the insulting/name calling front?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> ...


So, because I abhor the thought of an animal being chased by a pack of hounds until its lungs are almost exploding in pain, where it then collapses from exhaustion and is ripped apart, whilst still alive, that means I should also be vegitarian!!!

Get over yourself love!! It is possible to eat meat and be against unnecessary cruelty to animals.

It is people like you who make it harder for vegans & vegitarians to be taken seriously.

And as for your posts to Satori - a much respected member of this forum (even if he does vote Tory) - they are rude and out of order.

You're not a very nice person really are you!!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> ...


Great post!


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> So, because I abhor the thought of an animal being chased by a pack of hounds until its lungs are almost exploding in pain, where it then collapses from exhaustion and is ripped apart, whilst still alive, that means I should also be vegitarian!!!
> 
> Get over yourself love!! It is possible to eat meat and be against unnecessary cruelty to animals.
> 
> ...


And what happens in slaughter houses to animals is not horrific?

Double standards!  Sorry!

This is my opinion!

My heart bleeds for the daily animal holocaust caused in the name of meat eaters.

I am sorry that you think that makes me a bad person.... This is exactly what is wrong with the world, people denying the obvious. But instead they get angry with the people who point out the truth and hypocrisy.

I have been told I am "not a very nice person", "a grubby troll" and to "grow up".  Yet I am the bad guy? Okay.....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I am not for repealing the hunting ban and bringing back fox hunting.

However, I'm really not sure people are always honest about why they wanted it banned. When they wanted dog fighting banned, it was for the suffering of the dogs.
When people say they don't want shampoo dripped in rabbits' eyes, they are thinking of the rabbit, the people are irrelevant. They don't complain about their being highly paid and wearing white coats, or accuse them of sadism.

When people say they don't want fox-hunting, they always seem to bring up the people enjoying it. They complain about their being wealthy and wearing red coats (Pinks), or dressing up, chin chin, old chap. They accuse them of enjoying the kill, the blood, the death. On the whole, it's actually some people with a job to do and others enjoying a social occasion. Following the hunt over land they aren't normally allowed on, meeting up with friends to ride horses. I'm sure there is the odd psychopath, but I fear they usually commit their tortures in cellars, not out in the open.

It is so much about the people and not the animals. There's little uproar about cats hunting mice and birds, or dogs chasing down rabbits. There would be, if people dressed up and took their cats or dogs out to find mice and rabbits. The cats, dogs, mice, birds and rabbits would all feel the same about it. The hunter would quite enjoy it, the hunted not so much. It wouldn't matter to the animals what the people were wearing, how much money they had, or their perceived enjoyment. They don't really care about that.

Many people have the idea that the hounds and horses chase down a poor fox none stop for hours. The Grand National only lasts 10 minutes and the fittest racehorses in the land are knackered. How long do you think hunt horses can gallop and jump without a break? The fox apparently is ripped to pieces whilst still alive. Where do the pictures of dead foxes come from? I saw one put up only a few weeks ago, apparently hunted down and torn to pieces, looked in one piece to me. Even if he wasn't, I doubt he cares how many pieces he's in once he's dead. Nor do the chickens in sandwiches, the pig in sausages, or the cows in burgers. How quickly do you think a dog more than twice the size of a fox can kill the fox? And that's just one dog there are many, and a dog not a cat, what's more a trained dog, bred for a job. He doesn't play with his prey.

I've been hunting on a number of occasions. Depending on the hunt, there was a lot of standing around being bored, followed by short bursts of activity. Maybe with a bit of roadwork. If the fox ran into fields we didn't have permission to hunt him on, he wasn't followed, he was left alone. 

Nowadays, with no fox to hunt, it's predetermined and a lot faster and more hectic. Too hectic for me, these days I stick to dressage.

I don't want it back, it's archaic, it's in the past. It's good for people to get the same enjoyment without having to join in the 'culling of vermin', or seeing an animal die. But, I don't believe it was ever as bad as people made out. There were aspects of the hunt that I didn't agree with at all, far worse imo than the chase. Digging out for example, the terrierman. That's still legal. At the end of the day, it's part of the business of the hunt to control numbers and hunt out animals. Still is. Just no-one else can join in with them doing it and it's illegal for packs of hounds (or dogs) to go hunting foxes. Foxes still die and not always a happy, fear free, pain free ending. On saying that people don't always die a comfortable death in NHS hospitals either. The government don't have time to mess about with something like fox-hunting.

Best it stays banned and the government gets on with what the people think important, rather than what the Prime Minister's Viscount father-in-law thinks important.

I'm disgusted that hunting is even on the agenda. :Rage

We shouldn't have petitions letting our MPs know how we want them to vote, they should all say we're not voting Mr Cameron, leave it alone, the people don't want it.

I'm more interested though in what I perceive the animals to think/feel. I'm a vegetarian who helps campaign against the live transport of animals to slaughter houses in Europe, for more humane training methods for horses and for CCTV in abattoirs (though I'd rather people didn't eat meat anyway, not going to happen in my lifetime). A hunted fox feels the same as a hunted rabbit, or a hunted mouse, or a hunted bird. I don't really give a damn about what the people participating think or look like when I choose my causes. Do you?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You guys want the Scots to vote on fox-hunting in England because you think they'll vote the way you want them to? Make your mind up. Either you want Scotland to have a say in what's happening only in England or you don't. You can't just pick your causes.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

There's clearly some history here (or some people think there is) of which I am unaware: personally I can't see anything wrong with patsymatsy's posts.... Before I was a vegetarian (now trialling becoming vegan) I used to eat veal, which other meat-eaters criticised me for. However I would have felt very hypocritical getting self-righteous about veal while eating chicken and lamb!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> Must be forty years since I read a local paper
> Does anyone still read them?
> 
> *it's a free vote, so number Tories voting no might retain the ban.
> ...


Then maybe people should also be lobbying their SNP MP's. This is what is so infuriating about politicians - in order to score political points against another party that they don't agree with, they ignore the actual reason they are elected in the first place! If the majority of their constituents are against the repeal and they abstain then they are showing true contempt for the people who voted for them. No change there then 

My own MP is a Tory and I had written to him a while back asking him to vote against the repeal - he wrote back stating that he would be supporting the repeal. I also wrote to him on another couple of issues, without a positive response, so didn't vote for him in the General Election.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Then maybe people should also be lobbying their SNP MP's. This is what is so infuriating about politicians - in order to score political points against another party that they don't agree with, they ignore the actual reason they are elected in the first place! If the majority of their constituents are against the repeal and they abstain then they are showing true contempt for the people who voted for them. No change there then
> 
> *My own MP is a Tory and I had written to him a while back asking him to vote against the repeal - he wrote back stating that he would be supporting the repeal.* I also wrote to him on another couple of issues, without a positive response, so didn't vote for him in the General Election.


I had the same issue with mine!!! He also voted for the badger culls despite me sending him all the data showing why they won't work. He is a career politician - not a man of the people - so wholly toes the party line.

I didn't vote for him in the GE either but he still got back in. 

ETA: Whilst I no longer live in Scotland, my mum still does to I wrote to her local MP - SNP - and asked him to kindly take a stand against the repeal of the Hunting Ban should they decide to cast a vote. That was over 10 days ago, he still hasn't replied.......


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> There's clearly some history here (or some people think there is) of which I am unaware: personally I can't see anything wrong with patsymatsy's posts.... Before I was a vegetarian (now trialling becoming vegan) I used to eat veal, which other meat-eaters criticised me for. However I would have felt very hypocritical getting self-righteous about veal while eating chicken and lamb!


I have been veggie for years, which I found an easy transition! I have never once missed meat, or been tempted.

I have only very recently became vegan, and honestly finding it much harder and restricting. But I keep a mental picture of the distressed mother cows having their calves cruelty torn away from them directly after birth, firmly in my mind to resist letting the taste of cruelty pass my lips.

I hope you succeed in your path to veganism.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

Elles said:


> I am not for repealing the hunting ban and bringing back fox hunting.
> 
> However, I'm really not sure people are always honest about why they wanted it banned. When they wanted dog fighting banned, it was for the suffering of the dogs.
> When people say they don't want shampoo dripped in rabbits' eyes, they are thinking of the rabbit, the people are irrelevant. They don't complain about their being highly paid and wearing white coats, or accuse them of sadism.
> ...


You cannot put cats and dogs hunting and eating prey next to people on horseback hunting. Totally different things. As for being no uproar there has been a tonne of uproar over the years about cats killing birds! It's one of the many reasons mine (and many other peoples) are kept in.

I actually accept that numbers of foxes will need controlling- but this should be done as quickly and humanely as possible. Why chase them at all when they can be shot quickly. Yes animals in the wild pursue prey and the prey will feel fear but that is wildlife and it is put to use for food. But we are not part of that particular food chain, we are not killing foxes to survive. And as human beings we are meant to be more evolved, and have compassion. Surely that compassion extends to giving a creature the most humane end we can? as the "most evolved species on the planet"

I certainly don't think chasing something to death is compassionate. They want to be social? fine , i'm sure they can manage it without killing something


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> I am not for repealing the hunting ban and bringing back fox hunting.
> 
> However, I'm really not sure people are always honest about why they wanted it banned. When they wanted dog fighting banned, it was for the suffering of the dogs.
> When people say they don't want shampoo dripped in rabbits' eyes, they are thinking of the rabbit, the people are irrelevant. They don't complain about their being highly paid and wearing white coats, or accuse them of sadism.
> ...


I think you are wrong about this Elles. Speaking for myself, and I'm sure I'm not alone, I couldn't care less what hunters wear when they chase the fox, nor could I care which social class they come from. When I speak about the people it is to convey my abhorrence that in this day and age people actually ENJOY taking part in an activity that is deliberately set up to culminate in the horrific and unnecessary death of an animal. Similarly, I would abhor anyone who makes thier dog fight, or steals other dogs to use as bait for fights. I express the same abhorence for people who take part in dog fighting - again, irrespective of their class. And similarly, I hold the same abhorrence for people who work in labs who subject animals to unspeakable horrors. Just because people don't speak about these kinds of things on a fox-hunting thread, don't make the mistake of thinking they don'tt care about them, or don't actively campaign against these and othe animal issues..


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> And what happens in slaughter houses to animals is not horrific?
> 
> Double standards!  Sorry!
> 
> ...


Oh God wise up will you. People like you do give Vegetarians and Vegans a bad name. I not stand bleeding hearts, wailing and chest beating one upmanship....


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

As a pescatarian, I don't see why a meat eater is not allowed to be against fox hunting.

Humans are, I believe, omnivore and would naturally eat pretty much anything. To kill an animal in order to eat it is quite different to killing it for sport. The idea that fox hunting is a viable solution to controlling a fox population just doesn't hold water. Therefore, there can only be one reason for fox hunting - the gratification of humans. 

There is no comparison in my view.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Lurcherlad said:


> Then maybe people should also be lobbying their SNP MP's. This is what is so infuriating about politicians - in order to score political points against another party that they don't agree with, they ignore the actual reason they are elected in the first place! If the majority of their constituents are against the repeal and they abstain then they are showing true contempt for the people who voted for them. No change there then
> 
> My own MP is a Tory and I had written to him a while back asking him to vote against the repeal - he wrote back stating that he would be supporting the repeal. I also wrote to him on another couple of issues, without a positive response, so didn't vote for him in the General Election.


As elles just said in her post above, this isnt an issue of the SNP wishing to score political points against another party.
Actually, if that was the SNP's intention, then they wouldnt abstain, and would vote against the government!
Its a constitutional matter.
Many in England feel scottish MP's shoudnt be voting on issues that affect the English, when English MPs cant vote on issues that only affect Scotland.
Previously, the SNP held a stance they would not do this, as they accept the principle to be consistent with their belief in autonomy.
So I dont think it right they would change this principle just because its something we like.

So I think they should stick to their guns, and not vote on anything, regardless of the issue, regardless of my own opinion on the issue, that affects other areas of the UK where scotland is exempt as they run those laws themselves. For the duration of this entire 5 year parliament.
And in scotland the SNP government passed their own separate law to ban fox hunting in 2002.
So they already did listen to their constituents.

A more valid complaint would be directed at people that voted conservative in the GE. As this was in their manifesto.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Lurcherlad said:


> As a pescatarian, I don't see why a meat eater is not allowed to be against fox hunting.
> 
> Humans are, I believe, omnivore and would naturally eat pretty much anything. To kill an animal in order to eat it is quite different to killing it for sport. The idea that fox hunting is a viable solution to controlling a fox population just doesn't hold water. Therefore, there can only be one reason for fox hunting - the gratification of humans.
> 
> There is no comparison in my view.


There are many meat alternatives in these modern times.

Therefore the argument that we need to kill animals for humans to eat/survive no longer "holds water".

Farming animals in horrific conditions and then slaughtering them is cruel and unnecessary, just like Fox hunting.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> As a pescatarian, I don't see why a meat eater is not allowed to be against fox hunting.
> 
> Humans are, I believe, omnivore and would naturally eat pretty much anything. To kill an animal in order to eat it is quite different to killing it for sport. The idea that fox hunting is a viable solution to controlling a fox population just doesn't hold water. Therefore, there can only be one reason for fox hunting - the gratification of humans.
> 
> There is no comparison in my view.


I've seen fox hunting threads before on other forums, and it is amazing how if you argue that surely a gun would be better they say "Oh no its hard to kill a fox with a gun properly"

But if you say you are agaisnt it due to being cruel then they say "oh the fox gets away most of the time"

Which is it?

I may not live in the country but I cannot see how a group of people, horses and dogs is more efficient than a gun!

It also gets my goat how just because you are a meat eater, people automatically call you a hypocrite if you are for animal welfare.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If he was still voted in, it means that people weren't concerned enough about it to not vote him in.  Anyone voting has to prioritise, no one politician or party is going to be exactly what an individual voter wants. Fox-hunting was less of an issue for many who are very against it, because it was a free vote that was promised, not a repeal. The Conservatives may have lost votes if they said that the day they got in they'd repeal the hunting law. They were clever enough to offer a free vote instead. 

I didn't say no uproar btw anachronism, I said little uproar. I know some people do complain about cats killing birds etc.

I'm concerned about what the animals think first and foremost, not what the humans involved think, do, or look like. Dog fighting is far worse than fox-hunting. The dogs can't get away and spend their whole lives suffering untold misery. Before fox-hunting was banned, it was practically the only way to get out and about around farmer's 'gerroff my land' attitude. Now it's banned, it did us a great favour. Many farmers and land owners still want to be involved in the hunt and use them when they need to, so still allow them to ride over their land, just the country don't allow them to use foxes as an excuse. 

There are more people hunting now than there ever was when hunts chased foxes. There'd be even more if some weren't afraid of the sabs, so don't risk it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm not a meat eater and other than a few years when I was ill I haven't eaten meat and rarely very rarely have dairy and haven't drink milk for about 30 years ( do I get a medal for trumping pastymasty? ) but I am happy to see so many people trying to stop this..... Maybe only those who have been Vegan for 20 years are the only ones who can have anything to do with animal rights.....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

anachronism said:


> They want to be social? fine , i'm sure they can manage it without killing something


Yes! The fox hunting ban made it possible. Previously practically the only way you could regularly go riding over someone else's land, mostly away from the roads and with friends was hunting twice a week. There were a few pleasure rides organised, but they were few and a few drag hunts, again very few. Once fox hunting was banned, far from the hunts dying off, more people joined in, the hunts survived without riding after foxes and no-one needed to use killing something as an excuse. It doesn't need to come back, all of the reasons for it were proved irrelevant.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

chesspiece said:


> As elles just said in her post above, this isnt an issue of the SNP wishing to score political points against another party.
> Actually, if that was the SNP's intention, then they wouldnt abstain, and would vote against the government!
> Its a constitutional matter.
> Many in England feel scottish MP's shoudnt be voting on issues that affect the English, when English MPs cant vote on issues that only affect Scotland.
> ...


If they actually do stick to their guns then I guess I agree, however, I have my doubts. I imagine they will eventually "stick it to the Government" if they get an opportunity on some issue or another. 

If they banned fox hunting in Scotland because their constituents wanted them to, then presumably those same constituents as human beings would want the ban to remain in England? Animal welfare should have no borders.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> There are many meat alternatives in these modern times.
> 
> Therefore the argument that we need to kill animals for humans to eat/survive no longer "holds water".
> 
> Farming animals in horrific conditions and then slaughtering them is cruel and unnecessary, just like Fox hunting.


So what are your animals eating then? I assume as you are here that you own pets? I hope they are vegan pets...


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

It's not all Tories who support fox hunting. We are landowners, farmers (with poultry and lambs), horse riders/owners and I've voted Tory all my life - EXCEPT the time I voted Labour purely to get the ban. For the record my grandfather ordered the hunt off his land over 50 years ago ( at a time when it was not only accepted, but expected of anyone who was anyone in the community), after the hunt nearly had my grandmother killed by stampeding the dairy cows she was regathering from their previous panic at the hunt galloping through the field a few minutes beforehand in the other direction. We've never had to kill foxes as pest control ourselves, but if one (or a family group) become a problem the best solution is a man with a rifle lying in wait outside the henhouse/lambing shed/field etc. Apart from the suffering caused to the fox by chasing down with dogs, the hounds pick up the scent of ANY fox, they might kill the one who takes the rabbits that are eating the young wheat, and not the problem one who is taking livestock. It's also mostly poultry they take, not lambs unless the lamb is weak and rejected or mum is busy pushing out its twin. I've watched as foxes trot through our field of sheep and lambs, the ewes stamp their feet and the fox trots on. Nothing like watching a family of cubs playing in the twilight, we live and let live on our farm.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> Oh God wise up will you. People like you do give Vegetarians and Vegans a bad name. I not stand bleeding hearts, wailing and chest beating one upmanship....


I am simply discussing my views.

People trying to defend the undefendable is worth pointing out, hence my doing so.

I believe evil is allowed to flourish when good men say nothing... a well coined phrase.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

And proof that most people who went hunting weren't remotely interested in foxes dying? They still go hunting and more people than ever go hunting, despite not getting to see an animal die. As Catharinem says, some farmers were against fox-hunting and didn't permit them access to their land anyway. Probably still don't, whether they chase foxes or not.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

anachronism said:


> *I actually accept that numbers of foxes will need controlling*- but this should be done as quickly and humanely as possible. Why chase them at all when they can be shot quickly. Yes animals in the wild pursue prey and the prey will feel fear but that is wildlife and it is put to use for food. But we are not part of that particular food chain, we are not killing foxes to survive. And as human beings we are meant to be more evolved, and have compassion. Surely that compassion extends to giving a creature the most humane end we can? as the "most evolved species on the planet"





Lurcherlad said:


> As a pescatarian, I don't see why a meat eater is not allowed to be against fox hunting.
> 
> Humans are, I believe, omnivore and would naturally eat pretty much anything. To kill an animal in order to eat it is quite different to killing it for sport. * The idea that fox hunting is a viable solution to controlling a fox population just doesn't hold water. * Therefore, there can only be one reason for fox hunting - the gratification of humans.
> 
> There is no comparison in my view.


Before the hunting ban came into effect, it was estimated there were approx 250,000 foxes in the wild.

10 years after the ban, it is now estimated there are ..... wait for it..... approx 250,000 foxes in the wild!!!

Hunting does absolutely NOTHING to control their numbers!!!

I also note how it is never mentioned that foxes are the crop farmers friends because they keep down the rabbit population - but hey, can't be giving them good PR can we, that would fly in the face of arguments that try to vilify them at every turn!!!

There has never been, and never will be, a good, or acceptable, reason or excuse for fox hunting.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> You are spreading lies, as all you Tories do. You are the old news....





patsymatsy said:


> Do you always have to be so insulting? I guess that is a Tory voting trait you have... us "plebs" eh?


Sorry but as you know from the other thread I openly voted Tory so you are therefore also accusing me of spreading lies which is a gross generalisation on your part and such a "Belinda" trait :Spitoutdummy:Spitoutdummy

Its just silly to say unless you are a vegan you can't care about animals. No human is perfect and let he who is without sin cast the first stone. All we can do is strive to make things better so I ask how does attacking other people who are showing an interest in one cruel practice achieve anything for those animals? do you think the fox cares if the person writing letters to their MP, signing petitions, going on demonstrations, being a sab etc etc eats meat and drinks milk? I met people like you when I was involved in AR 25 yrs ago who had an all or nothing attitude and all that achieved was alienating people and turning them against any cause. Good luck with being a vegan I hope you manage it (I didn't) - tell me though when you were still drinking cows milk did you think/feel your opinions on fox hunting or any other issue were less valid?


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> Before the hunting ban came into effect, it was estimated there were approx 250,000 foxes in the wild.
> 
> 10 years after the ban, it is now estimated there are ..... wait for it..... approx 250,000 foxes in the wild!!!
> 
> ...


Brilliant point.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

anachronism said:


> So what are your animals eating then? I assume as you are here that you own pets? I hope they are vegan pets...


I only have one pet.... and....

http://www.veggiepets.com/


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> I only have one pet.... and....
> 
> http://www.veggiepets.com/


So you choose to feed your carnivore pet a veggie diet. Please god tell me you don't own a cat, a dog is bad enough....
Do you not think it is a bit hypocrital to feed your pet a sub par diet, away from what it is designed to eat for your beliefs? And maybe think that it makes you a bit of a hypocrite? If you have those views you shouldn't own a carnivore


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> I am simply discussing my views.
> 
> People trying to defend the undefendable is worth pointing out, hence my doing so.
> 
> I believe evil is allowed to flourish when good men say nothing... a well coined phrase.


No you judged people without knowing. You put yourself up on a pedestal and made a sweeping judgement. Another well coined phrases pride comes before a fall.....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> I only have one pet.... and....
> 
> http://www.veggiepets.com/


I really really hope not.... You might chose to be a veggie but I really hope you aren't inflicting it on your pets...... That to me is animal cruelty.....


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> No you judged people without knowing. You put yourself up on a pedestal and made a sweeping judgement. Another well coined phrases pride comes before a fall.....


I am not judging any one particular member on this matter. My comments are all general statements.

You and other members are however making very personal comments directed at myself and my lifestyle.

Speaks volumes (you are ironically supporting my case), and again showing hypocrisy and double standards.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> No you judged people without knowing. You put yourself up on a pedestal and made a sweeping judgement. Another well coined phrases pride comes before a fall.....


You are grasping at straws.

My pet is 16 years old, and in perfect health. My boyfriend is a vet.

Stop picking over how I live my "trying to live a cruelty free life" (as much as possible that is), and look at your own life.

I have not put myself on a pedestal, simply explained my views on things.

Trying to score points on a pet forum, well done you.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Of some of the longest lived dogs. One was vegetarian the other fed raw meat. You have no idea how much I cringe feeding my dog raw meat. I haven't touched it since I was about 14 and now I'm opening packs of liver and chopping between rib cages. Eurghh. I hate it, makes me feel cannibalistic. I wish I did believe dogs live happily without meat, but when she's grinning waiting for her dinner and crunching away happily, I just put up with it, as I don't believe she would have the same quality of life or health if I fed her a vegetarian diet and I chose to have a dog, she didn't choose to be mine. We all make our own choices on these matters and currently have the right to do so. In my opinion what we eat ourselves, or feed our pets has nothing to do with fox-hunting, either way.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Elles said:


> Of some of the longest lived dogs. One was vegetarian the other fed raw meat. You have no idea how much I cringe feeding my dog raw meat. I haven't touched it since I was about 14 and now I'm opening packs of liver and chopping between rib cages. Eurghh. I hate it, makes me feel cannibalistic. I wish I did believe dogs live happily without meat, but when she's grinning waiting for her dinner and crunching away happily, I just put up with it, as I don't believe she would have the same quality of life or health if I fed her a vegetarian diet and I chose to have a dog, she didn't choose to be mine. We all make our own choices on these matters and currently have the right to do so. In my opinion what we eat ourselves, or feed our pets has nothing to do with fox-hunting, either way.


Pet meat substitutes taste and smell very like meat. A bit like Quorn sausages, delicious, actually taste better than meat sausages and health wise better for you.

Have you seen the slurge that passes as commercial pet food?

My pet also runs to his bowl and thoroughly enjoys his meal.

After my pet passes, I will no longer have pets due to my beliefs.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> After my pet passes, I will no longer have pets due to my beliefs.


So you don't believe in pet ownership?
WTH did you join a PET forum?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Have you seen the slurge that passes as commercial pet food?


Indeed. Which is why I feed my dog natural raw meat and bones.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

ouesi said:


> So you don't believe in pet ownership?
> WTH did you join a PET forum?


Because at the moment I have a pet, duh! 

I am out of this convo, I have more than stated my views on the matter now.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Elles said:


> Indeed. Which is why I feed my dog natural raw meat and bones.


I can completely understand your reasoning for doing so... even if I would never feed raw.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Pet meat substitutes taste and smell very like meat. A bit like Quorn sausages, delicious, actually taste better than meat sausages and health wise better for you.
> 
> Have you seen the slurge that passes as commercial pet food?
> 
> ...


He has no option does he..... I am glad you will no longer own pets after this one. While I have my own beliefs and I CHOSE to be veggie my carnivores don't you chose to have a pet you chose to become Vegan, you should chose what is a species appropriate diet. Dogs and cats are not designed to be vegan, while they might survive on it they don't thrive..... For all you bleating about speaking up for all animals you inflict this on your pet... Cruel just cruel...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

One of the longest lived dogs was very happy and a vegetarian. It's not that black and white for dogs.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> Because at the moment I have a pet, duh!


If one does not believe in pet ownership why would one surround themselves with pet owners? "duh"

FWIW, This pet of yours you have not once mentioned on this forum until now. Clearly said pet was not a motivation to join this forum. "duh"


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> He has no option does he..... I am glad you will no longer own pets after this one. While I have my own beliefs and I CHOSE to be veggie my carnivores don't you chose to have a pet you chose to become Vegan, you should chose what is a species appropriate diet. Dogs and cats are not designed to be vegan, while they might survive on it they don't thrive..... For all you bleating about speaking up for all animals you inflict this on your pet... Cruel just cruel...


I owned my pet before I became veggie and now vegan.

A pet is for life in my book, so he will remain with me to the end.

It could be argued that there is next to no meat in commercial pet food. Are owners that feed that not equally cruel in your book?

My pet's food is highly nutricious and healthy. You simply need to research more, before calling me a bad owner.

If branding me "cruel" helps people sleep at night whilst animals are slaughtered, so be it.

As I said, I am out of this debate now. I am ironically feeling hunted, and my bloodied bones being picked over.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Pet meat substitutes taste and smell very like meat. A bit like Quorn sausages, delicious and actually taste better than meat sausages.
> 
> My pet also runs to his bowl and thoroughly enjoys his meal.
> *
> After my pet passes, I will no longer have pets due to my beliefs*.


So to put this into context - if the world stopped eating meat and consuming dairy products, all chickens, goats, sheep, cows etc would become extinct because there would be very little reason for them. We can't feed them the grains they eat because humans would be consuming that instead. The fields the cows graze in would be turned into veggie patches so nowhere for the cows / goats / sheep to graze.

Because we would all hold this belief that caniverous pets shouldn't eat meat, we could either kill them slowly by forcing a herbivore diet upon them or just do away with them altogether. Either way, pet cats, dogs, snakes etc would cease to exist.

So, by strictly following a vegan diet, a large number of animals would cease to exist.

Seems to be a damned if you do and they're damned if you don't!!!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

And they said if they banned fox-hunting the countryside would be devastated, foxes run riot, people plunged into poverty. We can't know what would happen if overnight everyone became vegetarian. A large number of animals cease to exist every day right now. We can support more humans per acre if they were vegetarian than we can feeding them animal products. Who knows what would happen to domestic animals, if we didn't need sheep, cows, pigs or chickens, I expect there would be fewer of them about, but hey ho. There'd still be tigers.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> I owned my pet before I became veggie and now vegan.
> 
> A pet is for life in my book, so he will remain with me to the end.
> 
> ...


I am a vegetarian. I feed my dogs raw, or if I fed kibble I would feed with the highest meat content. I would not fed beans and barley to dog, because I care about their welfare. Say a lot when there is veggie cat food height of cruelty....


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Why do vegetarians want meat substitutes?

Just eat vegetables??

Last I heard Quorn was owned by the GM crops biotech company Monsanto

Might need updating on that?
Not sure id want eat chemical foods when I can just geti organic veg?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> I have been veggie for years, which I found an easy transition! I have never once missed meat, or been tempted.
> 
> I have only very recently became vegan, and honestly finding it much harder and restricting. But I keep a mental picture of the distressed mother cows having their calves cruelty torn away from them directly after birth, firmly in my mind to resist letting the taste of cruelty pass my lips.
> 
> I hope you succeed in your path to veganism.


Thank you. It's what happens to male chicks that really got to me....


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> So to put this into context - if the world stopped eating meat and consuming dairy products, all chickens, goats, sheep, cows etc would become extinct because there would be very little reason for them. We can't feed them the grains they eat because humans would be consuming that instead. The fields the cows graze in would be turned into veggie patches so nowhere for the cows / goats / sheep to graze.
> 
> Because we would all hold this belief that caniverous pets shouldn't eat meat, we could either kill them slowly by forcing a herbivore diet upon them or just do away with them altogether. Either way, pet cats, dogs, snakes etc would cease to exist.
> 
> ...


I always laugh at this argument. Most of the animals are bred and cruelly farmed only for meat eaters, that would then cease (a good thing). Not extinct, they would still exist, just not for their meat or dairy, therefore lesser numbers.



chesspiece said:


> Why do vegetarians want meat substitutes?
> 
> Just eat vegetables??


One word.... protein!

And if meat substitutes encourage more people to live meat/cruelty free, I am all for that. Small steps in the right direction.

But I understand you asking that question Chesspiece, many people do, including myself in the past.

I am def exiting this thread now, or I will be debating all day.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I do hope your not eating Quorn now @patsymatsy ?

Are Quorn products suitable for a Vegan Diet?

No. Since all Quorn products contain a small amount of egg white, and most also contain milk ingredients, they are not suitable for vegans.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

When did Monsanto buy Quorn? Anyone can make a Quorn type product now, but I hadn't heard Monsanto had anything to do with it. It's a British product. There are vegan quorn products as well as vegetarian.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> When did Monsanto buy Quorn? Anyone can make a Quorn type product now, but I hadn't heard Monsanto had anything to do with it. It's a British product. There are vegan quorn products as well as vegetarian.


Not on the shelve yet there aren't and not their sausages the Vegan range isn't being released until Sept 2015.? The quote is from Quorns website?


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I do hope your not eating Quorn now @patsymatsy ?
> 
> Are Quorn products suitable for a Vegan Diet?
> 
> No. Since all Quorn products contain a small amount of egg white, and most also contain milk ingredients, they are not suitable for vegans.


I don't eat Quorn, no. But there are MANY variations of Quorn.

For heavens sake...

Stop tagging me in your posts please, I am so done with your baiting and straw grasping


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not sure what they are, but I was told there are quorn type products that are vegan, they use potato instead of eggs. Maybe I was told a bit previous.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I have dogs and a cat, and they all eat meat, simply because they cannot choose, so I made the decision to feed them in the way closest to how they would eat 'in the wild'. However, I don't feel the need to denigrate anyone else's choices, provided that they are doing what they can to keep their animals in good health. 

It does sadden me how hard it seems to be for some people just to accept others' choices....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> Not sure what they are, but I was told there are quorn type products that are vegan, they use potato instead of eggs. Maybe I was told a bit previous.


They did trail them in a few products but not released as yet.. Don't think the official laugh is until end of the year


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I
> 
> It does sadden me how hard it seems to be for some people just to accept others' choices....


Umm this thread went this was because Patsymaty called people hypocrites for their choices..


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> And if meat substitutes encourage more people to live meat/cruelty free, I am all for that.


Meat substitutes =/= cruelty free, let's be very clear about that. 
Ethically sourced food from smaller, local farms is much more cruelty free. 
I'm not knocking vegetarianism, I've been veggie for over 3 decades now, but you still have to do your research as far as where your food comes from and what goes in to producing it.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> I owned my pet before I became veggie and now vegan.
> 
> A pet is for life in my book, so he will remain with me to the end.
> 
> ...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> So you don't believe in pet ownership?
> WTH did you join a PET forum?


Belinda (or any of her other aliases) is very vocal in political/AR threads. She also has a habit of name calling/calling other people hypocrites and then flouncing off because she is being picked on. Next will be the conspiracy theories about Cliff Richard and Jill Dando


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Thank you. It's what happens to male chicks that really got to me....


They are humanely dispatched and used as pet food... infact they are a staple in my cats diet. Other than not living long they get no more of a raw deal than any other animal raised for food. (infact there is an argument that they get it easier than their sisters who go on to be caged)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Apart from calling people hypocrites for eating meat, I don't see where the poster has said anything particularly controversial tbh. The views expressed are views expressed by many. Maybe take the current posts at face value, rather than calling out on previous posts that may or may not have been by the same person?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I have dogs and a cat, and they all eat meat, simply because they cannot choose, so I made the decision to feed them in the way closest to how they would eat 'in the wild'. However, I don't feel the need to denigrate anyone else's choices, provided that they are doing what they can to keep their animals in good health.
> 
> It does sadden me how hard it seems to be for some people just to accept others' choices....


I usually really respect your opinions but in this thread one person has thrown around insults to people who don't happen to share her politics and also pretty much told anyone who eats meat that they have no right to an opinion on fox hunting. That's a bit like saying you can only come to church if you have absolutely no sins and that trying to be a better/kinder person is not good enough unless you can be "perfect". Not sentiments I share nor like.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

↑
You are spreading lies, as all you Tories do. You are the old news....
↑
Do you always have to be so insulting? I guess that is a Tory voting trait you have... us "plebs" eh?

Do you think those statements are acceptable then?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Elles said:


> Apart from calling people hypocrites for eating meat, I don't see where the poster has said anything particularly controversial tbh. The views expressed are views expressed by many. Maybe take the current posts at face value, rather than calling out on previous posts that may or may not have been by the same person?


No idea who the other person is nor what their posts were about,but as she said she was just expressing an opinion yet seems others aren't allowed the same courtesy.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hmmm. Depends on how the opposing views were presented. 

It doesn't make any sense to me for a Vegan to say a meat eater can't vote against fox-hunting, as it makes them a hypocrite, unless they feel under attack. Surely they'd want everyone to vote against fox-hunting, support anti-foxhunting views and pressure their MPs into voting against the repeal, regardless of what else they do, or don't do.

Maybe I'm being too generous. No idea. I was enjoying the thread with the different views and controversies. I like to read opinions and ideas, not insults and arguments and I'm not convinced about with whom the insults and arguments originated. 

Wasn't me though.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Why can't you be against hunting and eat meat? What makes you think all farm animals are raised in "horrific" conditions? I find that quite insulting as a farmer who has young children, and has schoolfreinds coming round to watch things being born, and help with the bottlefeeding of lambs. Some farms truly are horrendous, but I for one am proud of my animals. We have schoolchildren coming round to visit, deliveries to the door, electricity people wanting access to pylons, a couple of people grazing their ponies on our field visiting at least once a day, helicopters from the local police station passing over (usually when I have my hand half way up a ewe's bum, and they circle lower for a good look!), not to mention unannounced visits from trading standards ( animal movements and eartagging), DEFRA animal health and welfare (what is says, plus medicine records), and cattle inspectors (by the way, I'm anti badger cull and keep cows).

There are alternatives to eating meat, I'm not disputing that. However, there are other things which vegatarians don't always take into consideration (apart from our dentistry and gut being adapted to an omnivorous diet):

1) there is soil type : certain types of land in the uk, and across much of the world, are unsuitable for arable cultivation - stoney ground, steeply sloping, thin soil etc. If you try to plough it you end up with desert due to soil erosion, or the machinery simply can't cope with the slope. Look at Scotland and Wales - mostly grazed, look at rich, deep fenland soil - mostly arable/vegetables. Apart from the issue of erosion you need to put organic matter and structure back into the soil, which is best done by the input of animal manure, either by grazing animals or by spreading slurry from housed animals ( or occasionally treated sewage). My grandfather ran a mixed farm, my mother converted to organic arable, with no livestock, we are now reintroducing the livestock to rectify problems caused by just a few years of poor management (sorry mum, but it's true!). Most farmers use animal manure as part of their soil management, whether it be from their own, or other farmers's livestock. Without manure you have deficiencies in the land. You can add NPK ( Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium) as artificial fertiliser, but you're not adding organic matter, and it's questionable whether farmers should be applying large quantities of chemicals as a short term solution to a management problem. 

2)Pest control: Apart from questionably foxes (see previous posts) or kites/buzzards, and even crows in the very young/very weak animal, sheep, pigs, cows have no predators (at least in this country). Which means that with good management the "crop" of meat is fairly safe from disease (assuming vaccination, worming and good quarantine systems between own and bought in stock. Foot and Mouth was a quarantining problem, and BSE through mankind deciding to feed animal products to cows - this is now illegal). To get a good arable crop the seeds are normally treated with chemicals to aid preservation prior to planting, and poison pests eating the seeds. They are then sprayed with pesticides a couple of time whilst growing, which many believe is a root cause of the decline of many insect species, resulting in the further loss of spiders, birds, and other animals for which they are a food source. Then the animals at the top of the pyramid are also affected, as their prey species declines. Yet our sheep and cow fields are alive with birdsong, as are our hedges ( the traditional way of keeping in livestock, many ripped out to make it easier to plough/spray/combine) large areas of arable land. Look at the wheat fields of America to see what I'm talking about when taken to the extreme. Then assuming the pesticides used are safe for mammals (which they should be), you have the problem of the crop being eaten by rabbits ( whose number one natural predator is the fox). Rabbit populations tend to go in cycles, especially now myxomatosis is endemic, so some years there will be barely any, then there might be more than the foxes can cope with (because the fox population follows the rabbit population, lagging behind - rabbits breed faster than foxes), so some sort of pest control is needed. There is poisoning (horrible death), trapping/snaring - yes using a snare is still legal!, or shooting. In my mind, if an animal is killed anyway, it is disrespectful to waste it's meat if it is edible - and rabbit is not only edible but delicious. If you don't like the idea of eating bunnies that have been shot quickly by an expert ( I'm not talking about pot shots for "sport"), you need to ask yourself how you would keep rats (which can cause Weils disease out of your grain store). At some point most people accept that for us to eat some animals must die, which is why farms and dwellings have traditionally had cats around - not as fluffy pets but as pest control to save human lives from starvation and disease.

3) To keep breeds of farm livestock healthy, you should "breed from the best and eat the rest". Many farmers are going back to traditional breeds for flavour and disease resistance, and to keep the breed alive even though individuals get eaten. Say you have a saddleback sow, who has 15 piglets, 3 of those might be females good enough for breeding, and 1 boar might be good enough. Another sow produces unrelated piglets of 2 nice gilts and 3 nice boars from a litter of 12. The farmer can put the 3 females from litter 1 with a boar from litter 2, the 2 females from litter 2 with the boar from litter 1 and sell as starter herds to another enthusiast ( who will expand with more females at a later date), sell 2 boar piglets to farmers already looking for those male bloodlines, and then has 18 piglets which are not of breeding quality left. He can keep them forever and go bankrupt if he continues down that path, or raise them well, slaughter locally, by appointment, sell to customers who appreciate good meat and reinvest in the breed.

4) There is a world of difference between raising animals well, slaughtering locally by appointment at an abbatoir you have visited in person, and factory farming for maximum profit, loading animals on double decker trailers and driving for miles, even exporting live to other countries. We DO need to be demanding customers with regards to our meat eating habits, we do NOT need to tar all farmers with the same brush and accuse them of raising animals in horrible conditions or cruelty. In my other posts I've referred to sleep deprivation and injecting animals in the middle of the night with fingers numb with cold, it's a hard way to make a living which I wouldn't do if it wasn't worthwhile, and I don't mean financially. I have a boar going for sausages tomorrow, I haven't made the mistake of naming him, but he has an ear scratch and a belly rub every day. Tomorrow he will follow a bucket of food into a trailer of straw, have a 20-25 minute drive and it will be over very quickly. In a week I'll be tucking into sausages knowing that he had a very good life and a quick death, better than the suffering of wildlife (and sometimes cats and dogs) caused by the slap dash use of pesticides by some in the arable industry.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

anachronism said:


> I've seen fox hunting threads before on other forums, and it is amazing how if you argue that surely a gun would be better they say "Oh no its hard to kill a fox with a gun properly"
> 
> But if you say you are agaisnt it due to being cruel then they say "oh the fox gets away most of the time"
> 
> ...


The problem with shooting foxes is that there is no regulation on the size of shot that can be used to kill them, therefore unfortunately the majority are probably being taken a shot at while someone is out after bunnies or birds.
In consequence, quite a few foxes will be injured but not killed and could die in pain over a long period of time.

If fox shooting was more regulated like deer culling, there wouldn't be so much of a problem and then the argument that hunting could be more humane wouldn't have any credence. As it is, it's possibly true in far too many fox deaths


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Meezey said:


> No idea who the other person is nor what their posts were about,but as she said she was just expressing an opinion yet seems others aren't allowed the same courtesy.


I think people take offence to being called hypocrites because they still eat meat whilst campaigning against animal cruelty or fox hunting.

I still eat meat but I also campaign, join campaigns or lend support to campaigns that help animals to get a better level of welfare. If the stance was taken that you can only campaign for animal rights if you are a 100% out-and-out vegan, then frankly, animal welfare would still be in the dark ages!!!

Are we only allowed to campaign for black rights if we are black? Or slave freedom if we are slaves? Or womens rights if we are women?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not just wildlife Catharinem. The horses have to come in when local farmers are out spraying. It can make them very ill being exposed to it and I doubt it's good for us either. Ethics apply whatever we're doing.  It's your kind of farm I source my dog's meat from, via a local butcher. Many vegetarians and vegans choose organic and local too, it goes deeper than just choosing a lettuce over a burger.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Elles said:


> When did Monsanto buy Quorn? Anyone can make a Quorn type product now, but I hadn't heard Monsanto had anything to do with it. It's a British product. There are vegan quorn products as well as vegetarian.


i read it somewhere, did say i wasnt sure though

its astra zeneca

personally i think its a bit of dodgy chemical product though

id just stick to vegetables

you can get protein in veges and pulses


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> The problem with shooting foxes is that there is no regulation on the size of shot that can be used to kill them, therefore unfortunately the majority are probably being taken a shot at while someone is out after bunnies or birds.
> In consequence, quite a few foxes will be injured but not killed and could die in pain over a long period of time.
> 
> If fox shooting was more regulated like deer culling, there wouldn't be so much of a problem and then the argument that hunting could be more humane wouldn't have any credence. As it is, it's possibly true in far too many fox deaths


 Absolutely, which is why whenever I've referred to shooting I've said LIE IN WAIT, where the problem is occurring, so 1)you get the actual offender, and 2) you get a clear shot. I've also said RIFLE, not GUN. With a clear shot in the right hands this is instant, with a powerful enough bullet even if you're off by a couple of cms the shock knocks you out. With a shotgun the danger is that most of the pellets miss and one or two cause a slow death due to gangrene. I'm not completely against killing all foxes under any circumstances, I'm against suffering (whether by hunting with dogs or by poor marksmanship with the wrong weapon).


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

.The farmer who owned the place I kept my horses a couple of years back used to shoot foxes (and deer) with a high powered rifle out of his window. I was once taking the horses up to the field and nearly got trampled when, without warning, he fired a shot and spooked me, let alone them. It's bloody loud. It's not just hunting that nearly causes grandmothers to get trampled. (not an actual grandmother, but old enough to be one a few times over.) The hunt should have been prosecuted for riding over your land unwanted and our farmer should have been more careful about when he shoots.  Sadly you'd probably find both parties totally uninterested in what anyone else thinks.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2015)

As few predators as you have left in the UK, I don't know that I would be getting rid of any of them.....
There is a lot to be said for a healthy balance of predator/prey.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> I think people take offence to being called hypocrites because they still eat meat whilst campaigning against animal cruelty or fox hunting.
> 
> I still eat meat but I also campaign, join campaigns or lend support to campaigns that help animals to get a better level of welfare. If the stance was taken that you can only campaign for animal rights if you are a 100% out-and-out vegan, then frankly, animal welfare would still be in the dark ages!!!
> 
> Are we only allowed to campaign for black rights if we are black? Or slave freedom if we are slaves? Or womens rights if we are women?


My point is WHY are people not just as outraged about a baby lamb being cruelly slaughtered in a abattoir? A genuine question! It genuinely baffles me.

Fox hunting is a drawn out cruel process, but so is the transporting, housing and eventually often unstunned slaughter in an abattoir. The animals urinate themselves and often collapse through fear. They live in fear for hours, even days awaiting slaughter, as they witness other animals being slaughtered. Beyond cruel, and just as bad as fox hunting imo. If you cannot understand MY disgust at this cruelty, you are the closed minded one, not I. I am entitled to discuss my views, as you are yours.

We eat one but not the other is the general excuse for the blind eye being turned whilst munching on a beef or bacon sandwich. I am simply challenging that view point. And righty so, I think.

I just wish the commercial cruel meat industry was held up to as much scrutiny as fox hunting, what a much better world we would live in. Was the point I was trying to make.

You and others say I am dismissing others members opinions, whilst you dismiss mine?? I suggest I am merely debating the issue, as people do..

However others are discrediting my arguments by calling me quote "a grubby troll" and a "Belinda?".

Yesterday a young girl came onto Cat chat asking for advice, and was bombarded with accusations of being a troll. This forum has a habit of calling out "troll" unfortunately.

You say differing views are welcome, but clearly you do not welcome mine and others who are perhaps in the minority.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> My point is WHY are people not just as outraged about a baby lamb being cruelly slaughtered in a abattoir? A genuine question! It genuinely baffles me.
> 
> Fox hunting is a drawn out cruel process, but so is the transporting, housing and eventually often unstunned slaughter in an abattoir. The animals urinate themselves, live in fear for hours, even days awaiting slaughter, as they witness other animals being slaughtered. Beyond cruel, and just as bad as fox hunting imo. If you cannot understand MY disgust at this cruelty, you are the closed minded one, not I. I am entitled to discuss my views, as you are yours.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, it's so hard to take someone seriously who doesnt agree with keeping animals as pets who has a partner who is a vet and joins a pet forum...


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

anachronism said:


> I'm sorry, it's so hard to take someone seriously who doesnt agree with keeping animals as pets who has a partner who is a vet and joins a pet forum...




I currently have a pet (but may keep no more after this one passes)! And I have not told anyone here not to keep pets. For goodness sake.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

patsymatsy said:


> My point is WHY are people not just as outraged about a baby lamb being cruelly slaughtered in a abattoir? A genuine question! It genuinely baffles me.
> 
> Fox hunting is a drawn out cruel process, but so is the transporting, housing and eventually often unstunned slaughter in an abattoir. The animals urinate themselves and often collapse through fear. They live in fear for hours, even days awaiting slaughter, as they witness other animals being slaughtered. Beyond cruel, and just as bad as fox hunting imo. If you cannot understand MY disgust at this cruelty, you are the closed minded one, not I. I am entitled to discuss my views, as you are yours.
> 
> ...


Debating is one thing, what you are doing is deliberatly trying to cause friction on an already fractious topic.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> I currently have a pet! And I have not told anyone not to keep pets. For goodness sake.


Yeah I got that bit  my confusion is due to why would you want to mingle with people who do agree with keeping pets, on a forum especially for pet keeping when you don't agree with it. You having a pet currently is neither here nor there as you don;t agree with it and have stated you won't be getting more. So why join a forum that celebrates something you don't agree with. It's like me going off coffee and deciding not to drink anymore but joining a coffee forum (and then telling them their way of brewing is wrong)


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> My point is WHY are people not just as outraged about a baby lamb being cruelly slaughtered in a abattoir? A genuine question! It genuinely baffles me.
> 
> Fox hunting is a drawn out cruel process, but so is the transporting, housing and eventually often unstunned slaughter in an abattoir. The animals urinate themselves and often collapse through fear. They live in fear for hours, even days awaiting slaughter, as they witness other animals being slaughtered. Beyond cruel, and just as bad as fox hunting imo. If you cannot understand MY disgust at this cruelty, you are the closed minded one, not I. I am entitled to discuss my views, as you are yours.
> 
> ...


I'm not the one going around calling other folks hypocrites!!

I understand that folks walk different paths which sometimes lead to a shared opinion on a specific issues whilst still being miles apart on others.

I have no problem with YOU being 100% vegan but I do have a problem with you saying I am a hypocrite because I am not.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

westie~ma said:


> Debating is one thing, what you are doing is deliberatly trying to cause friction on an already fractious topic.


Really?

There is no way to debate an emotive subject, without it being... EMOTIVE. An oxymoron, sadly!

You say the above, whilst you let slide people calling me a "grubby little troll".


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> I'm not the one going around calling other folks hypocrites!!
> 
> I understand that folks walk different paths which sometimes lead to a shared opinion on a specific issues whilst still being miles apart on others.
> 
> I have no problem with YOU being 100% vegan but I do have a problem with you saying I am a hypocrite because I am not.


You called me quote "not a very nice person" directly. Satori called me a quote "grubby little troll".

My posts are of a general nature, not targeted at any one person.  Can you and others say the same? Em, no!

Therefore I am debating fairly!


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

patsymatsy said:


> Really?
> 
> There is no way to debate an emotive subject, without it being... EMOTIVE. An oxymoron, sadly!


There is a way, other members seem to manage perfectly well..


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

westie~ma said:


> There is a way, other members seem to manage perfectly well..


I do manage it, perfectly well thank you. My HIGH "likes" count versas my post count shows that I do it well, and I get "liked" for it.

 

Not very modest, I know... but you are backing me into a corner to defend myself.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So if the animal about to eaten was treated well when alive and was killed painlessly knowing nothing about it, would you eat meat, or at least feel that those eating meat were less hypocritical when calling for a fox-hunting ban?

I would feel that they had their priorities right personally. Though of course, in a debate about fox-hunting I have no idea whether members posting source their meat ethically, or pick it up from the local supermarket having been transported from across the world, slaughtered by some bloke who gets his kicks from prodding and scaring animals in an abattoir. 

I hope that the folk on here would support the call for ethical treatment of meat animals, a ban on live transport and CCTV in abattoirs at the very least as well as supporting the fox hunting ban. I would go further and say that meat sold in this country should not be sourced from countries who are lax on animal welfare, which also happens at the moment. 

However, people can look at all of it, not just one thing in isolation and, imho, don't have to give up eating meat in order to have an opinion on animal welfare, including fox-hunting. That is just my current opinion though (subject to change without notice) and you of course are entitled to yours.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> ...


For gods sake, not this argument again. Because there is a big difference between hunting Foxes for FUN, and no other reason, and killing chickens for the food chain. And yes, I'm aware not all chickens die in a satisfactory manner, but there is a clear difference in my mind. I'd find anyone hunting for pure blood sports alone despicable, so it's not just about foxes either.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I worked for over 25 years in both the raising of meat for food and the shooting industry. Not because I shoot or agree with the way some of our livestock are kept and slaughtered but because I love animals and I could see that by me being there and caring for those creatures that they could at least have a decent life with decent care until the point they died.
Both industries had, up until I came on the scene been a totally macho, male environment with all the old attitude of a creature doing stuff against them rather than an animal reacting naturally or in fear.

I'm proud of the thousands of animals that had almost fear free, enriched and cared for lives due to me.

If that makes me a hypocrite in anyones eyes..........I don't care and neither would those animals


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> You called me quote "not a very nice person" directly. Satori called me a quote "grubby little troll".
> 
> My posts are of a general nature, not targeted at any one person.  Can you and others say the same? Em, no!
> 
> Therefore I am debating fairly!


Yes, I did call you a 'not very nice person' in direct response to the tone used in your numerous replies to Satori. I believe his opinion of you was also aired after a number of these posts had been made.

THAT opinion has nothing to do with the fact you have made a generalised comment to all meat-eating, animal right supporters by calling them hypocrites.

And, if you _really_ want to refer to your 'likes to posts' ratio, trust me, in comparison to many others around here, it is nothing to boast about!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> My point is WHY are people not just as outraged about a baby lamb being cruelly slaughtered in a abattoir? A genuine question! It genuinely baffles me.
> 
> Fox hunting is a drawn out cruel process, but so is the transporting, housing and eventually often unstunned slaughter in an abattoir. The animals urinate themselves and often collapse through fear. They live in fear for hours, even days awaiting slaughter, as they witness other animals being slaughtered. Beyond cruel, and just as bad as fox hunting imo. If you cannot understand MY disgust at this cruelty, you are the closed minded one, not I. I am entitled to discuss my views, as you are yours.
> 
> ...


Transporting - my pigs travel in a small trailer, with straw on the floor and pig nuts scattered in the straw for them to rootle around for during the journey of around 20-25 minutes. Whenever we've arrived in the past we've had a problem getting them out of the trailer not because they are scared but because they can still smell the pig nuts they've missed in the straw. We get them out by shaking a bucket for them to turn around and follow. Terrified animals don't eat.

At the abbatoir I use ( I can't speak for others), each farm group is kept in it's own pen, with other animals they know, on freshly bedded straw. They don't all get mixed up with other farm groups, there would be fighting.

Unstunned - some are unstunned due to the religious requirements of those wanting Halal meat, this is a different issue. None of my animals have EVER been slaughtered unstunned.

Again, at the abbatoir I use, I can't speak for others, I have not seen animals collapsing or urinating in fear, but housed groups of pigs rooting in straw and snouting each other out of the way to move around. I have seen groups of sheep cudding, which they do not do if stressed - a quick field check if one is lying down where others are grazing is to watch for cudding - staring into space or tooth grinding are signs of pain/distress, normal cudding (staring for a second, belching, cudding around 20 seconds, swallowing, and repeating the process) is a sign of a relaxed sheep.

Living in fear for hours or even days is not something I have come across in the abbatoir I use. A date and time are arranged in advance, a one hour window (between this hour and that).

Witnessing other animals being slaughtered is again something which does not happen at my abbatoir, there is a pen for holding the group or individual, a high sided race for them to move along, and they are allowed into the killing area one at a time after the previous pig has been taken through to the next stage of processing.

We eat one but not the other is many people's reason for turning a blind eye- you are so right. Just because we eat something doesn't mean suffering should be acceptable for the end result (bacon butty for instance). More hypocritical to me though, than vegetarians lecturing on eating meat, are meat eaters who buy mass produced meat from supermarkets, on little polystyrene trays, with no idea of its origin, and then ask how I can eat my own animals that I have cared for right up until the end. The implication is that if I eat my own meat I don't care for my animals, but actually I'm saying BECAUSE I eat meat I will take full responsibility for both its life and its death.

I too wish the commercial meat industry would be held up to more scrutiny and held to account. In the meantime, if people do eat meat, they can do their part by buying their meat from local butchers, and demanding to know where and how it was raised and where it was killed.

I think the problem people are having is the assertion that killing for sport and killing for food are equally bad. I think we should agree that we are all against animal suffering, whatever the cause, and that in whatever we do we should strive to reduce this as much as possible, whether that is using a rifle on a problem fox or using small, local abbatoirs for killing our food animals. I know you're not going to start eating meat, but I hope you feel a bit more at ease about the last moments of at least those animals raised small scale and booked into small, local abbatoirs. I dreaded going the first time, but seeing the set up for myself reassured me that my animals would be treated with respect.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Belinda (or any of her other aliases) is very vocal in political/AR threads. She also has a habit of name calling/calling other people hypocrites and then flouncing off because she is being picked on. Next will be the conspiracy theories about Cliff Richard and Jill Dando


And Esther Rantzen. Don't forget she was involved too. 

Patsymatsy/Belinda only gets involved in political threads .......... shows little or no interest in actual pets on a Pet Forum.

And by the way, she doesn't have opinions, she states FACTS.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

MoggyBaby said:


> Yes, I did call you a 'not very nice person' in direct response to the tone used in your numerous replies to Satori. I believe his opinion of you was also aired after a number of these posts had been made.
> 
> THAT opinion has nothing to do with the fact you have made a generalised comment to all meat-eating, animal right supporters by calling them hypocrites.
> 
> And, if you _really_ want to refer to your 'likes to posts' ratio, trust me, in comparison to many others around here, it is nothing to boast about!


You clearly don't understand the term ratio or percentages, ha!

Percentages... arithmetic lesson...

Your 22,554 posts and your 1,576 likes = you getting 6.98% of your post's liked.

My 146 posts and my 113 likes = my getting 77% of my posts liked.

Less is sometimes MORE! Quality over quantity!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

patsymatsy said:


> You clearly don't understand the term ratio or percentages, ha!
> 
> Percentages... arithmetic lesson...
> 
> ...


Are you serious?

You really need to get out more.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Likes don't count. When the forum was updated we lost all our likes. You've only been posting since april this year, so have all of yours. I had hundreds more before they upgraded and many posters had thousands more. Sorry, you can't count percentage of likes.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> You clearly don't understand the term ratio or percentages, ha!
> 
> Percentages... arithmetic lesson...
> 
> ...


Hahaha you wonder why people respond to you they way they do...You are aware most long term members likes didn't transfer over in the forum change so I'd stop blowing smoke up your own backside as your ratios are way out.. how childish...


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> You really need to get out more.


Ditto, my Sweety! 


Elles said:


> Likes don't count. When the forum was updated we lost all our likes. You've only been posting since april this year, so have all of yours. I had hundreds more before they upgraded and many posters had thousands more. Sorry, you can't count percentage of likes.


I lost all my likes and reps (very high rep for a newbie) also when the forum moved.

I was on the old forum for a month, before the move. Yes the forum site change caused a loss in foot fall, but you need to embrace and not chase away posters if you want a buzzing forum. Just my opinion!

If members are being petty towards me, I will respectively respond in kind.

Hash tag... respect breeds respect! 

This forum has to learn to embrace differing of opinions and new members. Instead of labeling all new members "trolls". This forum is so quiet from when I first joined, and no wonder, if this is how some of you post and treat members!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Ditto, my Sweety!
> 
> I lost all my likes and reps (very high rep for a newbie) also when the forum moved. I was on the old forum for a month, before the move.
> 
> ...


You complete and utter child... Of course you are debating and not just causing arguments......


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Meezey said:


> You complete and utter child... Of course you are debating and not just causing arguments......


And referring to members with a differing opinion as "a child" sadly illustrates the case in point! It will chase members away from the forum.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> And referring to members with a differing opinion as "a child" sadly illustrates the case in point! It will chase members away from the forum.


Well stop acting like one, next you'll be telling people your boyfriend is bigger than theirs. It's not about a difference of opinions it's you being childish.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

patsymatsy said:


> Ditto, my Sweety!
> 
> I lost all my likes and reps (very high rep for a newbie) also when the forum moved.
> 
> ...


Could it be possible that your bullying domineering attitude and habit of taking over threads and insulting members who won't share your views has maybe chased some people away?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Hash tag... *respect breeds respect!*
> 
> This forum has to learn to embrace differing of opinions and new members. Instead of labeling all new members "trolls". This forum is so quiet from when I first joined, and no wonder!


Something you may wish to try sometime.

ANYWAY.... Please can we get this thread back to the original posting regarding fox-hunting and away from stroking the ego of one member who seems to have commandeered it for the last four hours........

A couple of little 'fox facts':

Captive foxes can live for up to 14 years, similar to domestic dogs. However, wild foxes rarely live more than a few years. The biggest cause of death is being hit by a car.

Foxes have strong family ties. Young foxes often stay with their parents for a few years and help raise future cubs. The dominant male and female fox form a pair that often lasts for life. Although they hunt and feed separately, they regularly meet to groom each other and play.

A lovely little video.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Belinda's posting style to a T - be controversial, cause arguments, play the victim, go on about what a nasty lot we all are, say she has finished in a thread but come back to it time and again, mainly posts in political threads rather than ones about her "pet" oh yes and gets existing long standing members banned. Don't be drawn in to saying anything that might get you a ban folks. That is why you were called a troll. Some of us have memories.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Could it be possible that your bullying domineering attitude and habit of taking over threads and insulting members who won't share your views has maybe chased some people away?


Well stop endlessly quoting me, and looking for a reply from me! Simple really.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Belinda's posting style to a T - be controversial, cause arguments, play the victim, go on about what a nasty lot we all are, say she has finished in a thread but come back to it time and again, mainly posts in political threads rather than ones about her "pet" oh yes and gets existing long standing members banned. Don't be drawn in to saying anything that might get you a ban folks. That is why you were called a troll. Some of us have memories.


You def have me confused with someone else. Accept it! You are flogging a dead horse. You have been calling me Belinda for nearly two months now (since the PETA thread) zzzzzz.

You all keep quoting me, so I will defend myself.

It is controversial to be against animal cruelty? On a pet forum? Wow!

Stop quoting me, criticising, and misrepresenting what I am saying, and I will stop replying! Simple!

Some of you make the threads about me, instead of the issue at hand.... not my fault, your fault!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> You def have me confused with someone else. Accept it! You are flogging a dead horse. You have been calling me Belinda for two months now zzzzzz.
> 
> You all keep quoting me, so I will defend myself.
> 
> ...


No I first noticed you on the general election thread which was 7 May so hardly 2 months ago. How can we misrepresent what you say if we quote you? No one has put words into your mouth.

Back to the fox hunting issue - I thought I read that the vote wasn't mentioned in the Queens Speech yesterday so presumably that means they aren't going to try and hold it this parliament.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Back to the fox hunting issue - I thought I read that the vote wasn't mentioned in the Queens Speech yesterday so presumably that means they aren't going to try and hold it this parliament.


yes, that and the bill of rights got delayed


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Back to the fox hunting issue - I thought I read that the vote wasn't mentioned in the Queens Speech yesterday so presumably that means they aren't going to try and hold it this parliament.


* and what is not in the Queen's Speech?*
Although it appears in the Queen's Speech, there is no legislation, either in full or draft form, on a British Bill of Rights. Instead, ministers will consult on the pros of replacing the Human Rights Act with a new legal framework of rights and responsibilities.

There is no mention of any plan to repeal the ban on hunting of wild mammals with hounds, in force since 2005. Ministers have suggested MPs will be given an opportunity to decide on the matter by 2020, and will be given a free vote.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

anachronism said:


> They are humanely dispatched and used as pet food... infact they are a staple in my cats diet. Other than not living long they get no more of a raw deal than any other animal raised for food. (infact there is an argument that they get it easier than their sisters who go on to be caged)


Unfortunately they are not humanely dispatched, at least not in very many places in this country....


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I usually really respect your opinions but in this thread one person has thrown around insults to people who don't happen to share her politics and also pretty much told anyone who eats meat that they have no right to an opinion on fox hunting. That's a bit like saying you can only come to church if you have absolutely no sins and that trying to be a better/kinder person is not good enough unless you can be "perfect". Not sentiments I share nor like.


I'm not sure what that has to do with not respecting my opinion though RPH? I don't disagree with anything you've said ^^


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Unfortunately they are not humanely dispatched, at least not in very many places in this country....


I must beg to differ, and seeing as I have a box full of them in my freezer that don't have a mark on them....


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

anachronism said:


> I must beg to differ, and seeing as I have a box full of them in my freezer that don't have a mark on them....


I have no idea why you do, or where they came from - clearly I don't know about every single male chick that has ever died!


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Chicks are gassed aren't they?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Shoshannah said:


> Chicks are gassed aren't they?


They are gassed.


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> I have no idea why you do, or where they came from - clearly I don't know about every single male chick that has ever died!


I said earlier in the thread- my cats eat them


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Foxes have strong family ties.





MoggyBaby said:


> The dominant male and female fox form a pair that often lasts for life


I don't think this is strictly true in the same sense as Swans pair for life. It just so happens that the dominant pair are usually wise old things that last a few years together. I don't think he gives two hoots who is the dominant vixen as long as he can mate. 

http://www.thefoxwebsite.net/ecology/ecologymating


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

As male birds of the laying strain do not lay eggs and are not suitable for meat production, they are generally killed soon after they hatch and shortly after being sexed. Methods of culling include cervical dislocation, asphyxiation by carbon dioxide and maceration using a high speed grinder.

None of the euthanisia options is without cruelty imo.

Gassed (takes several minutes of gasping and struggling for air, for the gas/carbon dioxide to finally kill them):






Maceration:






Or breaking their wee necks by hand (what human being could do that?)....

Eggs anyone?


----------



## anachronism (Jan 30, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> As male birds of the laying strain do not lay eggs and are not suitable for meat production, they are generally killed soon after they hatch and shortly after being sexed. Methods of culling include cervical dislocation, asphyxiation by carbon dioxide and maceration using a high speed grinder.
> 
> None of the euthanisia options is without cruelty imo.
> 
> ...


Why would they pick such a labour intensive method when they could just shove them in a macerator? That makes no sense.

Also I watched the video..several minutes? the video was only 27 seconds long and they were down within a couple of seconds


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Hypoxia is meant to be a really nice way to die.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Veterinary opinion on hunting with dogs (deals with technicalities of how the fox is despatched) http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32

I still can't get over how emotive this subject is. Should we not legislate, as someone mentioned, for cameras in all abattoirs and to stop puppy farming, for example? Far more suffering there, IMO.

Most foxes are killed in RTAs: should we stop driving? I'm sure being hit by a car and dying slowly on the road is worse than a quick kill with dogs?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Veterinary opinion on hunting with dogs (deals with technicalities of how the fox is despatched) http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32
> 
> I still can't get over how emotive this subject is. Should we not legislate, as someone mentioned, for cameras in all abattoirs and to stop puppy farming, for example? Far more suffering there, IMO.
> 
> Most foxes are killed in RTAs: should we stop driving? I'm sure being hit by a car and dying slowly on the road is worse than a quick kill with dogs?


I still can't believe people are unable to see the clear differences - a Fox being knocked down by a car is nothing more than a tragic accident. A Fox being ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs for pure kicks alone is intentional and serves no point other than to meet the sick individuals involved sense of 'fun'.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Personally, id much rather people campaign against the use of snares with the same passion they do about hunting with hounds.

Death by snare is horrible, and often drawn out for hours and hours 

But then again, im not convinced that all people that hate fox hunting do so because they care about animal welfare.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Double post.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Nonnie said:


> Personally, id much rather people campaign against the use of snares with the same passion they do about hunting with hounds.
> 
> Death by snare is horrible, and often drawn out for hours and hours
> 
> But then again, im not convinced that all people that hate fox hunting do so because they care about animal welfare.


'humane' traps can be the same. a neighbour put out a humane trap to catch a rat. it got caught inside the trap, and proceded to rip its skin from its body in its fear to get out. 
poison is another apparently 'humane' thing that people use to rid themselves of rats and mice. it slowly kills them over days, they die in agony. then when another animal eats said dying animal they die slowly too. rats however are extremely clever and poison dosent work so well. the rats who go out and get food are worker rats, they get the food and bring it back to the den. they then eat some of the food, the other wait and see if anything happens to the rat eating. if the rat falls ill they wont eat the food, if its ok they do eat it. 
or there is a new form of rat poison. it states it only affects rodents, so a owl could eat a poisoned rat and it wouldnt affect the owl. however it also states that the way the poison works is that is slowly draws the water from the rodents body. can you imagine that, being slowly mummified while you breathe.

disgusting!


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

patsymatsy said:


> None of the euthanisia options is without cruelty imo.


are you stating this about bird farming or any type of euthanasia?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> I still can't believe people are unable to see the clear differences - a Fox being knocked down by a car is nothing more than a tragic accident. A Fox being ripped to shreds by a pack of dogs for pure kicks alone is intentional and serves no point other than to meet the sick individuals involved sense of 'fun'.


I think it would be good if you read the vet's blog about how foxes are killed. The ripped to shreds thing isn't very true to life.

Looking at another thread about this, some people were arguing that it is not done for fun. It is a job needing doing (not my words!) And as Elles keeps saying, when else do you have the opportunity to ride across the countryside?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> Veterinary opinion on hunting with dogs (deals with technicalities of how the fox is despatched) http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=32
> 
> I still can't get over how emotive this subject is. Should we not legislate, as someone mentioned, for cameras in all abattoirs and to stop puppy farming, for example? Far more suffering there, IMO.
> 
> Most foxes are killed in RTAs: should we stop driving? I'm sure being hit by a car and dying slowly on the road is worse than a quick kill with dogs?


How misleading. It isnt the 'veterinary opinion' on hunting with dogs, its the opinion of the biased VAWM. Who use to be known by the more appropriate title of Vets For Hunting. These vets have no ethics, they even support badger culling! Thats despite it being proven to be inhumane, unscientific - & a complete & utter failure on all counts! Vets are suppose to put animal welfare first, VAWM are a disgrace to their profession!

No I 'cant get' how emotive this subject either. Its hard to believe people actually defend morons who 'hound' animals to death for 'fun'! And I think you'll find most people outraged at the thought of the hunting ban being repealed are also opposed to puppy farming, want CCTV in abattoirs - because animal welfare is a priority!

Do people drive motor vehicles with the primary purpose of killing foxes? NO! What a ridiculously desperate argument.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think it would be good if you read the vet's blog about how foxes are killed. The ripped to shreds thing isn't very true to life.
> 
> Looking at another thread about this, some people were arguing that it is not done for fun. It is a job needing doing (not my words!) And as Elles keeps saying, when else do you have the opportunity to ride across the countryside?


The fox runs until it can run no more, it doesn't stand and wait for it's death, so to be honest the precise cause of death at the very end is neither here nor there. There was a thread recently about a vet shooting a cat with a crossbow, so I'd take a vet's blog on how foxes are killed in context, and looking at all factors. There are also policemen who murder their wives ( one on the news recently), so don't confuse job with personality. The quickest and most humane way of killing a fox (if it has to be done) has to be a rifle in trained hands - think sniper, not potshot whilst out after rabbits. It also means you get the right fox - i.e. the one who has learnt to kill poultry, not the one killing rats and rabbits damaging the crops. Most people on horseback following the hunt are there for a day out, not pest control, they are absolutely out for fun, complete with a "cap" at the meet start before they set off. Great, lets have a drink and then ride all over the road on excitable horses! When else do you have the chance to ride across the countryside? Seriously? Have you not heard of bridleways, or making the acquaintance of farmers with stubble fields? Many farmers are happy for considerate horseriders to cross their land, going around the field margins, even if no bridleway runs through it. Fewer are happy with 30-40 dogs and riders galloping across their fields. Besides the obvious risk to farm livestock (and humans) caused by a fox running into a field of stock or across a railtrack/road, pursued by the hunt. My own grandmother was nearly killed when the hunt galloped through her herd of dairy cows not once but twice within minutes. The hunt was banished from our land 50 years ago and has not been welcome since.How many of the hounds do an instant "down"? How many horses are happy to be pulled up when all those around them are galloping? It's dangerous and stupid as well as cruel.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think it would be good if you read the vet's blog about how foxes are killed. The ripped to shreds thing isn't very true to life.
> 
> Looking at another thread about this, some people were arguing that it is not done for fun. It is a job needing doing (not my words!) And as Elles keeps saying, when else do you have the opportunity to ride across the countryside?


Are you serious? When else do you have the opportunity to ride across country? If you're using that as a valid reason to hunt down foxes then I'm appalled.

There are tons of public bridleways around here that lead for miles. Plenty of opportunities if you look for them.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152721138310566



*I know a lot of you don't like watching or reading links. But this link is worth the 2 mins watching.*


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Your farmers might be, ours put round bales in front of the entrance to bridleways to make it a bit of a squeeze and hopefully put people off. The council surfaces them with stones, broken bricks and concrete. Some are slightly better and just gravel tracks. I keep my horses barefoot, the surfaces are a bit of a challenge to them and if I do fall off, or my horse trips, we're landing on bricks not grass.  

Out on the country lanes, more than once I've been screamed at by some car driver to get off the f'ing road. I'd love to, but I have to ride on the road to get to the crappy bridle-paths and there aren't very many of them. 

Yes, they are there for a day out. Not sure what paying the cap has to do with it, of course people have to pay to join in. That kind of negates the bloodthirsty psychopaths argument though. Farmers often aren't keen on people walking their dogs on footpaths, they really aren't keen on horses being ridden around the edge of their fields at stubble time. Though, yes, some can be kind enough to permit it on the odd occasion. Anyway, it's currently a moot point. Hunting foxes with hounds was banned. Hunting follows a man-made trail. More people hunt now it's not foxes than they did before. I would guess that you don't want them coming through your land regardless, even if a particular hunt was set up years ago as a drag hunt and never has hunted foxes. Spooking cows over your grandmother still applies whether it's a fox-hunt or not. It's people riding horses in groups you appear to be objecting to. 

I'm lucky, I live not too far from Dartmoor and other common land now, so I can chuck my horse in a trailer and take her to nicer places to ride. Others aren't so lucky, so enjoy organised rides instead. It does seem that you don't like those either. Still involves groups and excitable horses who may get carried away when galloping, at least at the start. Really though, from how I'm reading it, your objections have little to do with the foxes and more to do with the activity itself, so it's not really a valid argument against a repeal of the hunting law imo.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

My argument against it is, that it's an archaic and outdated method of wildlife control. Too many members of the general public are horrified by it. It's already been banned. There is no valid reason to revive it as an issue. Contrary to prior claims and forecasts of doom and gloom, the countryside has not been devastated, nor have country dwellers been plunged into dire straits and extreme poverty. Riding to hounds is even more popular now than it was before the ban.

Before the ban, my opinion was that there was no need to ban it. Foxes suffer far worse fates. The people following the hunt are irrelevant and are not there because they are bloodthirsty psychopaths, it should be all about the fox. If a ban comes about it's because of public opinion not animal welfare. 

Personally, I'd now like to see an end to the digging out and the terrierman. I never did like that part of it. I'd rather the fox ran, having a chance of escape if he's fit and healthy, than he sat in a hole terrified, waiting for the inevitable and trying to fight off a couple of little dogs, but there's no real publicity regarding that part. It doesn't involve rich toffs on horses. :Banghead


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think it would be good if you read the vet's blog about how foxes are killed. The ripped to shreds thing isn't very true to life.
> 
> Looking at another thread about this, some people were arguing that it is not done for fun. It is a job needing doing (not my words!) And as Elles keeps saying, when else do you have the opportunity to ride across the countryside?


That would be the - 'Vets For Hunting' (now renamed Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management) blog?. ( I see you're still opposed to foxhunting CT  lol)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs

*Vets say hunted foxes die in agony*
Home Office post-mortems refute the claims of the hunting lobby by proving blood sports inflict suffering

Sunday 11 June 2000 22.54 BS

Harrowing evidence that foxes and hares killed by dogs suffer painful deaths has dealt a blow to pro-hunt supporters who claim that blood sports are not cruel.
Tomorrow the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, will announce that the Government is to table a Bill offering a range of options on the future of hunting. The pro-blood sports Countryside Alliance was hoping that the lack of evidence of cruelty would help its campaign.

But independent forensic evidence by university veterinary surgeons on foxes killed by hunts and hares caught by greyhounds during coursing show that it is extremely rare for hunted animals to be killed instantly.

Post-mortems commissioned by the Home Office inquiry into hunting - and seen by The Observer - show no evidence to support claims by hunt supporters that foxes are killed by a 'quick nip to the back of the neck' and finds that in many cases foxes are disembowelled first. Five of the 12 hares killed were pregnant, and all had their necks broken by humans after bites by greyhounds had failed to kill them.

Independent vet Professor David Morton, who heads the department of biomedical ethics at Birmingham University, has examined the post-mortems carried out by vets from Bristol and Cambridge universities. He said: 'The fact that none of the animals died instantly clearly shows that they would have suffered. But probably more important is the mental distress these animals would have suffered before they were killed or caught.'

Vets from Bristol University examined the corpses of four foxes killed by hunting. Two of the foxes were shot, having gone to ground. Although the first fox hunted in Cotswold Park near Cirencester was killed by a single bullet, the post-mortem examination found evidence of 'trauma before death'.

The second fox hunted on Salisbury Plain had to be shot twice. Having gone to ground a terrier with a radio collar was sent down, and after 25 minutes of digging the fox was found. The first shot went through the animal's shoulder and failed to kill it, so another shot was required.

But the post-mortem of the fox found it had suffered from multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head, damage to the right eye, and bite wounds round the throat.

In both cases where the fox was killed above ground by hounds, evidence was found of 'profound trauma'. In neither case was there major damage around the head or neck, as pro-hunt supporters claimed. The post-mortems showed the foxes had been attacked around the rib cage with the heart, lungs and stomach bitten. Morton said: 'In one case, the fox probably died from suffocation which might have taken several seconds, and in the other, where the heart was severely damaged, it looks the fox would have been attacked while upside down or on its side.'

But the post-mortems of animals killed in hare-coursing paint an even more disturbing tale of animal cruelty. The 12 post-mortems by vets of Cambridge University show that it is probable that 11 of the hares were not killed by the greyhounds despite suffering severe injuries through bites. The vets concluded that their deaths were likely to have been caused by men breaking their necks after they had been caught.

The hares' agonising deaths were revealed in The Observer in March when hidden film was taken of the premier hare-coursing event, the Waterloo Cup, attended by members of the Burns inquiry team. In some cases, men made several attempts to break the hare's neck after greyhounds fought over it.

This latest evidence of animal cruelty comes as an investigation by the International Fund for Animal Welfare revealed how the Royal Beaufort Hunt - used by Prince Charles, his sons and Princess Anne - has been breaching the rules of hunting. Hidden cameras filmed how an employee of the hunt had been rearing fox cubs for hunting. Animal rights groups want legal action to be taken against the master of the hunt, who include Captain Ian Farquhar, a close friend of Prince Charles.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> My argument against it is, that it's an archaic and outdated method of wildlife control. Too many members of the general public are horrified by it. It's already been banned. There is no valid reason to revive it as an issue. Contrary to prior claims and forecasts of doom and gloom, the countryside has not been devastated, nor have country dwellers been plunged into dire straits and extreme poverty. Riding to hounds is even more popular now than it was before the ban.
> 
> Before the ban, my opinion was that there was no need to ban it. Foxes suffer far worse fates. The people following the hunt are irrelevant and are not there because they are bloodthirsty psychopaths, it should be all about the fox. If a ban comes about it's because of public opinion not animal welfare.
> 
> Personally, I'd now like to see an end to the digging out and the terrierman. I never did like that part of it. I'd rather the fox ran, having a chance of escape if he's fit and healthy, than he sat in a hole terrified, waiting for the inevitable and trying to fight off a couple of little dogs, but there's no real publicity regarding that part. It doesn't involve rich toffs on horses. :Banghead


Foxes dont need any method to control their population. By their territorial nature + abundance of food, their population is self controlling.

I'm sure most people know the role the Terriermen play in the hunts - they are inextricably linked to the fox hunts. People who support the hunts are supporting terriermen, theres no getting away from it. People out for a days ride cannot simply wash their hands of the cruelty - its all connected. Fox hunting is not a class issue its a cruelty & a morality one. I'm so glad you've had a change of heart & are now opposed to hunting with dogs Elles


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> Hunting follows a man-made trail. More people hunt now it's not foxes than they did before. I would guess that you don't want them coming through your land regardless, even if a particular hunt was set up years ago as a drag hunt and never has hunted foxes. Spooking cows over your grandmother still applies whether it's a fox-hunt or not. It's people riding horses in groups you appear to be objecting to.


I have no problem with riding in groups, I'm a rider myself. My problem is twofold : firstly the cruelty of the hunt, secondly the danger to livestock, horses and hounds as well as the fox itself (the riders can take their chances!). I would hope a man dragging a scent behind him would have the common sense to stay away from a railway line, or indeed out of a field of cows. A fox runs in terror, unaware of livestock, roads, railways. A man has a bit more sense - one would hope! I wouldn't have too much of a problem with a well organised drag hunt, IF the hounds used had not previously been used in real fox hunts - you can't expect a foxhound who has been allowed to chase foxes in the past to ignore their scent in the future, so I suspect an awful lot of foxes are still being killed nowadays as a "side effect" of drag hunting.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> Are you serious? When else do you have the opportunity to ride across country? If you're using that as a valid reason to hunt down foxes then I'm appalled.
> 
> There are tons of public bridleways around here that lead for miles. Plenty of opportunities if you look for them.


Wasn't me that said it. I haven't, don't and never will hunt. I don't think anyone should be off chasing down a fox when the simple solution is to shoot it if it needs doing. On a different thread, I said how people like to misinterpret (deliberately) and pretend they know what you're thinking. Prime example. At no point have I used that as an excuse. It would be damned hard, given I've never hunted.

As for the person who thinks I'm using foxes being run down as an equivalent to hunting them, don't be so ridiculous, you have precisely zero idea of my thoughts on this, quite clearly. Instead of sitting there posting dozens of links and trying to make out that just because I post different ideas to yours, I must be pro-hunt, get your arse off your sofa and get out sabbing rather than telling us about your cousin's husband or whoever doing it.

The hacking round here is bloody awful: you have to cross a dual carriageway to go anywhere decent if you can't get into the yards near the good routes, which have years of waiting lists.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

t, post: 1064187670, member: 1245619"]Wasn't me that said it. I haven't, don't and never will hunt. I don't think anyone should be off chasing down a fox when the simple solution is to shoot it if it needs doing. On a different thread, I said how people like to misinterpret (deliberately) and pretend they know what you're thinking. Prime example. At no point have I used that as an excuse. It would be damned hard, given I've never hunted.

As for the person who thinks I'm using foxes being run down as an equivalent to hunting them, don't be so ridiculous, you have precisely zero idea of my thoughts on this, quite clearly. Instead of sitting there posting dozens of links and trying to make out that just because I post different ideas to yours, I must be pro-hunt, get your arse off your sofa and get out sabbing rather than telling us about your cousin's husband or whoever doing it.

The hacking round here is bloody awful: you have to cross a dual carriageway to go anywhere decent if you can't get into the yards near the good routes, which have years of waiting lists.[/QUOTE]

As my cousins hubby was a sab, i guess the person you're referring to is me! Well God knows what you meant by this then?  - _ Most foxes are killed in RTAs: should we stop driving? I'm sure being hit by a car and dying slowly on the road is worse than a quick kill with dogs?  _

Perhaps you could decipher?

I thought hunts didnt kill foxes illegally??:Wideyed Whats the point me getting my arse off the sofa if they're not killing foxes?. 
_

_


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm out, you're boring me. Get off your high horse and actually do something rather than just baiting others over the Internet.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> I'm out, you're boring me. Get off your high horse and actually do something rather than just baiting others over the Internet.


See ya.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

When you actually look into it properly, the classic mounted hunt has never been regarded as an efficient form of fox control by pro-control livestock farmers anyway. Alternative methods have always been favoured for that activity, even before the ban.

The spectacle that is the mounted hunt attracts most of the public attention, though, and probably always will even if/when the ban is extended so only trail hunting is legal (I think that's the one that can't smell like fox, yes?). It's just too juicy a target to resist as it allows so many different flavours of outrage to be thrown at it - perfect decoy, really, and likely to stay that way for as long as the AR mob and general public remain hard of thinking.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> When you actually look into it properly, the classic mounted hunt has never been regarded as an efficient form of fox control by pro-control livestock farmers anyway. Alternative methods have always been favoured for that activity, even before the ban.
> 
> The spectacle that is the mounted hunt attracts most of the public attention, though, and probably always will even if/when the ban is extended so only trail hunting is legal (I think that's the one that can't smell like fox, yes?). It's just too juicy a target to resist as it allows so many different flavours of outrage to be thrown at it - perfect decoy, really, and likely to stay that way for as long as the AR mob and general public remain hard of thinking.


The pro hunt supporters lie that fox hunting is a good way of controlling the fox population, but its a proven lie. And Farmers who understand basic ecology know foxes don't need to be killed at all to control their population.

Trail hunts are really a cover for illegal fox hunts. They use fox urine to ensure the hounds stay interested in foxes, they lay trails around coverts where the hounds are likely to spring a fox - monitors & sabs have filmed them time & again not even bothering to lay a trail at all. True drag hunts on the other hand, have existed for 200 years. The hounds aren't trained to follow and kill foxes, they follow an artificial trail, so they have never been a target for the 'AR mob'.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

patsymatsy said:


> View attachment 232510
> View attachment 232511
> 
> 
> I can never get my head around why people are so outraged by foxhunting (and rightly so), whilst munching on a chicken sandwich!  :Arghh.


there one thing eating meat, another chasing it to exhaustion and ripping it to pieces.:Rage


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The pro hunt supporters lie that fox hunting is a good way of controlling the fox population, but its a proven lie. And Farmers who understand basic ecology know foxes don't need to be killed at all to control their population.
> 
> Trail hunts are really a cover for illegal fox hunts. They use fox urine to ensure the hounds stay interested in foxes, they lay trails around coverts where the hounds are likely to spring a fox - monitors & sabs have filmed them time & again not even bothering to lay a trail at all. True drag hunts on the other hand, have existed for 200 years. The hounds aren't trained to follow and kill foxes, they follow an artificial trail, so they have never been a target for the 'AR mob'.


Meh, I told you I possibly couldn't remember which way round the _names_ of trail and drag were, I do know the physical difference between the two! Thanks for proving my main point, though


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> If they actually do stick to their guns then I guess I agree, however, I have my doubts. I imagine they will eventually "stick it to the Government" if they get an opportunity on some issue or another.
> 
> If they banned fox hunting in Scotland because their constituents wanted them to, then presumably those same constituents as human beings would want the ban to remain in England? * Animal welfare should have no borders*.


Absolutely ! In the EU we vote on animal welfare issues all over the world. The Hunt Saboteurs are raising funds to prove English hunts are killing Scottish foxes though, hopefully this will persuade the SNP to do the right thing - http://www.gofundme.com/vf3b3bmg

We are looking to raise money to purchase GPS enabled video cameras for Scottish Hunt Saboteurs, this will enable us to prove that English hunts are crossing the border between England and Scotland chasing wildlife.

This will enable us to show to the SNP MPs that they have a duty to vote on any possible repeal of the hunting ban and this would affect Scottish Wildlife.

Foxes do not care about borders, and in neither do hunters when trying to kill wildlife. SNP MPs should take that into account and vote to protect wildlife wherever in the UK they happen to be.



ouesi said:


> As few predators as you have left in the UK, I don't know that I would be getting rid of any of them.....
> There is a lot to be said for a healthy balance of predator/prey.


To a minority of people in this country predators are vermin - to either be hunted for fun, or to be eradicated.



Nonnie said:


> Personally, id much rather people campaign against the use of snares with the same passion they do about hunting with hounds.
> 
> Death by snare is horrible, and often drawn out for hours and hours
> 
> But then again, im not convinced that all people that hate fox hunting do so because they care about animal welfare.


People & animal welfare organisations have been vigorously campaigning to ban snares Nonnie. They are disgusting, barbaric devices. Up in the peak district on and around the grouse moors they are all over the place. Hundreds of them concentrated in small areas - so many even runners have been getting injured by them. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-snares-after-spate-of-injuries-10213662.html

Fox hunting is only back in the spotlight because of the threat of the hunting ban being repealed. The ban was a hard fought & won victory for wildlife, we don't want dragging back to the dark ages - people are quite rightly angry hunting with dogs is back on the agenda..

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=122&ea.campaign.id=22552

http://linkis.com/www.league.org.uk/ne/ed8sa


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What are you going to do with the cameras?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> What are you going to do with the cameras?


They will film English hunts crossing the Scottish border to hunt foxes. The GPS will prove conclusively they are illegally hunting in Scotland. Meaning the SNP have a valid reason (as if one were needed) to vote.


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

I honestly believe that while I am not a fan of foxes I don't think hunting will have any effects on their numbers whats so ever nor will it have any positive effect on their management.

I see utterly no reason to re open fox hunting at all its a cruel sport with no benefits other then to socialise the rich.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Why don't some of you join the hunts and follow them on horseback with a gps go pro? Or are you going to use a drone?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Why do people still think it's only the rich who go or went hunting? Even if it were, why does it matter?


----------



## bonniedog (May 24, 2015)

Signed! I hate fox hunting.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

I've got a drone if anyone wants to buy one
Found it in the woods


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

Elles said:


> Why do people still think it's only the rich who go or went hunting? Even if it were, why does it matter?


Because poor people can't afford horses


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2015)

PawsandFeathers said:


> Because poor people can't afford horses


Not necessarily true...
For one, you don't have to own a horse to ride one. 
I rode for my entire life and never owned a horse until I was in my late 20's, and then it was a horse given to me. I traded labor for the opportunity to ride. I basically worked my butt off at the barn and got to hack horses in exchange. Eventually I moved up to showing horses, but again, always owned by someone else.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Extremely poor people might not be able to afford their own horses, but someone on minimum wage who works 35 hours a week, or someone with a couple of kids who's on the dole can and do. You don't need to be rich. I have 2 horses. I compromise on other things in order to afford them eg I have an old car and live in a small terrace. I'm not rich, I'm not even well off by most standards. My old horse is now retired and costs me £15 a week to keep at a friend's place and I buy him a bag of feed once a month. Many people spend more than that on two day's worth of cigarettes. I trained in hoof trimming and pathology, so I look after their feet myself. I pay £42 a month insurance for vet bills, less than many pay for their dog. Not all people who have horses are rich. There are 10 horses on DIY at the yard I keep mine. All of them are owned by ordinary working people who have average jobs and run out of money by the end of the month. Not a single one of us is rich. 

But like I said, why does it matter? Would fox-hunting be better if everyone who went was poor?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> Why do people still think it's only the rich who go or went hunting? Even if it were, why does it matter?


"People" don't think that. A few do. Most don't. The idea that "people" are against fox-hunting merely because it is a past-time of the rich is one of the pieces of misinformation put about in order to justify being against "people" who are opposed to fox-hunting. It diverts attention from the real feelings of people being against fox hunting because of its inherent cruelty.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Extremely poor people might not be able to afford their own horses, but someone on minimum wage who works 35 hours a week, or someone with a couple of kids who's on the dole can and do. You don't need to be rich. I have 2 horses. I compromise on other things in order to afford them eg I have an old car and live in a small terrace. I'm not rich, I'm not even well off by most standards. My old horse is now retired and costs me £15 a week to keep at a friend's place and I buy him a bag of feed once a month. Many people spend more than that on two day's worth of cigarettes. I trained in hoof trimming and pathology, so I look after their feet myself. I pay £42 a month insurance for vet bills, less than many pay for their dog. Not all people who have horses are rich. There are 10 horses on DIY at the yard I keep mine. All of them are owned by ordinary working people who have average jobs and run out of money by the end of the month. Not a single one of us is rich.
> 
> But like I said, why does it matter? Would fox-hunting be better if everyone who went was poor?


As you say yourself not everyone who hunts is rich - this is about animal cruelty not class. And the reason people often refer to fox hunters as toffs, inbreeds or whatever isn't due to class envy as the pro hunt brigade love to make out, its because if is wasn't supported by the wealthy elite it would have been banned decades ago - along with the barbaric pass times of the working class - bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting etc.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

PawsandFeathers said:


> Because poor people can't afford horses


What about the 1000s of foot followers too?


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

rona said:


> What about the 1000s of foot followers too?


They go on foot too? o.0''


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

PawsandFeathers said:


> They go on foot too? o.0''


I don't know what you mean by that!!

Each hunt has a band of foot followers. Even now that they no longer chase fox, it's still a popular past time


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Many hunts have a very active supporters club that run social events throughout the year, many also raise a lot of money for charities.
One of the more popular charities, which will come as no surprise is the air ambulance


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

You can't know that Spellweaver or Noushka. It may be true for you, but more than one person in this thread believes it's only rich people, they've said so. If we were speaking in real life, you'd pick up the inflection and meaning, clearly I don't mean everyone on the planet by the word people. Oddly enough Spell, when people criticise dog showing, you often think they mean everyone involved in it too.  

Maybe dog baiting was banned because it's barbaric, even many of the people involved in it would agree. But many people don't actually think fox-hunting is. Like boxing and horse-racing. Many people think both of those are barbaric too, but not everyone does. Boxing and horse-racing are pure sport too. Fox-hunting at least has an excuse, whether you agree the excuse is valid or not. 

Don't forget fox-hunting has actually been banned, so being perceived as for the rich, or that it does have wealthy titled people also involved in it didn't help did it? I just wanted to demonstrate that not everyone who has a horse or a pony is wealthy, to someone who thinks they must be.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Elles said:


> You can't know that Spellweaver or Noushka. It may be true for you, but more than one person in this thread believes it's only rich people, they've said so. If we were speaking in real life, you'd pick up the inflection and meaning, clearly I don't mean everyone on the planet by the word people. Oddly enough Spell, when people criticise dog showing, you often think they mean everyone involved in it too.
> 
> Maybe dog baiting was banned because it's barbaric, even many of the people involved in it would agree. But many people don't actually think fox-hunting is. Like boxing and horse-racing. Many people think both of those are barbaric too, but not everyone does. Boxing and horse-racing are pure sport too. Fox-hunting at least has an excuse, whether you agree the excuse is valid or not.
> 
> Don't forget fox-hunting has actually been banned, so being perceived as for the rich, or that it does have wealthy titled people also involved in it didn't help did it? I just wanted to demonstrate that not everyone who has a horse or a pony is wealthy, to someone who thinks they must be.


*What excuse would that be? There is no valid reason or excuse for fox hunting.*


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *What excuse would that be? There is no valid reason or excuse for fox hunting.*


Pest control.


----------



## chesspiece (May 16, 2015)

Nonnie said:


> Pest control.


Well, that doesnt work.
Barely enough riders are killed falling off their horses


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Nonnie said:


> Pest control.


*lol Nonnie that's a joke, right?*


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Exactly Nonnie. Whether you think it's a valid excuse or not, it's still an excuse.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol Nonnie that's a joke, right?*


Thats the valid reason given for fox hunting.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2015)

Elles said:


> Boxing and horse-racing are pure sport too. Fox-hunting at least has an excuse, whether you agree the excuse is valid or not.


Saying fox hunting has an "excuse" is like saying bullfighting has an "excuse" because the bulls get eaten. 
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the fox numbers don't need to be controlled, and as I said earlier, as few predators as you have int he UK, I don't know that I would be "controlling" any of their numbers. 
If farmers don't want their stock bothered by foxes, they need to learn to protect their stock and not just indiscriminately kill a local predators - a hard lesson learned here in the US. Historically we eradicated wolves in certain areas, to the detriment of the whole ecosystem. Now we know better, and have learned that living *with* the predators is better for everyone involved, including the livestock.

Edit: @Elles, I know you're not saying you agree with the "excuse" or believe it, I'm just arguing for those who may use that excuse


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Saying fox hunting has an "excuse" is like saying bullfighting has an "excuse" because the bulls get eaten.
> I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the fox numbers don't need to be controlled, and as I said earlier, as few predators as you have int he UK, I don't know that I would be "controlling" any of their numbers.
> If farmers don't want their stock bothered by foxes, they need to learn to protect their stock and not just indiscriminately kill a local predators - a hard lesson learned here in the US. Historically we eradicated wolves in certain areas, to the detriment of the whole ecosystem. Now we know better, and have learned that living *with* the predators is better for everyone involved, including the livestock.
> 
> Edit: @Elles, I know you're not saying you agree with the "excuse" or believe it, I'm just arguing for those who may use that excuse


Have said this a few times now - I'm a farmer, and do NOT believe hunting is the way to protect stock

Foxes are a natural predator of rabbits, rats and mice, in the right place (i.e. the field not the chicken shed) they are the farmer's friend.

If you have a problem fox who has learnt how to get stock, despite adequate fencing and security practices that work against the majority of foxes, you kill that individual. By waiting with a rifle you get the right fox, and do the job quickly and cleanly. Fox hunting is akin to arresting any black teenager because one robbed a shop ( that's not meant to be a racist comment before we go off on a tangent, I'm saying that just as the police would be wrong, and acting illegally in fact, to detain any black person in response to that description of a robber, so foxhunters are wrong to chase any fox in response to one taking stock).

The hunt, when out of control which is quite often, can cause more damage to crops and livestock, and cause more accidents than a fox ever would. If you wouldn't have a dog off lead around livestock why would you have 30 dogs off lead around livestock? Chances of an instant recall pretty much zero.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Being for food is an excuse for a lot of animal abuse.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> Being for food is an excuse for a lot of animal abuse.


No it's not! Read back on this thread where we had the whole meat eating, small scale local slaughterhouse debate. As my gran would have said "It needs doing but there's no need to be spiteful about it", a comment she used on the subject of both raising animals for meat and pest control.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> If you have a problem fox who has learnt how to get stock, despite adequate fencing and security practices that work against the majority of foxes, you kill that individual. By waiting with a rifle you get the right fox, and do the job quickly and cleanly. Fox hunting is akin to arresting any black teenager because one robbed a shop ( that's not meant to be a racist comment before we go off on a tangent, I'm saying that just as the police would be wrong, and acting illegally in fact, to detain any black person in response to that description of a robber, so foxhunters are wrong to chase any fox in response to one taking stock).


One of the many lessons learned from or mistakes with wolves is that the above is not as foolproof as you would think. Even the lie in wait technique does not guarantee that you're getting the right predator. I don't know why us humans so often jump to the "kill it" solution 
A few good dogs will keep foxes away. If my two pet dogs can keep the many coyotes we have around here away, surely a good farm dog can do the same...
And are foxes even that much of an issue for farmers anyway?


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> No it's not! Read back on this thread where we had the whole meat eating, small scale local slaughterhouse debate. As my gran would have said "It needs doing but there's no need to be spiteful about it", a comment she used on the subject of both raising animals for meat and pest control.


I think you missed what Elles meant....


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Yes, some do use it as an excuse, but it isn't a very good one, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

That was the point.  Just as a ban on fox-hunting should have nothing to do with the people involved, or what happens to the animal once he's dead, being abusive to an animal, because people eat him is no excuse for it. Whether that's bull-fighting or factory farming. If it becomes a valid excuse, we have to excuse factory farming and bull-fighting, so I don't like to see that the fox isn't eaten used an excuse for banning fox-hunting either. If only poor people were involved and the fox was eaten, does it make it any better? Should the hunt find a different and edible animal to chase instead?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

As an aside, I don't know enough about bull-fighting to hold an opinion on it. It would be up to the Spanish people as to whether they ban it, change it, or even prioritise it, not me.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

ouesi said:


> One of the many lessons learned from or mistakes with wolves is that the above is not as foolproof as you would think. Even the lie in wait technique does not guarantee that you're getting the right predator. I don't know why us humans so often jump to the "kill it" solution
> A few good dogs will keep foxes away. If my two pet dogs can keep the many coyotes we have around here away, surely a good farm dog can do the same...
> And are foxes even that much of an issue for farmers anyway?


Foxes aren't that much of an issue for sheep farmers, the ewes are pretty good at protecting their lambs. Of course if a fox takes a dead lamb, or a weak one which would have died anyway, and is seen, it gives the impression of being a more fearsome predator than it is. Foxes are only about cocker spaniel sized.
Yes they can be pretty effective at wiping out a chicken hut, or even barn, if they can find a weakness in the security. Completely free range have a chance of scattering into the hedges, but if the birds are confined and can't scatter there can be mass slaughter.

We have dogs, and still lost a few free range chickens a couple of years ago to a teenager who was absolutely desperate and would come even in daylight. It was a really hard winter. The amazing thing was that the birds just stood around watching it, they were fascinated by it. Most humans do reach the "kill it" solution, because when all's said and done it's not that easy to trap a wild fox, and if I'd suggested trapping as first option there would have been a flurry of "can't be dones", but we managed in this one instance and the wildlife hospital came to collect it to overwinter it away from us, until spring and baby rabbit season. It was only a matter of time before she (it was a young vixen) took a favourite of the children's chickens or ducks, so in this case doing nothing was not an option, though we usually live and let live, and enjoy watching the cubs playing. However, being the softies we are we couldn't bring ourselves to kill her. We know it was the problem fox because after she went we lost no more poultry. The photos were taken on my mobile phone, loose, caught in an old rabbit run, and finally in the wildlife's travel cage, no zoom, if I could photo her I could have shot her or paid someone else to ( only I couldn't, 'cause I'm nice!).


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> That was the point.  Just as a ban on fox-hunting should have nothing to do with the people involved, or what happens to the animal once he's dead, being abusive to an animal, because people eat him is no excuse for it. Whether that's bull-fighting or factory farming. If it becomes a valid excuse, we have to excuse factory farming and bull-fighting, so I don't like to see that the fox isn't eaten used an excuse for banning fox-hunting either. If only poor people were involved and the fox was eaten, does it make it any better? Should the hunt find a different and edible animal to chase instead?


Like deer (venison?)


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Maybe we should reconsider a vote to bring back dog fighting too? After all, that's a blood sport too and dogs are put through the same torture as foxes. Why is that any different?
Because there is a valid reason for fox hunting? I'm sure someone can make up a valid excuse for dog fighting too.......


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Foxes aren't that much of an issue for sheep farmers, the ewes are pretty good at protecting their lambs. Of course if a fox takes a dead lamb, or a weak one which would have died anyway, and is seen, it gives the impression of being a more fearsome predator than it is. Foxes are only about cocker spaniel sized.
> Yes they can be pretty effective at wiping out a chicken hut, or even barn, if they can find a weakness in the security. Completely free range have a chance of scattering into the hedges, but if the birds are confined and can't scatter there can be mass slaughter.
> 
> We have dogs, and still lost a few free range chickens a couple of years ago to a teenager who was absolutely desperate and would come even in daylight. It was a really hard winter. The amazing thing was that the birds just stood around watching it, they were fascinated by it. Most humans do reach the "kill it" solution, because when all's said and done it's not that easy to trap a wild fox, and if I'd suggested trapping as first option there would have been a flurry of "can't be dones", but we managed in this one instance and the wildlife hospital came to collect it to overwinter it away from us, until spring and baby rabbit season. It was only a matter of time before she (it was a young vixen) took a favourite of the children's chickens or ducks, so in this case doing nothing was not an option, though we usually live and let live, and enjoy watching the cubs playing. However, being the softies we are we couldn't bring ourselves to kill her. We know it was the problem fox because after she went we lost no more poultry. The photos were taken on my mobile phone, loose, caught in an old rabbit run, and finally in the wildlife's travel cage, no zoom, if I could photo her I could have shot her or paid someone else to ( only I couldn't, 'cause I'm nice!).
> ...


If only more farmers and the like thought like you. She's a beauty.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Foxes aren't that much of an issue for sheep farmers, the ewes are pretty good at protecting their lambs. Of course if a fox takes a dead lamb, or a weak one which would have died anyway, and is seen, it gives the impression of being a more fearsome predator than it is. Foxes are only about cocker spaniel sized.
> Yes they can be pretty effective at wiping out a chicken hut, or even barn, if they can find a weakness in the security. Completely free range have a chance of scattering into the hedges, but if the birds are confined and can't scatter there can be mass slaughter.
> 
> We have dogs, and still lost a few free range chickens a couple of years ago to a teenager who was absolutely desperate and would come even in daylight. It was a really hard winter. The amazing thing was that the birds just stood around watching it, they were fascinated by it. Most humans do reach the "kill it" solution, because when all's said and done it's not that easy to trap a wild fox, and if I'd suggested trapping as first option there would have been a flurry of "can't be dones", but we managed in this one instance and the wildlife hospital came to collect it to overwinter it away from us, until spring and baby rabbit season. It was only a matter of time before she (it was a young vixen) took a favourite of the children's chickens or ducks, so in this case doing nothing was not an option, though we usually live and let live, and enjoy watching the cubs playing. However, being the softies we are we couldn't bring ourselves to kill her. We know it was the problem fox because after she went we lost no more poultry. The photos were taken on my mobile phone, loose, caught in an old rabbit run, and finally in the wildlife's travel cage, no zoom, if I could photo her I could have shot her or paid someone else to ( only I couldn't, 'cause I'm nice!).
> ...


So what eventually happened to her?
Was she moved to another area or kept forever in captivity?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> So what eventually happened to her?
> Was she moved to another area or kept forever in captivity?


She'd have spent the winter with other foxes at the centre, with minimum human contact to keep her wary of humans, be moved to an outside "rehabilitation" pen, and eventually be released back into the wild. I used to volunteer at the wildlife place before life got too busy, so know the system she was going into. If she was going to be kept in captivity forever we had 2 children desperate for daddy to build her an enclosure, but it wouldn't have been fair on her, she's a wild animal with a free spirit.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What's the difference between shooting (humanely killing) a fox and taking animals you've raised to a local abattoir to be killed for people to eat? I'm quite astonished that you think it's wrong to kill a fox, but are happy to kill other animals. I thought you didn't think there was anything wrong with lying in wait and shooting them?

No, we don't need a vote to bring back bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, or fox hunting. They're all gone, our society didn't want them, there's far greater issues to worry about. Once upon a time, burning women as witches was socially acceptable and gays had to hide, we move on and things change. Generally we have to accept public opinion about minority pursuits and fox-hunting was one of them that the majority of the general public turned against. Those involved should accept it and move on and our government should leave it alone, regardless of what the PM's father-in-law wants.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> She'd have spent the winter with other foxes at the centre, with minimum human contact to keep her wary of humans, be moved to an outside "rehabilitation" pen, and eventually be released back into the wild. I used to volunteer at the wildlife place before life got too busy, so know the system she was going into. If she was going to be kept in captivity forever we had 2 children desperate for daddy to build her an enclosure, but it wouldn't have been fair on her, she's a wild animal with a free spirit.


See I can't understand this. She is now a rogue fox who knows that humans means tasty food. She's getting used to humans meaning food even more now in captivity because the food she is offered will be covered in human scent.
She is then released to continues life somewhere that you and they can't see her shot 

Someone elses problem fox


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

rona said:


> See I can't understand this. She is now a rogue fox who knows that humans means tasty food. She's getting used to humans meaning food even more now in captivity because the food she is offered will be covered in human scent.
> She is then released to continues life somewhere that you and they can't see her shot
> 
> Someone elses problem fox


These rehabilitation sanctuary's have a good success rate for a reason. The animals in their care go onto to continue living as wild animals.

We visited a rehabilitation centre for seals a few months back. They are fed by humans daily. But yet you don't find any coming back to shore after humans to feed them.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The fox was already taking poultry from around human dwellings before she was captured. It was probably why it was easier to trap her. I don't doubt that next winter when food is scarce she may well do the same thing and as rona said, be shot by someone else (or hit by a car etc). Foxes have their own areas, really she should be put back where she came from, if she wasn't going to be put down, or kept in captivity. Foxes aren't seals.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> What's the difference between shooting (humanely killing) a fox and taking animals you've raised to a local abattoir to be killed for people to eat? I'm quite astonished that you think it's wrong to kill a fox, but are happy to kill other animals. I thought you didn't think there was anything wrong with lying in wait and shooting them?


Please read my posts through all the way. I do not think it wrong to kill a fox, I think it wrong to chase down a fox with dogs. Neither does killing my meat animals make me "happy". I take my own meat animals to a local abbatoir but won't transport them miles to be exported live or eventually killed for the halal market. It's about taking responsibility. If you read my posts you will see that I have said all along that if you have a problem fox the way to kill it (which would be most farmers' preference) is to lie in wait and shoot it with a rifle. Ousie said the lie in wait method wasn't that easy, and you didn't know you were getting the right animal, I argued that it could be done, and after removal of that one "problem animal" the killing of our poultry stopped, which is at the least very strong evidence that in this case it was the right animal who was caught. This was a young vixen, raised on our land with no previous problems, who took a few birds when the weather turned awful. Her parents were not regularly bringing her to us from a cub, she turned up desperately hungry over a period of I seem to remember 3 days from first noticing a few feathers on the yard to having successfully caught her. I'd have thought being trapped in a rabbit run, and then put in a travel cage, driven about and examined would have been unlikely to make her seek out human company in the future. In this instance it seemed a shame to kill an otherwise healthy animal, who had only been driven to killing poultry by desperation. However, if another farmer had made a different decision I would not disagree with his choice provided she died quickly.

Not quite sure how to multipost quotes yet, so will answer Rona's issue with release in a separate post.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> You can't know that Spellweaver or Noushka. It may be true for you, but more than one person in this thread believes it's only rich people, they've said so. If we were speaking in real life, you'd pick up the inflection and meaning, clearly I don't mean everyone on the planet by the word people. Oddly enough Spell, when people criticise dog showing, you often think they mean everyone involved in it too.


That's 'cos they usually do!  Seriously though, point taken. But just as neither Noush nor I can know that for certain, neither can you know what you're suggesting for certain. It seems that way to you, just as it seems this way to me and Noush. AS for people on this thread, there are more people saying they don't think about the financial class of fox hunters than there are saying it's a sport for the rich. And on the many threads we have had on it. those who are pro-hunting regularly dismiss the concerns of anti-hunters as "It's class prejudice."



Elles said:


> Maybe dog baiting was banned because it's barbaric, even many of the people involved in it would agree. But *many people don't actually think fox-hunting is*. Like boxing and horse-racing. Many people think both of those are barbaric too, but not everyone does. Boxing and horse-racing are pure sport too. Fox-hunting at least has an excuse, whether you agree the excuse is valid or not.


That's the nub of the problem though, isn't it? If everyone admitted just how barbaric it was instead of finding ridiculous excuses for it, there wouldn't be a problem.



Dogloverlou said:


> Maybe we should reconsider a vote to bring back dog fighting too? After all, that's a blood sport too and dogs are put through the same torture as foxes. Why is that any different?
> Because there is a valid reason for fox hunting? I'm sure someone can make up a valid excuse for dog fighting too.......


Well, let's see. (puts tonguie in cheek) Excuses for fox-hunting inclusde:
*pest control* - yeah, dog fighting would reduce the number of dangerous dogs as effectively as fox-hunting controls the number of foxes
*tradition* - yeah, dog fighting is a tradition too
*the animal in question is killed quickly and cleanly* - yeah, a dog being ripped to shreds by another dog iprobably suffers just as much as a fox being ripped to shreds by a pack of hounds
*people don't do it for the kill, they do it for the day out* - yeah, a day out at a dog fight is probably as enjoyable as a day out fox-hunting.

Yep, you're right, Dogloverlou: if we bring back fox-hunting we should also bring back dog fighting.

(takes tongue out of cheek and runs for cover)


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> See I can't understand this. She is now a rogue fox who knows that humans means tasty food. She's getting used to humans meaning food even more now in captivity because the food she is offered will be covered in human scent.
> She is then released to continues life somewhere that you and they can't see her shot
> 
> Someone elses problem fox


If you had ever worked in a wildlife hospital you would know that the first rule is "keep the animals wild" - no talking, put food in the outside area whilst they are in their den area, so they don't see you bring it, wear gloves or use tongs to handle the food etc. Far greater precautions than the CPL use for their feral cats, yet they are homed as mousers on farms not housepets for the very reason that they stay wild. The centre would not be feeding foxes on whole dead ducks, small lambs etc, so the food source is different to one they might be tempted to hunt on farms. Animals are only released into areas with the landowners permission. Many farmers are happy to have foxes and other wildlife rehabilitated on their land, we ourselves would be happy to have foxes released from the centre should something happen to our existing population of foxes, the reason this individual was not returned was to avoid her remembering WHERE TO GO to get a quick chicken dinner. Given the choice of going back to where she knows there are poultry or hunting wild rabbits, the easy option might be to revert to taking poultry. But on a different farm, away from the farmyard area, she would naturally avoid the busiest areas (where poultry would be kept), in favour of the fields and hedgerows full of natural prey. Also, as this fox was a teenager, she would have been driven away from this territory anyway when she matured.

It is very unlikely, given the above, that she would become a "problem fox" for someone else.

The original thread was about foxhunting being cruel, and I have said all along that (accurate, humane) shooting is a viable method of controlling problem foxes, whilst not causing unnecessary suffering, or wiping out those foxes who are helping the farmer in rabbit and rat control. If in this instance the vixen rehabilitated well back into the wild then she is not causing problems, and if you are right and I am wrong, and she approaches humans for food she will be easy to shoot quickly and without stress.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

My points about it not being just rich people, were aimed at those who think it is and also that I don't think it should matter whether they're rich or not.  In dog fighting only one animal dies, the other one lives with his injuries to fight another day and we won't go into the training methods that involve breeding or stealing friendly dogs to dangle in front of them as pure bait and other methods of increasing their aggression and fight worthiness. 

If someone has examined fox-hunting and alternatives from the fox's point of view, taking into account the environment we've created, but without taking into account the perceived wealth or attitude of the people involved and concluded that it should be banned (or remain banned) they have my utmost respect. It's the it should be banned because it's for rich, bloodthirsty, psychopaths that I can't accept as a reason, even if it were. It should be about the fox, that's all.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I also think people have to think about what they would do in a certain situation, and accept that their course of action might be different to someone else's, even if both have valid reasons for doing something. So, at the point the young vixen turned up, it was a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't:

Leave her alone = irresponsible owner to poultry, teaching the fox to take farm livestock
Shoot the fox = poor thing, she's only young, starving, how could you kill a fox and keep pet dogs? I thought you liked watching cubs playing?
Trap and keep in captivity = cruel to keep a wild animal in captivity
Trap and release on own land = you're stupid to do that, don't blame us if she kills again
Trap and released elsewhere= causing someone else's problem

To repeat it once more :

I believe hunting is cruel and an inefficient way of controlling problem foxes
Foxes that aren't causing a specific problem don't need controlling, and are actually the farmer's friend
Shooting, done CORRECTLY, with the right weapon at the right distance is the best way to kill a fox if you have to
Relocation can only be done in certain circumstances, but may be an option for individual cases.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Surely you could just have protected your stock better? You then have a young fox who hadn't gone through all that stress for no good reason eg. injury

This is always put forward when people talk about the reasons for fox hunting, that people should protect their stock because the fox is just doing what's natural.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Surely you could just have protected your stock better? You then have a young fox who hadn't gone through all that stress for no good reason eg. injury
> 
> This is always put forward when people talk about the reasons for fox hunting, that people should protect their stock because the fox is just doing what's natural.


The fact that is was our first and only problem in all the years we've been here should speak for itself. As I've already said, it was an exceptionally hard winter, and it was desperate enough to come in the daytime. Our poultry is locked up at dusk, and is free range during the day, we know where the fox dens are on our land and the foxes and ourselves usually keep a respectful distance from each other. This was a one off individual case in an exceptionally hard winter where she was obviously having difficulty surviving on her natural diet, the wildlife hospital commented how thin she was. So no, she wasn't injured as such, but yes, she needed help. If we had just increased the security around the poultry then either she would have starved, or she would have made another attempt to get an easy meal, and a fox in a pen of trapped birds can cause devastation, where completely free range have the chance to scatter.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Elles said:


> If someone has examined fox-hunting and alternatives from the fox's point of view, taking into account the environment we've created, but without taking into account the perceived wealth or attitude of the people involved and concluded that it should be banned (or remain banned) they have my utmost respect. It's the it should be banned because it's for rich, bloodthirsty, psychopaths that I can't accept as a reason, even if it were. It should be about the fox, that's all.


Oh, I think they're bloodthirsty alright. And try as I might, I can't get my head around the fact that a sane person would want to take part in something that was deliberately set up to torment a living animal by chasing it around until it is caught and ripped to shreds, whether they are in at the kill to see it or not, whether they are just there for the day out or not. I don't give two hoots about their personal wealth.

As for examining it from the fox's point of view - the fox does not care what kind of environment we humans have made. All it knows is that it is in danger and has to flee. And before anyone starts with the "anthropomorphising" argument, let me say here and now I am not looking at the fox as a fluffy disney character. I am basing this on scientific fact.

What we feel as fear or stress is merely due to a surge in the hormones in our bodies. When an animal - any animal - is fleeing from a predator, or is at bay from a predator, the sympathetic nervous system stimulates the adrenal glands to produce extra adrenaline and noradrenaline. This has the effect of honing the animal's body system to deal with fight or flight - but one of the side effects of all this extra adrenaline and noradrenaline in the system is extreme stress. Ergo any animal in a situation of flight (eg a fox being chased by hounds) or fight (eg a fox when it is caught by the hounds) will be in extreme stress. So, based in current scientific knowledge, a fox in flight or a fox in a fight will be in extreme stress. It will lack the knowledge to "call" it stress, but that does not mean that the stress will not be there and being felt just as keenly as a human would feel it The only difference is that humans know to call it stress; a fox does not. The fox just feels what its body is doing to it as a side-effect of trying to keep itself safe from the acts of callous and uncaring humans.

And that is before it is caught and ripped to shreds.

So even if you are the kind of hunter who has gone along merely for a nice ride, pretending to yourself that nothing nasty is really going to happen, pretending that all that will happen is that a fox will have to run around for about 10 minutes or so before dying quickly - how do you justify the cruelty to the fox in putting it through that sort of extreme stress before it is killed?


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> I also think people have to think about what they would do in a certain situation, and accept that their course of action might be different to someone else's, even if both have valid reasons for doing something. So, at the point the young vixen turned up, it was a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't:
> 
> Leave her alone = irresponsible owner to poultry, teaching the fox to take farm livestock
> Shoot the fox = poor thing, she's only young, starving, how could you kill a fox and keep pet dogs? I thought you liked watching cubs playing?
> ...


Poultry are domestic animals as a responsible owner its your duty to protect them for pain you fail that when you can't provide a secure enclosure for them or pen them in on time sadly it happens a lot and totally is not the foxes foult for killing your birds.

People often fail in providing good quality secure runs with strong secure bases its really not fair on the poultry they can't defend themselves against a fox and the only reason fox gets your domestic animals is through human error.

The fox acts out of an opertunity/instinct if people were more sensible with poultry then poultry would suffer less attacks via fox.

If it were a dog or cat that the owner of said animal would be the one responsible for the accident because dogs and cats are domestic animals

Compasionate people secure their runs to insure mr fox is no trouble they don't go around wasiting money shooting foxes because their failing to provide safety and security for their birds.

Been an owner of chickens for nearly 15 years in that time one hen was torn from the back of the Eglu because the tray was not made secure enough just clips on should have had a propper fastening Eglu company took no responsibility for their design fault.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

PawsandFeathers said:


> Been an owner of chickens for nearly 15 years in that time one hen was torn from the back of the Eglu because the tray was not made secure enough just clips on should have had a propper fastening Eglu company took no responsibility for their design fault.


Are you seriously comparing owning a handful of chickens in an Eglu to raising a flock of free range chickens on a farm? 

Catherine has already said at least twice that this was an isolated incident in many years of raising a free range flock involving a desperate vixen in a cruelly hard winter who was hungry enough to attempt multiple raids _in daytime_, - so penning the chickens on time or failing to provide a secure pen is not the real issue here, is it?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I was already a vegetarian when I attended my first hunt, in the '70s. I had been to fish factories and an abattoir, fed veal calves and seen horses shot. At the time I worked with horses and was sent on one of my employer's horses. I enjoyed it immensely. I watched the hounds working and saw foxes escape as well be caught, though as part of the field you don't always get to see very much of the end. To me, it was pretty natural. One animal running away from other animals. And no, in this instance I don't mean the animals sat on the horses. The fox could well be frightened, stressed and exhausted when he was brought down, but I'd seen what I considered far worse stress and cruelty inflicted on animals in other situations (hence vegetarian) and cleared up after a fox got into a chicken coop (we cursed for not reinforcing that corner, not at the fox). My opinion was based on my experiences. No-one I knew was bloodthirsty, we saw it as a job that needed doing and we were fortunate to be allowed to go along, yes, just for the ride and with the pointers, to get their card marked. It was very matter of fact and I rode out a number of times over the years, in Lincolnshire and Devon. My best friend's parents being joint masters of one hunt, I'd often go along with her. I also dressed up and attended the occasional hunt ball.

Given what happens in the world and the UK, to animals and people, I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I looked after everyone else's horses whilst they went on the countryside rally in support of hunting. Most of the arguments I read against it I knew either weren't true, or were often greatly exaggerated. Many people who were vehemently against fox-hunting knew nothing about it. I take no issue at all with people who do know about it and base their disgust on facts, not fallacy. Of course the death of an animal isn't going to be tasteful, especially when the animal concerned isn't edible. For myself, I can't understand how sane people can take a live animal, kill it and slice pieces off its body to eat without vomiting.

Regardless, I do believe that we need to bow to public opinion. Fox-hunting is old fashioned and archaic and the public don't want it. The fox (and the countryside) is no worse off with or without it imho, so now I can look at what people want. The majority wanted it gone. Fine. Do something else. Still needs tweaking a bit if people really want a complete end to fox-hunting, but que sera sera as they say.

Whether I'm sane or not, isn't for me to decide.


----------



## PawsandFeathers (May 23, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> Are you seriously comparing owning a handful of chickens in an Eglu to raising a flock of free range chickens on a farm?
> 
> Catherine has already said at least twice that this was an isolated incident in many years of raising a free range flock involving a desperate vixen in a cruelly hard winter who was hungry enough to attempt multiple raids _in daytime_, - so penning the chickens on time or failing to provide a secure pen is not the real issue here, is it?


This is the issue I have with free range chickens its nice and romantic on paper but how do you stop attacks?
As owners your supposed to stop suffering not blindly cause it because you want to see free chickens.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

PawsandFeathers said:


> This is the issue I have with free range chickens *its nice and romantic on paper* but how do you stop attacks?
> *As owners your supposed to stop suffering not blindly cause it because you want to see free chickens*.


Well, I suppose you *could* try and argue for regarding battery and other caged farming methods as preferable from an animal welfare point of view on the grounds that a few free range birds somewhere _*might*_ fall victim to a natural predator attack in exceptional circumstances even on a well constructed, maintained and managed free range setup.

I don't see you getting very far with that angle, though.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I've seen a vixen raise cubs right next to a pheasant pen without issue for 7 years. I know very well how foxes live and can live in harmony with prey species.

This particularly rogue fox has now been moved into another foxes area to be moved on probably umpteen times by the resident vixen who at this moment is trying to raise almost full grown cubs and will not be accepting of interlopers. It has every chance of becoming nomadic for some time and will encounter other pens with fowl owned by humans when it's hungry.
That's ok though because it now knows it should hunt rabbit


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

PawsandFeathers said:


> This is the issue I have with free range chickens its nice and romantic on paper but how do you stop attacks?
> *As owners your supposed to stop suffering not blindly cause it because you want to see free chickens.*


May I ask what you are inferring by this please?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> You can't know that Spellweaver or Noushka. It may be true for you, but more than one person in this thread believes it's only rich people, they've said so. If we were speaking in real life, you'd pick up the inflection and meaning, clearly I don't mean everyone on the planet by the word people. Oddly enough Spell, when people criticise dog showing, you often think they mean everyone involved in it too.
> 
> Maybe dog baiting was banned because it's barbaric, even many of the people involved in it would agree. But many people don't actually think fox-hunting is. Like boxing and horse-racing. Many people think both of those are barbaric too, but not everyone does. Boxing and horse-racing are pure sport too. Fox-hunting at least has an excuse, whether you agree the excuse is valid or not.
> 
> Don't forget fox-hunting has actually been banned, so being perceived as for the rich, or that it does have wealthy titled people also involved in it didn't help did it? I just wanted to demonstrate that not everyone who has a horse or a pony is wealthy, to someone who thinks they must be.


I think SW has answered far better than I could I will say though, that I personally don't know anyone who opposes fox hunting because its perceived as a rich mans sport, yes theres a lot of name calling, but that's anger that this brutal pastime is still on the agenda & if it wasn't for the of the powerful minority it would have been consigned to the history books long, long ago. I've no doubt the hunt supporters wish this was a class issue, then neither side could claim moral high ground. But it isn't about spiting the upper classes, its about animals needlessly suffering for human entertainment.

There is no way hunters can sincerely believe fox hunting isn't cruel - It is intrinsically cruel! There is absolutely nothing humane or ethical about any part of it, from the suffering inflicted on the fox to the unethical treatment of the hounds. I think its more a case of they want to try convince non hunters its a humane method of controlling the fox population . And the evidence submitted at the Burns inquiry proved the hunters to be the decietful liars they are - hence the ban.



Elles said:


> That was the point.  Just as a ban on fox-hunting should have nothing to do with the people involved, or what happens to the animal once he's dead, being abusive to an animal, because people eat him is no excuse for it. Whether that's bull-fighting or factory farming. If it becomes a valid excuse, we have to excuse factory farming and bull-fighting, so I don't like to see that the fox isn't eaten used an excuse for banning fox-hunting either. If only poor people were involved and the fox was eaten, does it make it any better? Should the hunt find a different and edible animal to chase instead?


Hunts do hunt different and edible animals -



Doesn't matter whether the hunters are rich or poor - hunting down fox, hare, mink, stag with dogs is cruel - full stop!



Elles said:


> As an aside, I don't know enough about bull-fighting to hold an opinion on it. It would be up to the Spanish people as to whether they ban it, change it, or even prioritise it, not me.


Surely you know bulls are tortured and killed purely for entertainment Elles? I could never be neutral on such issues because I feel empathy for the abused animals.



Elles said:


> My points about it not being just rich people, were aimed at those who think it is and also that I don't think it should matter whether they're rich or not.  In dog fighting only one animal dies, the other one lives with his injuries to fight another day and we won't go into the training methods that involve breeding or stealing friendly dogs to dangle in front of them as pure bait and other methods of increasing their aggression and fight worthiness.
> 
> If someone has examined fox-hunting and alternatives from the fox's point of view, taking into account the environment we've created, but without taking into account the perceived wealth or attitude of the people involved and concluded that it should be banned (or remain banned) they have my utmost respect. It's the it should be banned because it's for rich, bloodthirsty, psychopaths that I can't accept as a reason, even if it were. It should be about the fox, that's all.


What about the foxes that die? chased by baying hounds & then ripped to shreds. What about the training of hounds - cubbing? You can't get much more sadistic than this. I don't care whether they are sports of the upper classes or sports for the lower classes ALL bloodsports , _without exception,_ are barbaric & immoral.



Elles said:


> I was already a vegetarian when I attended my first hunt, in the '70s. I had been to fish factories and an abattoir, fed veal calves and seen horses shot. At the time I worked with horses and was sent on one of my employer's horses. I enjoyed it immensely. I watched the hounds working and saw foxes escape as well be caught, though as part of the field you don't always get to see very much of the end. To me, it was pretty natural. One animal running away from other animals. And no, in this instance I don't mean the animals sat on the horses. The fox could well be frightened, stressed and exhausted when he was brought down, but I'd seen what I considered far worse stress and cruelty inflicted on animals in other situations (hence vegetarian) and cleared up after a fox got into a chicken coop (we cursed for not reinforcing that corner, not at the fox). My opinion was based on my experiences. No-one I knew was bloodthirsty, we saw it as a job that needed doing and we were fortunate to be allowed to go along, yes, just for the ride and with the pointers, to get their card marked. It was very matter of fact and I rode out a number of times over the years, in Lincolnshire and Devon. My best friend's parents being joint masters of one hunt, I'd often go along with her. I also dressed up and attended the occasional hunt ball.
> 
> Given what happens in the world and the UK, to animals and people, I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I looked after everyone else's horses whilst they went on the countryside rally in support of hunting. Most of the arguments I read against it I knew either weren't true, or were often greatly exaggerated. Many people who were vehemently against fox-hunting knew nothing about it. I take no issue at all with people who do know about it and base their disgust on facts, not fallacy. Of course the death of an animal isn't going to be tasteful, especially when the animal concerned isn't edible. For myself, I can't understand how sane people can take a live animal, kill it and slice pieces off its body to eat without vomiting.
> 
> ...


I think most people know what foxhunting entails & there is absolutely nothing natural about harrying a terrified & defenceless animal to its death for 'sport'.

If anyone wants to know the finer details of foxhunting I can recommend the haunting accounts of ex huntsman Clifford Pellow. https://www.save-me.org.uk/FOX_Clifford_pellow.html



rona said:


> I've seen a vixen raise cubs right next to a pheasant pen without issue for 7 years. I know very well how foxes live and can live in harmony with prey species.
> 
> This particularly rogue fox has now been moved into another foxes area to be moved on probably umpteen times by the resident vixen who at this moment is trying to raise almost full grown cubs and will not be accepting of interlopers. It has every chance of becoming nomadic for some time and will encounter other pens with fowl owned by humans when it's hungry.
> That's ok though because it now knows it should hunt rabbit


Its a young fox. To survive, young foxes have to be especially opportunistic until they've honed their hunting skills - it doesn't mean she will stay a 'rogue' . Most young foxes will disperse into new areas in the search for territories of their own - most will get moved on by resident foxes .

Catherinem is a shining example of a farmer - one who quite clearly respects life & a true guardian of our countryside  Thank you for showing the vixen compassion Catherinem & giving her a chance to live - I really hope she makes it.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Yup, can see why your chickens have a better life than mine.

Image 1) Eglu ( internet search picture)

Image 2) My guys

I'll rush out and buy some Eglus today, bargain at only £555 for 10 bird size!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> I was already a vegetarian when I attended my first hunt, in the '70s. I had been to fish factories and an abattoir, fed veal calves and seen horses shot. At the time I worked with horses and was sent on one of my employer's horses. I enjoyed it immensely. I watched the hounds working and saw foxes escape as well be caught, though as part of the field you don't always get to see very much of the end. To me, it was pretty natural. One animal running away from other animals. And no, in this instance I don't mean the animals sat on the horses. The fox could well be frightened, stressed and exhausted when he was brought down, but I'd seen what I considered far worse stress and cruelty inflicted on animals in other situations (hence vegetarian) and cleared up after a fox got into a chicken coop (we cursed for not reinforcing that corner, not at the fox). My opinion was based on my experiences. No-one I knew was bloodthirsty, we saw it as a job that needed doing and we were fortunate to be allowed to go along, yes, just for the ride and with the pointers, to get their card marked. It was very matter of fact and I rode out a number of times over the years, in Lincolnshire and Devon. My best friend's parents being joint masters of one hunt, I'd often go along with her. I also dressed up and attended the occasional hunt ball.
> 
> Given what happens in the world and the UK, to animals and people, I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I looked after everyone else's horses whilst they went on the countryside rally in support of hunting. Most of the arguments I read against it I knew either weren't true, or were often greatly exaggerated. Many people who were vehemently against fox-hunting knew nothing about it. I take no issue at all with people who do know about it and base their disgust on facts, not fallacy. Of course the death of an animal isn't going to be tasteful, especially when the animal concerned isn't edible. For myself, I can't understand how sane people can take a live animal, kill it and slice pieces off its body to eat without vomiting.
> 
> ...


My God, that explains a lot! You and I have no common ground whatsoever on this subject.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> I've seen a vixen raise cubs right next to a pheasant pen without issue for 7 years. I know very well how foxes live and can live in harmony with prey species.
> 
> This particularly rogue fox has now been moved into another foxes area to be moved on probably umpteen times by the resident vixen who at this moment is trying to raise almost full grown cubs and will not be accepting of interlopers. It has every chance of becoming nomadic for some time and will encounter other pens with fowl owned by humans when it's hungry.
> That's ok though because it now knows it should hunt rabbit


Foxes aren't living in harmony with prey species, the pheasants are penned. But when the money is coming from the sport of shooting rather than the food value of chicken or eggs, gamekeepers can spend more cash on secure penning. But obviously isn't fool (or fox) proof even then, as gamekeepers have historically been pro - hunting.

Why is this a "particularly rogue fox" when it has reached being a teenager without taking poultry, and was caught within 3 days of first starting to take poultry?

Fox "has now been moved into another fox's area" - where did I state that? This is an experienced wildlife hospital, not some well meaning muppet! Didn't I state that we would be happy for other foxes to be released from the centre "should anything happen to our resident population of foxes"?

"Every chance of being nomadic for sometime" - like it would be anyway you mean?

"other pens with fowl owned by humans" - our birds are completely free range in the day, the fox never learnt to break into a pen because there wasn't one!

"Now it knows it should hunt rabbit" - well yes, what do you think it was living on before the weather drove it closer to our farmyard?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I love (?) the term rogue fox -insert sarcastic voice-
Cos we never encroached on their territory or anything..we never started to put high numbers of their prey in handy little boxes and pens so they could help themselves 

I have several urban foxes living around me that have taken a few pet rabbits and the like on their travels...They have never touched mine tho....hmmm, could it possibly be that I have predator proofed my enclosures?

No such thing as a "rogue" fox, stupid humans that make it easy for the fox - yup, but that doesn't make the fox rogue, it makes them an opportunistic


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2015)

PawsandFeathers said:


> This is the issue I have with free range chickens its nice and romantic on paper but how do you stop attacks?
> As owners your supposed to stop suffering not blindly cause it because you want to see free chickens.


Wait, free ranging chickens blindly causes suffering? What?
Sorry, I know this is not about fox hunting, but this kind of jumped out at me...
Plenty of people around here have free range chickens and guinea hens, and manage to not have them eaten, and we have a lot more plentiful and diverse predators than you do.
The chickens learn to roost and be predator savvy. We've had our rooster out here for a year now, he's never been penned at all and he's very much alive and well (though if he spurs my kid again he won't be.... :Rage)


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We do have common ground. Neither of us want to see the return of fox-hunting, I'd like to see the act go further than it does. Neither of us agree with factory farming.

I agree hunting is cruel to foxes. A lot of things are cruel.

We all have different life experiences and make our own choices. I've met two friendly farmers. In my experience many of them are arrogant and doing everything they can to get their handouts and upgrades. They don't give two hoots about any of the animals in their care, just about how much money they can get from them. They really don't like horses, even if they're happy to take money from horse owners. Horses churn up their land, so should be kept in most of the year, especially if it rains.

Many, many horses spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, stood in a small space they can just about turn around and lie down in. They are then trussed up in all manner of gadgetry, their heads forced between their knees and drilled for half to an hour, before being put back in their box. It's considered normal by many professional and leisure owners alike. No other animal is treated in this way.

I had to go to a farm just over a year ago. I was sat in the car and I could hear a distressed animal near to where I was parked, so I went to look through into the barn where it was. It was a calf in a small crate. I could just about make it out in the dark, though gaps in the slats and bars. That's an example of a farmer who cares about his animals isn't it? Veal calves still kept crated in the dark, even though it was banned years ago.

I'm not going to get hung up about bull-fighting. It'll go the same way as everything else. Many Spanish are opposed to it, they'll do the researching and the campaigning, I don't need to get involved. In Portugal they don't kill the bull, Spain will probably go the same way as Portugal first. Not in my lifetime though I expect. In my opinion, an opposing campaign needs to have all the facts and all the information available, regardless of how an individual might think something is an obvious cruelty. I don't think that's any different for bull-fighting.

If I was going to get involved in anything abroad, it would be bears and big lick Tennessee Walking horses. Though I think the big lick people will just move their cruelty onto another breed and get them picking their feet up instead. There's plenty of cruelty in horse showing, more than dogs. I don't know how someone involved in AR can sleep. I'd rather give my money and attention to people like the Prince Fluffy Kareem people, than on trying to get things banned. We can't all get involved in everything.

Sometimes I'm heartened by the fact that we are just a small dot in the universe. The dinosaurs are now extinct, no doubt one day we will be too. I'm so glad I'm old. There's much I'm glad I lived to see, but there's a lot I'll be glad to leave behind.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> We do have common ground. Neither of us want to see the return of fox-hunting, I'd like to see the act go further than it does. Neither of us agree with factory farming.
> 
> I agree hunting is cruel to foxes. A lot of things are cruel.
> 
> ...


Your previous posts have been more about how you couldn't see anything wrong with hunting, and how you now have to bow to public pressure to accept the ban. You have shown no remorse for your past involvement in hunting, nor admission that the fox suffers. Finally you admit "hunting is cruel to foxes", but I suspect to placate rather than as a genuine belief.

You complain about farmers' grants, whilst apparently unaware that this is reimbursement for the losses made by having to compete with Europe, where welfare standards of some members are appalling. Yet you argue against factory farming. 3 chickens, oven ready, for £10? Or an Eglu, suitable for 10 birds for £555? Do you not realise that the grants and subsidies are so that British farmers can continue to provide food at prices the public can afford?

Yes, some horses are confined for long periods of time, not sure how that means other things are ok?

If as you say, "we can't all get involved in everything", and want to take a back seat then fine, but don't thrust vegetarianism in our faces to get Brownie points. If you saw a calf in an illegal veal crate and did nothing what does that say about you? You think you can leave that to it's fate, but pat yourself on the back for not eating grass reared beef raised to 30 months, and slaughtered locally. It doesn't add up. That particular calf could have been in a legal "crush cage" awaiting a TB test, or other vet examination, it might have been in the dark to calm it or it could have a problem with light sensitivity which needed medical care. I don't know, I wasn't there. But you were, and did nothing, not even ask the question.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> Yet you argue against factory farming. 3 chickens, oven ready, for £10? Or an Eglu, suitable for 10 birds for £555? Do you not realise that the grants and subsidies are so that British farmers can continue to provide food at prices the public can afford?


Read my post through again and thought there might be some confusion. To clarify, 3 birds for £10 are a common offer in supermarkets. The £555 for a 10 bird Eglu is the sort of money "pet" chicken keepers pay for their housing, and the sort of housing used by one poster who objected to my free range birds (if you go back you can compare quality of life from the photos). I'm not suggesting farmers are spending £55.50p per chicken on housing, but it helps highlight the discrepancy between what the consumer wants to pay for meat or eggs and what they want to see for their own pet birds. The grants go some way towards helping close the gap, with higher grants for those who can demonstrate higher welfare.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Elles said:


> I was already a vegetarian when I attended my first hunt, in the '70s. I had been to fish factories and an abattoir, fed veal calves and seen horses shot. At the time I worked with horses and was sent on one of my employer's horses. I enjoyed it immensely. I watched the hounds working and saw foxes escape as well be caught, though as part of the field you don't always get to see very much of the end. To me, it was pretty natural. One animal running away from other animals. And no, in this instance I don't mean the animals sat on the horses. The fox could well be frightened, stressed and exhausted when he was brought down, but I'd seen what I considered far worse stress and cruelty inflicted on animals in other situations (hence vegetarian) and cleared up after a fox got into a chicken coop (we cursed for not reinforcing that corner, not at the fox). My opinion was based on my experiences. No-one I knew was bloodthirsty, we saw it as a job that needed doing and we were fortunate to be allowed to go along, yes, just for the ride and with the pointers, to get their card marked. It was very matter of fact and I rode out a number of times over the years, in Lincolnshire and Devon. My best friend's parents being joint masters of one hunt, I'd often go along with her. I also dressed up and attended the occasional hunt ball.
> 
> Given what happens in the world and the UK, to animals and people, I really couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I looked after everyone else's horses whilst they went on the countryside rally in support of hunting. Most of the arguments I read against it I knew either weren't true, or were often greatly exaggerated. Many people who were vehemently against fox-hunting knew nothing about it. I take no issue at all with people who do know about it and base their disgust on facts, not fallacy. Of course the death of an animal isn't going to be tasteful, especially when the animal concerned isn't edible. For myself, I can't understand how sane people can take a live animal, kill it and slice pieces off its body to eat without vomiting.
> 
> ...


I know you are getting a bit of flak from your posts, but I thank you for them, especially this one.

My feelings are that fox hunting is cruel and the 'celebrations' surrounding catching the fox are barbaric.
But I do not know enough about the 'mechanics' of fox hunting to make a strong factual argument as to why it should remain banned. Like the majority of the general public who do not want to see fox hunting return, all I go on are my feelings.

So, I am interested to read posts from people who have been involved in the world of fox hunting, because I think it would be ridiculous not to listen to their points of view and learn about their experiences.

Noushka and others have given their points of view and backed them up very well, but a one-sided argument gets us nowhere.

It is a shame when your statements are picked apart and vilified just because you are trying to show us another view on the subject - even one I don't particularly like.

And as for your reference to Bull fighting in Spain, I sort of agree with you.
There are many Spanish people who are opposed to bull fighting and have made huge changes already - many bull rings have closed over the last few years.
The very last thing thing welcomed there would be groups of 'outsiders' coming in and telling people what to do, especially when the whole debate involves the livelihoods of thousands of families.
So yes, the Spanish people are getting on with things and deserve our support, but not our interference.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Foxes aren't living in harmony with prey species, the pheasants are penned. But when the money is coming from the sport of shooting rather than the food value of chicken or eggs, gamekeepers can spend more cash on secure penning. But obviously isn't fool (or fox) proof even then, as gamekeepers have historically been pro - hunting.
> 
> Why is this a "particularly rogue fox" when it has reached being a teenager without taking poultry, and was caught within 3 days of first starting to take poultry?
> 
> ...


As I was the Keeper at the time I think I know more than you about this particular fox that lived alongside and reared 7 years worth of cubs there too.
I think it's stupid to get rid of your resident fox if there is no issue with it. Sure it will get the odd bird but because they have been alerted to the constant presence of a fox they are far more wiley than some over protected birds

Get rid of your resident fox and you have the possibility of getting a rogue fox come in that some do gooder has released in your area 

You don't think there are foxes everywhere? 

You really don't know much about the fox population do you?

If you divide the land mass by even a small fox territory size, you actually come out at somewhere very near the population density of fox at this present time in the UK.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> *As I was the Keeper at the time I think I know more than you about this particular fox that lived alongside and reared 7 years worth of cubs there too.*
> 
> _If you didn't have a problem with that particular fox in your patch that's great, neither do we have problems with most of our resident foxes, which I know more about than you._
> 
> ...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I didn't say I didn't do anything and I didn't elaborate on why I knew (discovered) the calf was being raised for veal and wasn't in a crush awaiting the vet. Nor was I talking about all farmers, I'm talking about a specific few whom I know personally. Of course people know my dog and I use her real name, so they'll easily recognise me from my posts. When I'm accusing people of being less than honest, I have to be a little bit careful, I didn't walk around with a video camera in my pocket collecting evidence. :Kiss


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> I didn't say I didn't do anything and I didn't elaborate on why I knew (discovered) the calf was being raised for veal and wasn't in a crush awaiting the vet. Nor was I talking about all farmers, I'm talking about a specific few whom I know personally. Of course people know my dog and I use her real name, so they'll easily recognise me from my posts. When I'm accusing people of being less than honest, I have to be a little bit careful, I didn't walk around with a video camera in my pocket collecting evidence. :Kiss


My apologies, then. I wrongly assumed that if you "couldn't fight every battle" you had taken a back seat on this one too. So glad you managed to get the calf rescued and the farmer prosecuted.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> We do have common ground. Neither of us want to see the return of fox-hunting, I'd like to see the act go further than it does. Neither of us agree with factory farming.
> 
> I agree hunting is cruel to foxes. A lot of things are cruel.
> 
> ...


I know you don't want the hunting ban repealed, but you keep engaging in awful lot of 'whataboutery' Elles. And for some reason this always seems to happen when the cruelty in question is a bloodsport. If this had been a thread about cruelty to horses, no one would have come on & said well 'what about' factory farming? far more animals are suffering, this issue is more important than the horses. No we can't get involved in everything, but a lot of people strongly oppose any & all forms of animal cruelty because they feel empathy for all species of animal, they would never try to deflect from the topic in hand by bringing up something else. Without a huge public outcry & mass lobbying of MPs , if we are indifferent there will be no chance of stopping them repealing the ban.



silvi said:


> I know you are getting a bit of flak from your posts, but I thank you for them, especially this one.
> 
> My feelings are that fox hunting is cruel and the 'celebrations' surrounding catching the fox are barbaric.
> But I do not know enough about the 'mechanics' of fox hunting to make a strong factual argument as to why it should remain banned. Like the majority of the general public who do not want to see fox hunting return, all I go on are my feelings.
> ...


Just picking up on your last paragraph Silvi. A lot of Spaniards are asking for the international community to get involved, to boycott bullfights & to keep the pressure on. They are as ashamed of the 'sport' as many of us Brits are about our own cruel pass times ( not to mention the badger cull!. Infact there was a stop the badger cull petition specifically for non UK residents because so many wanted to join the campaign but were unable to sign the govt e-petition). I believe animal cruelty is a concern for everyone where ever they're from & international pressure has worked time & time again to turn the tide for the better on animal welfare issues. And just putting that aside for a moment, we pay millions to the EU in taxes to subsidise bull fighting, so we have another reason to speak out against it. http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/2013-5 Bullfighting subsidies report.pdf

"*Catharinem, post: 1064192289, member: 1420*679"]



rona said:
↑ 
*As I was the Keeper at the time I think I know more than you about this particular fox that lived alongside and reared 7 years worth of cubs there too.*

_If you didn't have a problem with that particular fox in your patch that's great, neither do we have problems with most of our resident foxes, which I know more about than you._

*I think it's stupid to get rid of your resident fox if there is no issue with it. Sure it will get the odd bird but because they have been alerted to the constant presence of a fox they are far more wiley than some over protected birds*


_There was a problem with it, in 2 senses. 1) It was starving in an exceptionally hard winter, 2) it was starting to take poultry, and we neither wanted it to become habit forming, nor explain to our children why we had allowed their named birds to be killed_

*Get rid of your resident fox and you have the possibility of getting a rogue fox come in that some do gooder has released in your area *

_We "got rid" of one problem fox out of a whole population on our land. We have already stated we would be happy to have other foxes (considered suitable for rehabilitation) released onto our land, by people experienced in wildlife rehabilitation ( I. e. not well meaning do-gooders), should anything happen to our resident population. We WANT foxes on our farm, and would replace them if something (unlikely to repeat itself) happened to them and others were needing a suitable release site._

*You don't think there are foxes everywhere? *

_At least on our farm there are, we watch the cubs growing up_

*You really don't know much about the fox population do you?*

_Quite a bit, degree in biology (including behaviour and ecology), experience working at a wildlife hospital, plus our own experience with the resident population we have observed over many years!_

Well said Catherinem! I think this is the problem with a lot of farmers & most gamekeepers - they have no understanding of even basic ecology only a 'kill any predator that moves mentality'. Unlike you, they are completely divorced from nature. They would have killed that beautiful fox without a seconds thought  I feel so heartened that there are farmers out there like you  I've posted this several times before, but you put me in mind of this farmer -

*'Hunting From A Farming Perspective'*
Our latest blog is by a guest writer involved in commercial farming. December 18th 2011.

_'I was lucky enough to be born into a family which viewed all animal life as important - not just human life. That didn't make us vegetarian, but it did mean that we liked animals to be treated properly and with respect. And in a family of animal lovers, I was always considered the ultra - walking out of restaurants where live lobsters were kept trussed up, banning foie gras from the family table, insisting on free-range produce and while at school, joining the campaign to ban the export of live calves.

We were also involved in farming and I saw from an early age the yobbish way the hunt people behaved. When I was elected MP for a coal mining seat in 1983, hunting wasn't a big issue. But during my time in the Commons, its importance grew until, by 1997, it was almost as divisive as Europe for the Tories, with the small minority of anti-hunt MPs being hounded by the well-organised and funded pro-hunt MPs.

"You're going to lose your f***** seat at the election," a pro-hunt MP told me early in 1997, "and we're going to make f**** sure you don't get another!"_

_Nice guy! But it didn't change my mind.

Foxes are vicious killers, we are told. Well, so are humans. At least foxes don't have an ethical sense of right and wrong - they kill by instinct and for survival.

Foxes kill lambs and chickens, the hunt defenders go on. I've farmed most of my life and it's rare for a fox to take a healthy lamb. They do take chickens, but properly managed free-range flocks have refuges - and I always find apparent concern for chickens strange from people who merrily eat battery eggs.

Anyway, we've driven wild animals to the margins and taken most of the land for our own use. Can we blame them for trying to survive by occasionally nabbing some of the animals we over-feed ourselves with?

Perhaps the least convincing of the hunt lobby's poses is that of friends of the environment and representatives of country folk. My local hunt is 80% wealthy city people. Very few of the local farmers join in and a good proportion of people where I farm dislike the hunt - just as many Conservatives do.

Pro-hunt lobbyists often argue that foxes damage other country "sports" by taking pheasants. Anyone who has witnessed modern driven shoots, with black clouds of fattened birds lumbering into the air for range-rovered bankers to blast out of the sky will know how little these "country sports" have to do with the environment - or sport for that matter. I always thought that sport was a matter of well-matched opponents meeting with the same equipment and rules. On that basis, perhaps we should arm the pheasants and the foxes.

But I digress. I have seen hunt and hounds and their followers rampage all over the land, through nature reserves, scattering flocks of sheep, terrifying pets and children, holding up traffic on major roads as their packs howl out of control - even crossing high speed rail lines. They have little regard for private property - in recent years I have had to take my local hunt to court for riding across growing crops when I had expressly asked them not to come onto my land.

Earlier this year, their pack charged, out of control, through a breeding flock on my land, breaking down fences, while their followers trespassed on foot and on quad bikes. Eventually I managed to get compensation from them. Friends of the countryside? I don't think so. Less well-connected yobs end up with asbos or tags.

Once upon a time, bear baiting and cock fighting was considered a traditional British pastime and defended as such. So, come to think of it, was slavery. I look forward to the day when people look back on fox hunting with the same disgust as they now look back on those pursuits, once so-cherished by the type of people who remain unspeakable._'

.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

PawsandFeathers said:


> This is the issue I have with free range chickens its nice and romantic on paper but how do you stop attacks?
> As owners your supposed to stop suffering not blindly cause it because you want to see free chickens.


My first Husband and I kept free range chickens for years.

They were free during the day, but closed up at night in a large coop. We never had a single bird taken by a predator.

Is this life for chickens your definition of us "blindly causing suffering"?

Are you an expert on poultry too now?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I didn't mean it as 'whataboutery' to detract from the fox-hunting debate. Just an expression of how I can't understand why it's such a big deal and massive priority when other things are ignored or swept under the carpet. Disheartened me over the years. 

Oddly I read your farmer politician post and it reminded me that farmers (and wealthy landowners) own the land, we aren't allowed on it (lets not go back in history and find out how many got it and kept it) and people eat animals. A high speed railway cutting through the countryside and we're making more of them. More and more roads being built and what little is left of the countryside as a leisure park. Can people use farmers' fallow fields as a leisure park, when they've been paid for them? No, I thought not. None of the hunts I went on behaved in such a way, but whether people hunt foxes or not, the same problems can occur. I've seen people who have nothing to do with hunting rampaging through the countryside on quad and trail bikes. Our local woodland were given EU money to divide it up into nice little tracks, marked out into separate trails for bikes, walkers and horse-riders, with tarmac and gravel and car parking. Can't blame the hunt for that. Farmers take money to cover swathes of the countryside in solar panels and wind farms. Can't blame the hunt for migrating birds being frazzled on their way over. How can people complain about fox-hunting, when they eat battery farmed eggs and chickens, that argument can be used either way.

If you are an environmentalist, hunting would be one of your least worries. For me personally, I don't think either side can take the high moral ground on environment. If they were to try, it could be the hunt itself and the hunt servants that might win. Not the masters, or the followers, or the farmers, or the townies, or the politicians that do or don't want it. 

It should still be about the fox. 

People will always be a problem.

Farmers such as Catharinem has described are exceptionally rare in my experience.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> I didn't mean it as 'whataboutery' to detract from the fox-hunting debate. Just an expression of how I can't understand why it's such a big deal and massive priority when other things are ignored or swept under the carpet. Disheartened me over the years.
> 
> Oddly I read your farmer politician post and it reminded me that farmers (and wealthy landowners) own the land, we aren't allowed on it (lets not go back in history and find out how many got it and kept it) and people eat animals. A high speed railway cutting through the countryside and we're making more of them. More and more roads being built and what little is left of the countryside as a leisure park. Can people use farmers' fallow fields as a leisure park, when they've been paid for them? No, I thought not. None of the hunts I went on behaved in such a way, but whether people hunt foxes or not, the same problems can occur. I've seen people who have nothing to do with hunting rampaging through the countryside on quad and trail bikes. Our local woodland were given EU money to divide it up into nice little tracks, marked out into separate trails for bikes, walkers and horse-riders, with tarmac and gravel and car parking. Can't blame the hunt for that. Farmers take money to cover swathes of the countryside in solar panels and wind farms. Can't blame the hunt for migrating birds being frazzled on their way over. How can people complain about fox-hunting, when they eat battery farmed eggs and chickens, that argument can be used either way.
> 
> ...


But you are saying 'whatabout' other things - you keep saying it lol If you felt the same empathy for the fox as you feel for the horses that are abused, you would see why this is a massive priority. I think you'll find animal lovers, ARAs constantly speak out against all forms of cruelty - its just that fox hunting has been brought back into the spotlight with the threat of the ban being repealed .

A lot of the land was stolen from the common people by the enclosures act. No one is blaming the hunt for railways or whatever, are they? And as for solar panels, they don't frazzle migrating birds lol The greatest threat to birds & to all living things is climate change - so if we stand any hope of avoiding the worst of it, we need landowners to allow solar panels & wind turbines on their land (provided they are sited where they will have least impact on local wildlife) .

I care passionately about the environment but cant just switch off my feelings Elles , because I also care passionately about animals as well - Some of us are more than capable of caring about many issues at once, you know . I LOVE foxes, there isn't a species of animal that I don't like & they all deserve to be treated with respect & compassion. Wildlife & the environment are connected, nature is precious it needs to be defended, I will always stand up for both.

Catherinem is a true steward of our countryside. How I wish all farmers & landowners had the same respect & appreciation for the foxes & other species sharing their land, instead of seeing them as 'vermin!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Just picking up on your last paragraph Silvi. A lot of Spaniards are asking for the international community to get involved, to boycott bullfights & to keep the pressure on. They are as ashamed of the 'sport' as many of us Brits are about our own cruel pass times ( not to mention the badger cull!. Infact there was a stop the badger cull petition specifically for non UK residents because so many wanted to join the campaign but were unable to sign the govt e-petition). I believe animal cruelty is a concern for everyone where ever they're from & international pressure has worked time & time again to turn the tide for the better on animal welfare issues. And just putting that aside for a moment, we pay millions to the EU in taxes to subsidise bull fighting, so we have another reason to speak out against it. http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/2013-5 Bullfighting subsidies report.pdf


Yes, a lot of Spaniards are asking for international _support_ to stop the bullfighting.
But there's a difference between support and on-the-ground activity.

What no one (apart from the hard liners) wants to see is the Spanish tourist industry hit. The country is still in a dire state financially and with a much more limited welfare state in Spain, that means that many, many families are now in a totally dire situation. Hitting the already suffering tourist industry will make that situation much worse as would any embargo on subsidies from the EU.

There has to be room for _Spaniards_ to debate the best way forward (perhaps the already-tried competitions rather than bull fights for example, or total emphasis on the other cultural aspects of the bull fight rather than the fight itself), and to put the results into action (sooner, rather than later, I agree).

Trying to force their hand will only result in even more poverty and mass resentment.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

silvi said:


> There has to be room for _Spaniards_ to debate the best way forward (perhaps the already-tried competitions rather than bull fights for example, or total emphasis on the other cultural aspects of the bull fight rather than the fight itself), and to put the results into action (sooner, rather than later, I agree).
> 
> Trying to force their hand will only result in even more poverty and mass resentment.


Yes....
So many people don't realize that bull fighting is not just about the corrida itself, but is an entire industry that affects all sorts of people, some of whom have never laid a hand on a bull. There has to be a way to preserve the culture/industry without causing pain and suffering to the bull, as has been accomplished already in many nations.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The impact wind farms and solar panels have on the environment and birds, needs further research, though it was probably needed before we started paying farmers to cover the land with them. I don't think there's any doubt that both do have an impact and frazzling birds is just one possibility. I don't think fox-hunting is that bad, I'm not anti it like you are, so of course I'm going to be more concerned with other issues. I think it should stay banned, I don't think it should be an issue to detract from other issues and I don't like the feeling I have that it's being brought back into the spotlight to please our PM's father-in-law and friends, but that doesn't make me about to pick up a banner and stand outside Lush.  On the other hand, I'm not that pro about it that I threw my hands up in horror when my daughter got herself a job at Lush either. I'd be more bothered if she'd started selling Avon.

Some of the things that I am more concerned about, many people don't think is a problem anyway. There's plenty of people who think we shouldn't ride horses at all, let alone on the roads. How dare we hold up the traffic. So when reading posts about hunting, I can also find myself a little distracted by what I see as an underlying dig at horse riders generally. I'm sorry, but holding up the traffic isn't in my opinion a valid reason for banning hunting and I'm not interested in the opinion of a politician who thinks a high speed railway, or a traffic filled road is more important.

If people wanted horse-riding and especially competition banned because horses are often ill-treated, I'd happily leave mine out in a field and never ride again, even though I don't believe I do my own horses any harm at all by the way I keep, care and ride them. But they aren't telling me to stop, because I might on the odd occasion make them wait for a few seconds while I find somewhere on the road to pull in out of their way. Nor are they telling me fox-hunting is bad because it holds up the traffic, even as just a small part of an anti rant. 

Of course I'm just one person, I might have a different opinion to a lot of people on here, but I'm still just me.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Yes too, agree totally with Silvi and Ouesi regarding bull-fighting.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Yes, a lot of Spaniards are asking for international _support_ to stop the bullfighting.
> But there's a difference between support and on-the-ground activity.
> 
> What no one (apart from the hard liners) wants to see is the Spanish tourist industry hit. The country is still in a dire state financially and with a much more limited welfare state in Spain, that means that many, many families are now in a totally dire situation. Hitting the already suffering tourist industry will make that situation much worse as would any embargo on subsidies from the EU.
> ...


I don't think anyones suggesting on the ground activity Silvi - just the usual boycotting, lobbying & petitioning. This > http://www.league.org.uk/our-campaigns/bullfighting/bullfighting-what-you-can-do



Elles said:


> The impact wind farms and solar panels have on the environment and birds, needs further research, though it was probably needed before we started paying farmers to cover the land with them. I don't think there's any doubt that both do have an impact and frazzling birds is just one possibility. I don't think fox-hunting is that bad, I'm not anti it like you are, so of course I'm going to be more concerned with other issues. I think it should stay banned, I don't think it should be an issue to detract from other issues and I don't like the feeling I have that it's being brought back into the spotlight to please our PM's father-in-law and friends, but that doesn't make me about to pick up a banner and stand outside Lush.  On the other hand, I'm not that pro about it that I threw my hands up in horror when my daughter got herself a job at Lush either. I'd be more bothered if she'd started selling Avon.
> 
> Some of the things that I am more concerned about, many people don't think is a problem anyway. There's plenty of people who think we shouldn't ride horses at all, let alone on the roads. How dare we hold up the traffic. So when reading posts about hunting, I can also find myself a little distracted by what I see as an underlying dig at horse riders generally. I'm sorry, but holding up the traffic isn't in my opinion a valid reason for banning hunting and I'm not interested in the opinion of a politician who thinks a high speed railway, or a traffic filled road is more important.
> 
> ...


Carefully sited the impacts of wind & solar are minimal. It is our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that is having a catastrophic impact on the environment, birds, every living thing - its changing the climate. The science is now crystal clear about climate change, human activity IS driving it & all life on earth is in the balance. The worlds leading climate scientists have told us we MUST switch to renewable energy ASAP to stand any chance of averting catastrophic runaway climate change.

*IPCC report: world must urgently switch to clean sources of energy *
UN panel's third report explains how global dependence on fossil fuels must end in order to avoid catastrophic climate change http://www.theguardian.com/environm...report-world-must-switch-clean-sources-energy

Its not an underlying dig at regular horse riders, its pointing out how irresponsible & arrogant the hunts are - they are a menace!. The hunt animals are also victims in this sick pass time. Most hounds will be dead by the time they're 7 old, many barely pups, killed because they didn't make the grade. You'd think all the dog lovers on here would be horrified by that alone??


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I don't think anyones suggesting on the ground activity Silvi - just the usual boycotting, lobbying & petitioning. This > http://www.league.org.uk/our-campaigns/bullfighting/bullfighting-what-you-can-do


Don't really want to take this any further away from fox hunting, but this quote from that page tells the problem:



> Boycott travel agents, tour operators, hotels, restaurants and companies that promote bullfighting, letting them know why you are doing so. Write to the Spanish, French and Portuguese tourist boards, telling them that, as a British tourist, you will be boycotting towns and cities that have permanent bullrings and are call on them to shun this bloodsport once and for all.


That would cut out most major cities in Spain and many of the smaller ones too.
The city near our Spanish home has a bull ring. I don't ever remember it being used for bull fighting (but for markets, festivals, etc), but it is certainly permanent. There are smaller towns in the region with active bull rings - does that mean that the whole region would be off limits?

And yet the city and surrounding region is a tourist destination for many other reasons. I've never heard it advertised as a place for tourists to find bull fighting.

You could say the same for most of Spain.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

*'Hunting From A Farming Perspective'*
Our latest blog is by a guest writer involved in commercial farming. December 18th 2011.

_'I was lucky enough to be born into a family which viewed all animal life as important - not just human life. That didn't make us vegetarian, but it did mean that we liked animals to be treated properly and with respect. And in a family of animal lovers, I was always considered the ultra - walking out of restaurants where live lobsters were kept trussed up, banning foie gras from the family table, insisting on free-range produce and while at school, joining the campaign to ban the export of live calves.

We were also involved in farming and I saw from an early age the yobbish way the hunt people behaved. When I was elected MP for a coal mining seat in 1983, hunting wasn't a big issue. But during my time in the Commons, its importance grew until, by 1997, it was almost as divisive as Europe for the Tories, with the small minority of anti-hunt MPs being hounded by the well-organised and funded pro-hunt MPs.

"You're going to lose your f***** seat at the election," a pro-hunt MP told me early in 1997, "and we're going to make f**** sure you don't get another!"_

_Nice guy! But it didn't change my mind.

Foxes are vicious killers, we are told. Well, so are humans. At least foxes don't have an ethical sense of right and wrong - they kill by instinct and for survival.

Foxes kill lambs and chickens, the hunt defenders go on. I've farmed most of my life and it's rare for a fox to take a healthy lamb. They do take chickens, but properly managed free-range flocks have refuges - and I always find apparent concern for chickens strange from people who merrily eat battery eggs.

Anyway, we've driven wild animals to the margins and taken most of the land for our own use. Can we blame them for trying to survive by occasionally nabbing some of the animals we over-feed ourselves with?

Perhaps the least convincing of the hunt lobby's poses is that of friends of the environment and representatives of country folk. My local hunt is 80% wealthy city people. Very few of the local farmers join in and a good proportion of people where I farm dislike the hunt - just as many Conservatives do.

Pro-hunt lobbyists often argue that foxes damage other country "sports" by taking pheasants. Anyone who has witnessed modern driven shoots, with black clouds of fattened birds lumbering into the air for range-rovered bankers to blast out of the sky will know how little these "country sports" have to do with the environment - or sport for that matter. I always thought that sport was a matter of well-matched opponents meeting with the same equipment and rules. On that basis, perhaps we should arm the pheasants and the foxes.

But I digress. I have seen hunt and hounds and their followers rampage all over the land, through nature reserves, scattering flocks of sheep, terrifying pets and children, holding up traffic on major roads as their packs howl out of control - even crossing high speed rail lines. They have little regard for private property - in recent years I have had to take my local hunt to court for riding across growing crops when I had expressly asked them not to come onto my land.

Earlier this year, their pack charged, out of control, through a breeding flock on my land, breaking down fences, while their followers trespassed on foot and on quad bikes. Eventually I managed to get compensation from them. Friends of the countryside? I don't think so. Less well-connected yobs end up with asbos or tags.

Once upon a time, bear baiting and cock fighting was considered a traditional British pastime and defended as such. So, come to think of it, was slavery. I look forward to the day when people look back on fox hunting with the same disgust as they now look back on those pursuits, once so-cherished by the type of people who remain unspeakable._'

[/QUOTE]

Apart from having no knowledge of politics, couldn't have put it better myself!


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Elles said:


> Oddly I read your farmer politician post and it reminded me that farmers (and wealthy landowners) own the land, we aren't allowed on it (lets not go back in history and find out how many got it and kept it)


Sorry, but how is that relevant to foxhunting? For my own family farm, my great grandfather bought it at a time when farmers were deserting the land like rats leaving a sinking ship, even his own wife thought him mad. But this was a man who (having been orphaned and apprenticed to his uncle as a boy) taught himself to read by candlelight after his day's work. He even had to buy his own candles - "you want to learn to read boy, you pay for your own candles!". My great grandfather saw the potential in the land, and his own son, my grandfather, was the first in his family to go to university. So he EARNED his right to the farm. I'm not asking about the title deeds to your house, it's completely irrelevant to the topic, but not all farmers and landowners are rich aristocracy, neither are they all stupid country bumpkins.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I 


silvi said:


> Don't really want to take this any further away from fox hunting, but this quote from that page tells the problem:
> 
> That would cut out most major cities in Spain and many of the smaller ones too.
> The city near our Spanish home has a bull ring. I don't ever remember it being used for bull fighting (but for markets, festivals, etc), but it is certainly permanent. There are smaller towns in the region with active bull rings - does that mean that the whole region would be off limits?
> ...


I assumed LACS were asking people to boycott the towns where actual bullfights take place. Personally I would seek out a town that didn't have an active bull ring & dIdn't do any of the cruel festivals anyway. (not that I've any intention to go abroad any time soon lol)

This facebook page is calling on people to actually boycott 'bullfighting' countries. (Warning. There are really upsetting pictures on that link.) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Bullfighting-Countries/621174111241935


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

No intention to make light of this serious topic but, as I was researching it this week, I came across this song which I think some may appreciate. Excellent stuff.

Language warning.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Elles said:


> Farmers such as Catharinem has described are exceptionally rare in my experience.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Apart from having no knowledge of politics, couldn't have put it better myself!
> *'*


Yes that farmer summed the hunts up perfectly. And he hits the nail on the head with this - "_Less well-connected yobs end up with asbos or tags." _No other set would be allowed to rampage around the countryside like they do!,



Satori said:


> No intention to make light of this serious topic but, as I was researching it this week, I came across this song which I think some may appreciate. Excellent stuff.
> 
> Language warning.


I LOVE this!  The words are fantastic (especially the ending), the song writer has managed to fit in loads of facts about the hunt & the C***ryside Alliance lol

Heres another catchy little number about the C**ts  I have posted it a few times before, but it can never be shared too much imo ha!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

That makes it okay for the sabs to get up to all sorts I suppose. Of course hunting foxes is now banned, they could press for further legislation, but it's more fun going out with their mates to harass people. Being rude, insulting, violent and bullying is apparently fine if you don't agree with what your victims are doing and are taking the moral high ground. Hunting is banned, petition and pressure your MP into keeping it banned when it comes to the free vote and put on pressure for further legislation and the proper enforcement of the legislation that currently exists, if you're anti fox hunting. It works and there'll be more support anti than there is pro, especially now it is banned. Most of the people I know who do go hunting, don't particularly want to see a repeal really. They expect more attacks by the sabs and a return to the rentamobs, for it just to be banned again in the future anyway. They think it's as pointless arguing about it as I do. 

It's a very small minority indeed who want to see it back. What people were afraid would happen to them if it was banned (loss of jobs, destruction of the countryside etc) didn't happen, so even many people who might have been very strongly against the ban, are now neutral about it, or even supportive of it, having seen an increase in their business when even more people took up hunting now it doesn't involve foxes for many hunts. 

The only real way to know how many 'accidents' there are and how to address the problem of 'accidents' would be for people to ride with the hunt and take notes. Standing yelling at the gates doesn't really do the trick. Many hunts go off into the distance into areas you'd need a horse to get to and where the antis can't reach. They may or may not have 'accidents', genuine or otherwise only those there can truly know.

But don't ask me to go. My horse was bred from bullfighting lines in Spain, before being imported to England and hates getting her feet wet, she'd have a complete breakdown if I tried to take her hunting (so would I). 

I will be totally disgusted if our Government brings it back regardless though. It's just not cricket.

Sadly though, a lot of the arguments against it would also apply to drag hunts and not involve foxes at all and never have. In most places it's impossible to ride without crossing a road and holding up traffic. There are a lot of roads these days. Even pleasure and charity rides usually involve some roadwork. And if people stand in front of horses, flapping at them, no-one can guarantee their safety, or that of the horse.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> That makes it okay for the sabs to get up to all sorts I suppose. Of course hunting foxes is now banned, they could press for further legislation, but it's more fun going out with their mates to harass people. Being rude, insulting, violent and bullying is apparently fine if you don't agree with what your victims are doing and are taking the moral high ground. Hunting is banned, petition and pressure your MP into keeping it banned when it comes to the free vote and put on pressure for further legislation and the proper enforcement of the legislation that currently exists, if you're anti fox hunting. It works and there'll be more support anti than there is pro, especially now it is banned. Most of the people I know who do go hunting, don't particularly want to see a repeal really. They expect more attacks by the sabs and a return to the rentamobs, for it just to be banned again in the future anyway. They think it's as pointless arguing about it as I do.
> 
> It's a very small minority indeed who want to see it back. What people were afraid would happen to them if it was banned (loss of jobs, destruction of the countryside etc) didn't happen, so even many people who might have been very strongly against the ban, are now neutral about it, or even supportive of it, having seen an increase in their business when even more people took up hunting now it doesn't involve foxes for many hunts.
> 
> ...


Are you talking about those songs? They're just a bit of fun Elles.

But in response to your points, sabs & monitors still have to go out because many hunts are still hunting foxes . The vast majority of serious convictions have been against the hunt supporters NOT the sabs. The sabs & monitors don't want to be there, they are animals lovers, the last thing they want is to witness is a fox running for its life. These selfless people go out in all weathers & put up with all kinds of abuse because they are desperate to save foxes from a horrific death.

Yes, it is a minority that wants the ban repealed & people are lobbying MP's etc- but they are a very powerful & influential minority these arrogant so & so's don't give a damn about the will of the majority.

Here are a few examples of what sabs & monitors risk every time they go out trying to help the defenceless foxes! They are heroes.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Elles said:


> That makes it okay for the sabs to get up to all sorts I suppose. Of course hunting foxes is now banned, they could press for further legislation, but it's more fun going out with their mates to harass people. Being rude, insulting, violent and bullying is apparently fine if you don't agree with what your victims are doing and are taking the moral high ground. Hunting is banned, petition and pressure your MP into keeping it banned when it comes to the free vote and put on pressure for further legislation and the proper enforcement of the legislation that currently exists, if you're anti fox hunting. It works and there'll be more support anti than there is pro, especially now it is banned. *Most of the people I know who do go hunting, don't particularly want to see a repeal really. * They expect more attacks by the sabs and a return to the rentamobs, for it just to be banned again in the future anyway. They think it's as pointless arguing about it as I do.
> 
> It's a very small minority indeed who want to see it back. What people were afraid would happen to them if it was banned (loss of jobs, destruction of the countryside etc) didn't happen, so even many people who might have been very strongly against the ban, are now neutral about it, or even supportive of it, having seen an increase in their business when even more people took up hunting now it doesn't involve foxes for many hunts.
> 
> ...


The local hunt here have made it very clear they will do everything in their power to have the law repealed. The local MP here is pro hunting. I would like to hope that it's only a minority who would want to see the law repealed, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I have no sympathy for them, sorry. They're blocking narrow roads, sticking cameras in people's faces, closing gates, standing in front of gateways when they know a galloping horse is coming. Unfortunately they're putting themselves at risk of injury and accident.

I've been out riding on a country lane myself, where a car driver has blocked the road and screamed and swore at me for being there. If he had got hurt it would be his own fault and if I had a whip with me, I would have hit him with it. I wasn't fox-hunting, I was on my own and trapped. It's why when I go out on the roads now I nearly always wear a camera.

You probably need sympathetic riders to go out with the hunt to video what they actually do, rather than standing at gateways and parking in the way on narrow roads, covering their faces. A lot of people are quite scared of the sabs. When you're sat on an excited horse, the last thing you want is someone harassing you and sticking a camera in your face, whilst hiding their own. Generally hunt members and followers are instructed to try to remain calm and ignore the sabs, they don't want to give them ammo., but so long as they're there and trying to disrupt the hunt, there will be problems. I'm not saying no hunt masters/followers are arrogant twats, trust me, some of them are, we'd agree on that one. No doubt the sabs delete any videos where it's been really obvious they are the problem and not the hunt though. 

Of course hunt saboteurs aren't going to be prosecuted for killing foxes, or for running over people with their horses. That's pretty obvious.



noushka05 said:


> Yes, it is a minority that wants the ban repealed & people are lobbying MP's etc- but they are a very powerful & influential minority these arrogant so & so's don't give a damn about the will of the majority.


Agreed. 

Local hunts will of course support a repeal, whatever individuals think, but I can assure you not all of their followers are interested, whether they're open about it or not. It is very much a minority who are keen to see the act repealed imo. They might even march again, but I'll eat my hat if there's the numbers and enthusiasm there was before.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Elles said:


> will be totally disgusted if our Government brings it back regardless though. *It's just not cricket*.


Well, no. Although if the local hunt ended up riding over the local cricket pitch, I'd be betting on the groundsmen - hell hath no fury like a pitch maintainer after the inflicting of unnecessary damage


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Dogloverlou said:


> The local hunt here have made it very clear they will do everything in their power to have the law repealed. The local MP here is pro hunting. I would like to hope that it's only a minority who would want to see the law repealed, but I'm not so sure.





Elles said:


> I have no sympathy for them, sorry. They're blocking narrow roads, sticking cameras in people's faces, closing gates, standing in front of gateways when they know a galloping horse is coming. Unfortunately they're putting themselves at risk of injury and accident.
> 
> I've been out riding on a country lane myself, where a car driver has blocked the road and screamed and swore at me for being there. If he had got hurt it would be his own fault and if I had a whip with me, I would have hit him with it. I wasn't fox-hunting, I was on my own and trapped. It's why when I go out on the roads now I nearly always wear a camera.
> 
> ...


I'm shocked that you think its acceptable to ride at people with horses. The girl in the first video could have been killed & Doggrell kicked his horse on & never even looked back!. The two monitors were elderly ladies on PUBLIC roads filming hunts notorious for illegally hunting. And just remember if people weren't brutally killing wild animals there would be no need to monitor, sab hunts in the first place!

The hunt thug convictions - http://www.realca.co.uk/violence/hunt-convictions


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The girl in the first video should have kept out of the way. What did she want? The bloke to turn round and come back with his horse risking trampling her further? How do you know his horse wasn't tanking off with him and at that moment he couldn't turn round if he wanted to. I don't think it's acceptable to run over people with galloping horses, but unfortunately if people stand in the way, there will likely be accidents. I was more concerned about the comment that the hunt refused to let the ambulance through. That really doesn't make sense to me. Hunts need ambulances themselves sometimes, why would they block one? Air ambulance is often called out to remote areas, or difficult to get to areas, especially when speed is of the essence. It it's true an ambulance was deliberately blocked by anyone, they should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I agreed with you that some who go hunting are arrogant twats though, probably the same applies to some who don't. 

Elderly ladies on public roads are unlikely to get video evidence of hunts illegally killing foxes I'm afraid. They are just putting themselves at risk and trying to provoke a response imo. The groups attending need to make sure everyone is kept safe and the way clear. 

I do know of hunts that are quite friendly with the monitors btw. They don't have a problem with them. It's the sabs they aren't keen on. I wish I could find the head cam film of some young people out hunting, they spoke to some people watching, the monitors I believe and then filmed one of the girls doing their first jumps. It's how hunting could and should be imo., but I can't find it. It was linked on face-book a few months back.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> The girl in the first video should have kept out of the way. What did she want? The bloke to turn round and come back with his horse risking trampling her further? How do you know his horse wasn't tanking off with him and at that moment he couldn't turn round if he wanted to. I don't think it's acceptable to run over people with galloping horses, but unfortunately if people stand in the way, there will likely be accidents. I was more concerned about the comment that the hunt refused to let the ambulance through. That really doesn't make sense to me. Hunts need ambulances themselves sometimes, why would they block one? Air ambulance is often called out to remote areas, or difficult to get to areas, especially when speed is of the essence. It it's true an ambulance was deliberately blocked by anyone, they should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I agreed with you that some who go hunting are arrogant twats though, probably the same applies to some who don't.
> 
> Elderly ladies on public roads are unlikely to get video evidence of hunts illegally killing foxes I'm afraid. They are just putting themselves at risk and trying to provoke a response imo. The groups attending need to make sure everyone is kept safe and the way clear.
> 
> I do know of hunts that are quite friendly with the monitors btw. They don't have a problem with them. It's the sabs they aren't keen on. I wish I could find the head cam film of some young people out hunting, they spoke to some people watching, the monitors I believe and then filmed one of the girls doing their first jumps. It's how hunting could and should be imo., but I can't find it. It was linked on face-book a few months back.


As I expected - blame the victims & excuse the wrong doers...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

By wrong doers I presume you mean the hunt. Why were they wrong doers? If they were not hunting foxes, but were going about their business, a business that any sab or monitor knows about, or they wouldn't be there, but someone got in the way and there was an accident, why is it the hunt's fault? I'm saying it's an obvious and inevitable accident if someone stands in a gateway when horses are going to be ridden through it. Horses are not cars. If the girl was out walking her dog, had no idea the hunt were coming, didn't hear them and wasn't warned, then it would still be an accident, but the girl would not have been in any way responsible. As it happened...

I would suggest that the girl and others learn from her mistake and keep the way clear to avoid accidents where possible.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> By wrong doers I presume you mean the hunt. Why were they wrong doers? If they were not hunting foxes, but were going about their business, a business that any sab or monitor knows about, or they wouldn't be there, but someone got in the way and there was an accident, why is it the hunt's fault? I'm saying it's an obvious and inevitable accident if someone stands in a gateway when horses are going to be ridden through it. Horses are not cars. If the girl was out walking her dog, had no idea the hunt were coming, didn't hear them and wasn't warned, then it would still be an accident, but the girl would not have been in any way responsible. As it happened...
> 
> I would suggest that the girl and others learn from her mistake and keep the way clear to avoid accidents where possible.


Be a bit pointless Sabs or monitors being there if they weren't still killing foxes!

So, in your opinion, its perfectly acceptable for horse riders to 'hit & run' then ?? Wow.

I don't venture into the dog section as much as I use to, but if I remember correctly, you always seemed to have strong opinions on breeding dogs ethically, right? So as a hunt apologist, do you also make excuses for the hunts unethical treatment of the hounds they breed? How does this fit with your 'ethics' Elles? because hunts are at the dregs when it comes to breeders.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It is practically inevitable if you stand in the way of a galloping horse. Stand in the way of my galloping horse in a gateway and I wouldn't want to hit you, it would be putting my much loved horse at unnecessary risk, but it might happen. If you were there angry at me and there were plenty of other people, including your friends there to help you, I wouldn't stop. I don't have a problem with peaceful protests, but blocking roads and gateways isn't going to stop foxes being killed, especially since the ban. Volunteers riding out with the hunts would have a better chance of preventing, or gathering evidence of 'accidents'. I wouldn't be happy with someone trying to block and frighten me, because they didn't like what I was doing, regardless of what that was.

So far as I know foxhounds can run and breathe quite well. As can the terriers. You're the one upsetting them by not letting them do the job they're bred for. Although I have a collie who doesn't herd sheep, so I'm just as bad. That was tongue in cheek, of course.  Foxhounds live good, healthy lives. Well exercised and fed raw meat. They do a job they love to do. I'd rather the terrierman was included in the act, or even before the act, a ban on chasing the fox once he's gone to ground. To me it seems the ban is the wrong way round.

It would seem though that you are also against drag hunting. 

I think I get it, you don't like hunting. I presume you're out in all weathers interrupting hunts too. Though a motorcyclist friend once told me there's no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing, I'm not sure I entirely agree.  

Hunting foxes is now banned, pressure your MP into keeping the ban and extending on it. If you don't want to get hurt, don't stand in the way of a galloping horse, or block roads and gateways and keep your protests peaceful would be my advice.

We personally will have to agree to differ. From my opinion on foxes and how they live and die, or conversely on how factory farmed animals live and die and meat in general, I think you can probably work out my opinion on foxhounds and how they live and die. Any proof that any are killed inhumanely by a rogue hunt servant, or kennelman should be reported to the relevant authorities, as should any proof that a particular hunt has killed a fox unlawfully.

I would think people are getting very bored with reading my opinion by now. I don't think there's anything else I'd like to elaborate on, so petforums can return to normal service for me. 

Good luck with your endeavours, you have my support for some, even if it's not all of them.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

This is probably a very naive question.....

But Elles has brought up what I think is a very relevant point.

Do any hunt monitors ride with the hunts?
And if not, why not?

Because it seems to me that it would be a much more effective way of monitoring.

But as I said, I don't know if there are any reasons for this not happening.
Would be nice to have an answer though.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)




----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> It is practically inevitable if you stand in the way of a galloping horse. Stand in the way of my galloping horse in a gateway and I wouldn't want to hit you, it would be putting my much loved horse at unnecessary risk, but it might happen. If you were there angry at me and there were plenty of other people, including your friends there to help you, I wouldn't stop. I don't have a problem with peaceful protests, but blocking roads and gateways isn't going to stop foxes being killed, especially since the ban. Volunteers riding out with the hunts would have a better chance of preventing, or gathering evidence of 'accidents'. I wouldn't be happy with someone trying to block and frighten me, because they didn't like what I was doing, regardless of what that was.
> 
> So far as I know foxhounds can run and breathe quite well. As can the terriers. You're the one upsetting them by not letting them do the job they're bred for. Although I have a collie who doesn't herd sheep, so I'm just as bad. That was tongue in cheek, of course.  Foxhounds live good, healthy lives. Well exercised and fed raw meat. They do a job they love to do. I'd rather the terrierman was included in the act, or even before the act, a ban on chasing the fox once he's gone to ground. To me it seems the ban is the wrong way round.
> 
> ...


Are we watching the same video? She wasn't 'trying' to block or 'frighten' anyone She was just stood there - there was room for the moron to go round her but he rode his horse straight at her. She didn't see him coming, so had no chance to move out of the way. He is a dangerous man, he could have killed her & he never even stopped. I am disgusted that anyone thinks that is acceptable behaviour tbh. The hunt were out 'cubbing' - anyone who can support this while claiming to be any kind of animal lover is beyond me. Nid (the victim!) was there to trying to save lives of the defenceless cubs. Sounds to me like you think she deserved what she got.


Can you imaging the outcry (& rightly so!) if pedigree breeders in the show world killed all the dogs that didn't do well in the ring - even young puppies?. Killed the rest while they were still relatively young & healthy?. Talk about double standards Elles.

1st hand account of huntsman Clifford Pellow - The treatment of the hounds, like the treatment of the fox is indefensible 

_The hounds also had their clearly defined functions and, as soon as they failed to meet the terms, were ruthlessly expunged.

At this stage, they are still "un-entered", which means they have no hunting experience. This comes during the cubbing season - starting in August - when they will be 12 to 18 months old. Those that fail to make the grade get the bullet; they are taken round the back and shot'_.

_Dogs past their prime (generally, older than five or six years) are also killed. Altogether, says Pellow, out of a pack of 60 animals, eight to ten are disposed of every season.

How does a dog fail his or her master? There are many ways: A hound that won't draw (search for a fox) when a fox goes into covert but sits outside waiting for somebody else to do it, he's no good to anyone. Nor is the hound that won't speak (bark) - because there's no point a hound finding a fox if it won't tell you about it. Or you might have a hound that speaks at everything that moves - at a blackbird flying into a tree. Babbling it's called.

And yet, while the rules were observed, it was still a wounding business, and not only for the foxes._

_The field injuries incurred by the hounds came regularly and were often severe. But, like soldiers in battle, pain and infirmity were invariably deferred._

_'By the time they come back, it will, hopefully, be with some knowledge of the outside world. As summer wears on, they are introduced to the kennel activity proper and trained to obey the various commands. At this stage, they are still "un-entered", which means they have no hunting experience. This comes during the cubbing season - starting in August - when they will be 12 to 18 months old. Those that fail to make the grade get the bullet; they are taken round the back and shot'.

'Every-day injuries were thorns in feet and minor and major rips from barbed wire. But I've seen hounds with their intestines hanging out, their eyes hanging down, and hounds with broken toes, broken legs, exposed testicles, and with ribs that have stuck through their flesh; a collision with a vehicle or with a horse would be the likely cause. I've never had a hound die in the field, though. One had a heart attack back in the kennels but she didn't die until the Sunday morning'.

The horses also suffer. He has, personally, shot two in the field after they'd broken their legs. And he remembers another being so badly ripped across her chest and legs by newly-erected barbed wire, she was incapacitated for three months.

Many of the injuries to the dogs are dealt with by the hunt servants. 'We consider ourselves, somewhat, as veterinary surgeons, which of course we aren't. We don't have the competence or the equipment, such as local anaesthetic. Yet, I myself have stitched a hound with ordinary needle and cotton. She was called Tablet and you could see the fleshy part of her ribs underneath a barbed wire tear. Happily, she made a good recovery and the vet congratulated me on a good job'.

On another occasion, he used a razor blade to sever a toe that had been dangling by the cord through much of an active day's hunting. 'I think it was then she felt it, for she gave out with a yelp. I washed, bandaged and put some cream on it and she was out again in a fortnight.'

Training the younger hounds and rebuking older ones for loss of concentration is also a bruising business. To scold a pup, the servant seizes the culprit and strikes him with the handle of the whip across the ribs - firmly enough, says Pellow, to raise a row of bumps. At the same time, the youngster is verbally reprimanded. An older dog who, say, shows interest in a sheep, will feel the whip's leash. 'And I can tell you, I've had a whip around me a couple of times, that it does smart a bit.'

_
The way hunts treat foxes & factory farming has no more relevance than does dog fighting & factory farming! Bringing factory faming into the debate is merely a distraction. We're not talking about 'rogue' kennel men - this is how hunting hounds are treated. And as for illegal fox hunting - that's exactly why sabs & monitors are still out in he field - to gather proof 



silvi said:


> This is probably a very naive question.....
> 
> But Elles has brought up what I think is a very relevant point.
> 
> ...


The people I know who have monitored (& sabbed) hunts don't ride. And I doubt any monitors that do ride would put their animals at risk. Its one thing risking yourself quite another risking your horse.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...tsmen-a-year-guilty-of-breaking-ban-1-7106771

"Latest Ministry of Justice figures show that 21 people involved with hunts have been found guilty under the Hunting Act 2004"

That's just 21 out of thousands!!!.

I don't know how that compares percentage wise with other parts of society


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...r-the-ban-why-are-there-still-hunt-saboteurs/

"If you don't hunt or listen to _The Archers_, you might be forgiven for assuming that hunt saboteurs had become obsolete. Hunting with hounds was banned ten years ago, and the law is respected: convictions for illegal hunting against registered hunts are rare. But as this year's season draws to a close, masked saboteurs are still a regular sight"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...tsmen-a-year-guilty-of-breaking-ban-1-7106771
> 
> "Latest Ministry of Justice figures show that 21 people involved with hunts have been found guilty under the Hunting Act 2004"
> 
> ...


Hence why it needs strengthening -

*Is the ban working?*

_"The assault was the worst that I've suffered during my 20 years of monitoring, but it did not deter me from doing my job. I hope that that verdict and sentence will send a message to hunt supporters that acts of intimidation and violence will not be tolerated. Hunts claim to be obeying the Hunting Act - if this is true then their supporters should have no objection to their activities being observed by hunt monitors."_

- Kevin Hill, IFAW Wildlife Crime Investigator

The Hunting Act 2004 has a serious enforcement problem, and this is why IFAW tried to help from the very beginning.

IFAW's Wildlife Crime Investigators observe hunts sometimes close by while other times at great distances, always using public land, roads, footpaths, bridleways or private land they have permission to use. They peacefully observe and document their activities, working without any form of intervention. Unfortunately they are often targeted by hunt members and followers: They have received verbal abuse, threats of violence, real violence and damage to their vehicles.

*The reluctance of some hunters to be filmed inevitably raises suspicions as to the legality of their activities.*

The harassment and intimidation endured by hunt monitors in England and Wales has increased dramatically following successful prosecutions for illegal hunting, which shows the law indeed has teeth. However, we believe that the deterrent effect of the Act needs improvement.

IFAW has had a number of specific concerns that have been repeatedly raised with the enforcement authorities, but not much has been done to address them. Too many hunts are claiming 'accidental' kills of foxes while claiming that they are legally "trail hunting", a form of hunting created by the hunts after the ban in which the scent of fox urine is used to lay a route for the dogs to track. The fact that the huntsmen in control of the hounds are not told where the scent has been laid, and the fact that trail hunters operate in exactly the same copses and woods than before the ban where many foxes live, made us conclude the following:

*Trail hunting was really designed as a false alibi to avoid prosecution of illegal hunting when real foxes end up being chased instead of the urine trail.*

Police should be more cautious in believing any claim that a hunt was trail hunting because often illegal hunters would use this alibi without even having bothered to lay any trail (therefore making it a "false" alibi, not just an alibi).

IFAW has advised police and prosecutors that they should be suspicious if hunts try to defend themselves from allegations of illegal hunting by saying that their dogs were out of control while trail hunting. For centuries hunters have prided themselves on their ability to control their packs. If, for some sudden and inexplicable reason, they are now unable to reliably exert control they should not be out with their dogs.

Out-of-control dogs have also chased and attacked pets and livestock and even invaded homes and gardens. This would not happen if hunts were to adopt drag hunting, in which an artificial scent (ie. non-fox scent, such as aniseed) is followed, or bloodhound hunting, in which the scent of a person running is followed, both sports which already existed before the ban. In these cases, the huntsmen always know where the trail goes so they can stop the hounds if they deviate from it, and they take place in areas where foxes do not normally live.

*A Lack of Proper Enforcement*

Unfortunately we see far too many allegations of illegal hunting not properly investigated, and far too many cases dropped on account of using the trail hunting false alibi without such alibi being properly challenged.

Therefore, although the ban is working well when it is properly enforced, the current problem is the serious lack of proper enforcement, so far too much illegal hunting takes place unpunished. This has made us conclude that it is time to call for an improvement of the Act, to make its enforcement easier. We therefore are calling for the introduction of a recklessness clause to prevent 'trail hunting' from being used as a false alibi, the removal of the 'observation and research' exemption which has been abused by stag hunts to avoid prosecution for illegal hunting, and an increase in the penalty for illegal hunting to include custodial sentences, in line with other wildlife crime legislation.
http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/our-work/banning-hunting-dogs/ban-working


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sabs calling hounds onto a busy A road


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What exactly do you want Noushka? Your talk is all about innocent young girls, little old ladies, poor unfortunate baby foxes (cubbing is about young hounds btw), young pups, trailing intestines of horses etc If another fox is never killed again, either accidentally or deliberately, will you still be out there? Do you go out protesting? I think you can see from Rona's recent link why people are scared of the sabs.  

I took my horse out yesterday with friends, we rode down a steep, stony incline, jumped up a bank through a small gap and galloped up over 3 fields. My dog running loose with us. It was great fun, but a lot more risky than sitting at home, or drilling circles in an arena. The day before that I risked the road. Many horses and people are injured on the roads by careless or inconsiderate motorists, or just clear accidents. I'd be happy for a call to a ban, or control of riding horses on the road, so long as it included alternatives.

Now that hunting is less random, barbed wire fences can be avoided. Last time I went fox hunting with a relatively quiet, small local hunt, the field had a choice of where to go, whether to jump a ditch or fence that had already been checked, or go around it through a gap, or gateway (with someone bringing up the rear responsible for closing the gate) and that was before the ban. I'm sure it's even more controlled now. However, accidents will sometimes happen and there are things in place to lessen the impact and cause as least suffering as possible in that event. Unlike when I go riding on my own on the local country lanes. 

As I've already said, put pressure on your MP to keeping the hunting ban, enforcing the law and for further legislation if you feel it's needed.  

I'm pleased to read that mostly the legislation has been successful and that most people are adhering to the law. I would also agree that a few tweaks and clarifications might be helpful.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Sabs calling hounds onto a busy A road


Yeah right, course they were



__ https://www.facebook.com/BristolHuntSaboteurs/posts/742843222478785



The hunts don't give a to$$ about the hounds and neither do hunt apologists.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Elles said:


> the field had a choice of where to go, whether to jump a ditch or fence that had already been checked, or go around it through a gap, or gateway


Always been like that around here too. There are different capabilities in the field and they all have to be catered for to have a good safe days riding

No one wants their offspring or very expensive horse injured after all


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> *What exactly do you want Noushka?* Your talk is all about innocent young girls, little old ladies, poor unfortunate baby foxes (cubbing is about young hounds btw), young pups, trailing intestines of horses etc If another fox is never killed again, either accidentally or deliberately, will you still be out there? Do you go out protesting? I think you can see from Rona's recent link why people are scared of the sabs.
> 
> I took my horse out yesterday with friends, we rode down a steep, stony incline, jumped up a bank through a small gap and galloped up over 3 fields. My dog running loose with us. It was great fun, but a lot more risky than sitting at home, or drilling circles in an arena. The day before that I risked the road. Many horses and people are injured on the roads by careless or inconsiderate motorists, or just clear accidents. I'd be happy for a call to a ban, or control of riding horses on the road, so long as it included alternatives.
> 
> ...


Hows about people stop torturing animals for their entertainment?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Maybe the sabs should stick to peaceful protests and leave the hunting horns at home. If the hounds are following a laid scent, calling them off it isn't going to help is it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Maybe the sabs should stick to peaceful protests and leave the hunting horns at home. If the hounds are following a laid scent, calling them off it isn't going to help is it.


Don't you think its a bit dangerous laying a scent across a busy A road I cant believe you actually believe they'd laid a scent, well actually i can:Wideyed


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

rona said:


> No one wants their offspring or very expensive horse injured after all


Very true. I'm now about to go out to ride my not very expensive horse.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Just a little quiz I found on my travels 
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz2442681bf79a8.html

I only got 3


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I got 6  ( unbelievable kids of any age can go:Wideyed )

oops , sorry I shouldn't have posted the answers.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

Elles said:


> I would think people are getting very bored with reading my opinion by now.


I appreciate your posts on this thread @Elles 
I don't agree with everything you're saying, but I think it's nice to have a voice out there showing that not all people who ride with the hunt are animal haters as is often portrayed. You strike me as a very compassionate animal lover who has always posted very dog friendly (and horse friendly) advice when it comes to training and care. Clearly the issue is very complex and I appreciate you helping to show that


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Sabs calling hounds onto a busy A road


Really? This is a video of some people walking on a track and someone riding a horse on a busy A Road. Either you've posted the wrong video or it's just a load of anti-sab propaganda if you ask me - and not very good anti-sab propaganda either.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A policeman caught a nasty little boy with a bb gun in one hand and a fox in the other. "Now Listen here," the policeman said, "Whatever you do to that poor, defenseless creature I shall personally do to you" "In that case," said the boy. "I'll kiss it's butt and let it go"

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/animaljokes/foxjokes.html


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I appreciate your posts on this thread @Elles
> I don't agree with everything you're saying, but I think it's nice to have a voice out there showing that not all people who ride with the hunt are animal haters as is often portrayed. You strike me as a very compassionate animal lover who has always posted very dog friendly (and horse friendly) advice when it comes to training and care. Clearly the issue is very complex and I appreciate you helping to show that


No compassion when it comes to foxes or hounds though (nor for a sab seriously injured by a deliberate attack) but hey ho, each to their own.

Fox hunting is no more complex an issue than a gang of yobs hunting down neighbourhood cats with dogs is. Both are inhumane & there is absolutely no justification for either.

This is what I call compassion - & I don't mean those sat on horseback hoping to sate their blood lust either.








Spellweaver said:


> Really? This is a video of some people walking on a track and someone riding a horse on a busy A Road. Either you've posted the wrong video or it's just a load of anti-sab propaganda if you ask me - and not very good anti-sab propaganda either.


Its just your usual anti sab propaganda Val - that's how desperate the pro's are


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I only got 9.  There may be no set age for a horse to go hunting (it would be hard to police if there were), but if you had any sense, you'd want to be riding a horse that has the basics and is fit and strong enough for it. People will take off 4/rising 5 year old horses as part of their education, but unlikely to be younger, certainly in England. I wouldn't accompany a horse who was younger than 5 personally. I don't believe horses should be galloping and jumping with a rider until they are over 5 years old, preferably over 6, I'm not a fan of young horse competitions, or racing either. My own horse only started (jumping and galloping, not foxhunting of course) this year and she's 10, but then she's not built to jump and gallop.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I appreciate your posts on this thread @Elles
> I don't agree with everything you're saying, but I think it's nice to have a voice out there showing that not all people who ride with the hunt are animal haters as is often portrayed. You strike me as a very compassionate animal lover who has always posted very dog friendly (and horse friendly) advice when it comes to training and care. Clearly the issue is very complex and I appreciate you helping to show that


No because killing foxes for fun doesn't make you an animal hater at all.....


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Fox-hunting is banned. I don't and never have killed any kind of animals for fun.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Fox-hunting is banned. I don't and never have killed any kind of animals for fun.


Its suppose to be banned but hunts think they are above the law & continually flout it. You use to ride with a hunt & you have been continually making excuses for the hunters - fox hunts kill foxes for fun.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hounds kill foxes for fun. Probably. Though someone like ouesi would likely know more than I about how a hound would feel about it. Whether hunts or an individual does is open to debate and the individual or hunt concerned. I have never intimated, or implied that I enjoyed the death of a fox, in any circumstances (and I would say the same of my friends). To those eating meat, or causing death to rats/mice/other vermin do they enjoy the death of the animal? I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say unlikely, even if they kill it themselves and I have never personally killed a fox, or any other animal. I may have accepted it as part of country life and even some of the arguments about maintaining balance and wardenship of the countryside, particularly in my younger years, but I never said I enjoyed the death itself. My whole point in posting from an unpopular side is to put forward that not everyone who attends or attended hunts is a bloodthirsty, arrogant, lunatic, who cares nothing about animals. We too take into account our experiences and what we know, or feel and make our own choices. If, in your fervour, you have missed my point, or don't care about it, well hey ho. 

Not everyone believes that a wild animal being scented out and chased to his death is a terrible way to go, more terrible than any other. So there we are. Is it necessary today, no, probably not. So best it's now gone. If people still hunt foxes illegally, it's the same as anything else. Get proof and prosecute them. Fight to have the law expanded, if you think it's necessary. But if you think I enjoy killing foxes and can't wait to get blood on my hands, you're very much mistaken. 

The general public believed it is unacceptable, so it was banned and I'm not going over old ground again.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> No because killing foxes for fun doesn't make you an animal hater at all.....


You see, this is the reason why we never get a full debate on fox hunting on this forum.
Like Ouesi, I don't agree with everything Elles has said, but she has provided another viewpoint and, as she has experience of the hunt, has much more experience of the whole subject than most of us on here.

I don't agree with deriding everything that someone says without reading their full argument. But just to pick up on your point, I haven't read anywhere Elles saying that she _enjoys_ the killing of the fox.
Now you could (and probably will) say that just being a part of the hunt makes her as bad as everyone else involved, but that gets us nowhere.

I said earlier that I was pleased that Elles had posted details 'from the other side of the argument' and I still am. 
But I fear that calling anyone on a pet forum an 'animal hater' is not going to encourage them to post when they don't hold the 'accepted' point of view. And that's a shame.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

silvi said:


> You see, this is the reason why we never get a full debate on fox hunting on this forum.
> Like Ouesi, I don't agree with everything Elles has said, but she has provided another viewpoint and, as she has experience of the hunt, has much more experience of the whole subject than most of us on here.
> 
> I don't agree with deriding everything that someone says without reading their full argument. But just to pick up on your point, I haven't read anywhere Elles saying that she _enjoys_ the killing of the fox.
> ...


I wasn't talking about Elles, hence why I didn't direct my comment at her. I was talking about the act of fox hunting as a whole and that the community as a whole are not 'animal haters'....my definition of that is clearly different from ouesi's and Elles in that respect.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> The people I know who have monitored (& sabbed) hunts don't ride. And I doubt any monitors that do ride would put their animals at risk. Its one thing risking yourself quite another risking your horse.


Okay thanks. That's at least one answer to my question.

I do, however, think it would be a good idea for those monitoring the hunt (not sabs - hunt monitors) to discuss this option. Because, if the 'legal' hunts are still getting away with illegal activities, then surely monitors would want to do all they can to prevent this?

And, from the other point of view, surely reasonable hunt members (and I'm not convinced that they are all unreasonable) would find it advantageous to have a group of monitors riding along with them, to show that the activities that were taking place were not illegal?

And if that were the case, surely that would not put a monitor's horse at any more risk than any other horses used in the hunt?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> I wasn't talking about Elles, hence why I didn't direct my comment at her. I was talking about the act of fox hunting as a whole and that the community as a whole are not 'animal haters'....my definition of that is clearly different from ouesi's and Elles in that respect.


I thought your comment was directed at Elles as you were answering Ouesi's post which was directed to her.
Sorry. I assumed and got that wrong.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

silvi said:


> I thought your comment was directed at Elles as you were answering Ouesi's post which was directed to her.
> Sorry. I assumed and got that wrong.


That's how it read to me too, that Elles kills foxes for fun. 
And yes, why I'm not going to get involved. When someone who is adamantly against fox hunting starts feeling attacked, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

silvi said:


> I thought your comment was directed at Elles as you were answering Ouesi's post which was directed to her.
> Sorry. I assumed and got that wrong.


Nope, was directed at that one line in ouesi's post. To be fair I haven't been reading all of Elle's posts so don't know what has been said there, but to me yes, I would consider anyone involved in the hunt, whether as a spectator or active hunter to be a supporter of the killing of foxes. I know these days it's illegal and most are law abiding drag hunts, but that doesn't necessarily change the attitudes of those involved, and suddenly make them animal lovers.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Dogloverlou said:


> Nope, was directed at that one line in ouesi's post. To be fair I haven't been reading all of Elle's posts so don't know what has been said there, but to me yes, I would consider anyone involved in the hunt, whether as a spectator or active hunter to be a supporter of the killing of foxes. I know these days it's illegal and most are law abiding drag hunts, but that doesn't necessarily change the attitudes of those involved, and suddenly make them animal lovers.


But a lot of people didn't hunt until the ban
In fact 45,000 of them didn't


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Elles said:


> Hounds kill foxes for fun. Probably. Though someone like ouesi would likely know more than I about how a hound would feel about it. Whether hunts or an individual does is open to debate and the individual or hunt concerned. I have never intimated, or implied that I enjoyed the death of a fox, in any circumstances (and I would say the same of my friends). To those eating meat, or causing death to rats/mice/other vermin do they enjoy the death of the animal? I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say unlikely, even if they kill it themselves and I have never personally killed a fox, or any other animal. I may have accepted it as part of country life and even some of the arguments about maintaining balance and wardenship of the countryside, particularly in my younger years, but I never said I enjoyed the death itself. My whole point in posting from an unpopular side is to put forward that not everyone who attends or attended hunts is a bloodthirsty, arrogant, lunatic, who cares nothing about animals. We too take into account our experiences and what we know, or feel and make our own choices. If, in your fervour, you have missed my point, or don't care about it, well hey ho.
> 
> Not everyone believes that a wild animal being scented out and chased to his death is a terrible way to go, more terrible than any other. So there we are. Is it necessary today, no, probably not. So best it's now gone. If people still hunt foxes illegally, it's the same as anything else. Get proof and prosecute them. Fight to have the law expanded, if you think it's necessary. But if you think I enjoy killing foxes and can't wait to get blood on my hands, you're very much mistaken.
> 
> The general public believed it is unacceptable, so it was banned and I'm not going over old ground again.


Elles it doesn't matter what the hounds feel, they don't choose to participate. And they are taught how & what to kill when they are youngsters - that's what cubbing is all about. This is the Cambridge dictionary definition of a bloodsport - *any **sport** that **involves* *animals** being **killed** or **hurt** to make the **people* *watching** or taking **part* *feel* *excitement* . The only reason fox hunts exist is because people enjoy hunting foxes - there is no valid reason. Just replace the fox with a 14lb dog for a moment (say a sheltland sheepdog). What would you think about people who participated in a 'sport' that hunted down shelties - even those who were just there for the chase? Would you still defend such people & say they were animal lovers? or would you think they were cruel? Foxes feel the same terror & suffer the pain as a sheltie chased to exhaustion & ripped pieces by a pack of hounds would. And Foxes aren't vermin either, they have never been classed as vermin. They are an important native species. People who talk about 'wildlife management' & the need to 'maintain a balance' have no understanding of ecology and population dynamics, its just ideological nonsense - a myth to justify killing wild animals.

I believe most people who eat meat hope the animals they eat died quickly & with minimal suffering. I'm pretty sure most meat eaters would be horrified if livestock they ate was chased to exhaustion by 20 people on horse back & a pack of dogs to prolong the suffering. Aren't you?

People who think hunting down an animal with hounds isn't such are terrible way to go are obviously incapable of empathising with the hunted animal - and this is why people who can empathise struggle to understand this mentality.

No, I believe you when you say you don't want to see the ban repealed & people have been gathering proof all along - that's what hunt monitors & sabs do:Wideyed. Compassionate people, NGO's & decent MPs are fighting to stop the repeal. The outcry is huge but I doubt it will stop the powerful minority dragging us back to the dark ages.

Just a question Elles. Is it because you perceive foxes as vermin that you cant extend the same compassion to them that you feel towards domestic animals?



silvi said:


> Okay thanks. That's at least one answer to my question.
> 
> I do, however, think it would be a good idea for those monitoring the hunt (not sabs - hunt monitors) to discuss this option. Because, if the 'legal' hunts are still getting away with illegal activities, then surely monitors would want to do all they can to prevent this?
> 
> ...


The monitors don't know where the hunt will meet, it would be impractical to go out on horseback, they need vehicles to get to the hunt. Have you seen the video of the elderly hunt monitor being rode at? I've posted quite a few videos of huntsmen mistreating their own horses, so I doubt theres a monitor out there who would trust them not to harm their horse. This whole 'sport' is based on animal cruelty after all . And anyway, the hunts the monitors monitor are well known for hunting illegally,there is just no way they are going to allow them to tag along and film them in the act. Why do you think these hunts go to such extreme measures to intimidate monitors as it is?.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

So maybe some people are joining hunts because they feel the foxes will be left unharmed and they can now enjoy the horse/riding/countryside aspect of hunting without being involved in the torture and death of a fox.

I hear though, that many hunts are still "accidentally" catching foxes.

Most fox hunts are still training their hounds to hunt fox.

If the Act had gone far enough then banning the use of "fox scent" would be useful.

Apparently, packs of hounds do not indiscriminately attack and kill domestic pets nor do they pick off livestock on the farms they run on, so presumably they could be trained not to hunt fox.

By now, there should be NO packs trained to hunt fox. But that is not the case.

I believe hounds are "retired" around 6 years old. (I say, retired but probably "disposed of" would be more accurate. Having read this quote on a site recently:
*My examination and analysis of the data available to me regarding numbers and types of organised Hunts in the UK, numbers of hounds in each, numbers of pups bred per year and numbers in particular categories, has led me to conclude that the numbers of hounds deliberately and unnecessarily killed by their own Hunts per annum in the UK is probably somewhere between 4,942 and 7,302. *(maybe b*ll*cks, but maybe not)

So, given the number of years that fox hunting has been banned, there could be/should be NO hounds trained to hunt fox by natural progression processes.

All hunts still in existence should only be capable of following a trail laid by humans that bears no resemblance to any living creature 

The Act left far too many loopholes - they need to be closed IMO.

Repealing the Act, because it is not 100% effective is not the answer.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I appreciate Elles' courage in posting an unpopular view, but the problem I find is that there is no substance to any of what she says. It is not "putting the other side of the argument", because she is not making an argument. She has not come up with one sound fact in favour of hunting, she has only shown how attitudes were, and for some people still are. Now when people object to killing animals for meat, I can put forward arguments for eating meat ( suitability of the soil for growing crops versus grazing, addition of animal manure rather than artificial fertilizers back into the soil, etc). Not everyone agrees with my arguments, but I think I make sound points, from a farming and science degree background. What point is Elles making? That in the past she did it because others in her social circle did is not an argument, it is the excuse of a person who was too blind or too uncaring or too afraid to be different. Even now she only wants it banned for democratic reasons, I suspect if the vote went in the direction of bringing it back she would be joining the hunt again tomorrow. As for her description of the rides she still takes with her friends, lets just say I wouldn't ride in such a dangerous, irresponsible way. People ask why monitors don't go with the hunt on horseback? Because they love their horses too much, and don't want a broken leg, that's why. As for Lurcherlad's comment that using "fox scent" should be banned I can only say WHAT? Maybe I've not being paying enough attention since the ban came into effect, I wrongly supposed that hunts were accidently killing foxes because the hounds had hunted fox previously. They're still using FOX SCENT to TRAIN?!!! Like dangling a pet dog in front of a fighting dog for bait, then being surprised if it attacks some pet dog in public. Of course training with fox scent should be banned, how the xxxx has this slipped through unnoticed?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> The monitors don't know where the hunt will meet, it would be impractical to go out on horseback, they need vehicles to get to the hunt. Have you seen the video of the elderly hunt monitor being rode at? I've posted quite a few videos of huntsmen mistreating their own horses, so I doubt theres a monitor out there who would trust them not to harm their horse. This whole 'sport' is based on animal cruelty after all . And anyway, the hunts the monitors monitor are well known for hunting illegally,there is just no way they are going to allow them to tag along and film them in the act. Why do you think these hunts go to such extreme measures to intimidate monitors as it is?.


Okay, thanks. that's a more complete answer 
Noushka, you have to realise that the average person, like me, does not understand all that goes on during hunts, or all the legalities involved.

Yes, you post many videos and articles on the subject. But most of them are from the point of view of the sabs, so are bound to be biased, even though the intention is good. That's why I am keen to consider other points of view as well, especially if they can bring in personal experience and knowledge or other evidence.

And if I remember correctly, the video posted about the hunt monitor knocked over by a huntsman and his horse had quite a discussion attached to it, because it wasn't clear exactly what had happened.

It's this lack of clarity that promoted me to ask the question about monitors and the possibility that they could ride with the hunt.

So basically, monitors have no legal or official right to monitor a hunt, other than that they are allowed to be in the same vicinity as the hunt at the time of the hunt? If that's the case, then surely a good step would have been to give them that legal right, or even an official capacity, if only to avoid the intimidation you have described?

However, if the present law does not make that possible, then surely the Act was incomplete in the first place and needs to be strengthened rather than repealed?

Either way, perhaps ignoring the present anti-fox hunting act is not the best way to go forward.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

One of the things I have always said about fox hunting is that I cannot get my head around how people who are animal lovers can fool themselves into thinking that hunting is ok, that the fox doesn't get hurt much, that the chase is quick, that the kill is quick and painless, that it's ok to treat hounds the way they are treated. I have alway suspected that these people really know the truth, that they truly are bloodthirsty individuals who enjoy seeing animals suffer, and that the above are just a list of reasons they trot out to excuse their behaviour.

However, despite the fact that Elles and I often take the opposite sides when we are talking about dog showing, I have great respect for Elles and her arguments and always enjoy debating with her. She has always seemed a caring and intelligent person who is willing to listen to and think about the opposite side to her argument. So when someone like Elles actually starts to say the sort of things above, it makes me stop and think that maybe people aren't just trotting out excuses for the behaviour - maybe they actually do believe the above.

It hasn't got me any further with my original problem though - ie *how* people can people believe the above? How can they not know that the purpose of a fox-hunt is to chase and kill a fox in one of the most barbaric ways possible? How can they ignore that? How can they fool themselves that they are not part of what is happening because they are just joining the hunt to have a ride in the countryside on their horse?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> I appreciate Elles' courage in posting an unpopular view, but the problem I find is that there is no substance to any of what she says. It is not "putting the other side of the argument", because she is not making an argument. She has not come up with one sound fact in favour of hunting, she has only shown how attitudes were, and for some people still are. .........What point is Elles making? That in the past she did it because others in her social circle did is not an argument, it is the excuse of a person who was too blind or too uncaring or too afraid to be different.


Forgetting that you again use Elle's posts to deride her, I have to say that she _has_ made a point. It may not be the point that you wish her to make, but other people reading this thread want to read about her experiences of being a past member of a hunt and her attitude to it.



Catharinem said:


> Even now she only wants it banned for democratic reasons, I suspect if the vote went in the direction of bringing it back she would be joining the hunt again tomorrow.


You _suspect_, but you don't know....
And if someone who hunted in the past now wants fox hunting to remain banned, I want to hear their reasons why. And perhaps democratic reasons are actually as good if not better as any other reason when it comes to influence the parliamentary vote.



Catharinem said:


> As for her description of the rides she still takes with her friends, lets just say I wouldn't ride in such a dangerous, irresponsible way. People ask why monitors don't go with the hunt on horseback? Because they love their horses too much, and don't want a broken leg, that's why.


Already covered in my reply to Noushka


Catharinem said:


> As for Lurcherlad's comment that using "fox scent" should be banned I can only say WHAT? Maybe I've not being paying enough attention since the ban came into effect, I wrongly supposed that hunts were accidently killing foxes because the hounds had hunted fox previously. They're still using FOX SCENT to TRAIN?!!! Like dangling a pet dog in front of a fighting dog for bait, then being surprised if it attacks some pet dog in public. Of course training with fox scent should be banned, how the xxxx has this slipped through unnoticed?


Indeed. How _has_ this slipped by? And what else has slipped by because the original bill did not consider every aspect (or was hurried through Parliament)?
Hence my suggestion that ignoring the present act and campaigning for MPs to vote against a repeal, _rather than discussing it in more detail_, is perhaps not the best way to move forward.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> One of the things I have always said about fox hunting is that I cannot get my head around how people who are animal lovers can fool themselves into thinking that hunting is ok, that the fox doesn't get hurt much, that the chase is quick, that the kill is quick and painless, that it's ok to treat hounds the way they are treated. I have alway suspected that these people really know the truth, that they truly are bloodthirsty individuals who enjoy seeing animals suffer, and that the above are just a list of reasons they trot out to excuse their behaviour.


I went on one hunt as a horse-crazed teenager.
I saw it as an opportunity to get to ride, that's all. It was here in the US, I don't know if it was a drag hunt or a real hunt, I never saw a fox, I barely saw the hounds (though I could hear them). I was at the back and I was just following along with the group having a blast riding. 
I just flat didn't know. I didn't know what fox hunting entailed, I didn't know what went in to it, I didn't know how the fox would be killed, never even thought about it really. I didn't know anything other than I was going to get to ride.

When the hunt ended I saw happy dogs, happy horses, happy people, someone said the fox had gotten away. Had the opportunity happened again, I would have gone again. In years to come I learned more about what the hunt entails and at that point, no I would not have participated. But for some people that knowledge never comes, or denial becomes a powerful force. So yes, it is very possible for people who hunt to be genuine animal lovers who are either ignorant (in that they don't know, not in that they're stupid) or in denial/cognitive dissonance....


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> It hasn't got me any further with my original problem though - ie *how* people can people believe the above? How can they not know that the purpose of a fox-hunt is to chase and kill a fox in one of the most barbaric ways possible? How can they ignore that? How can they fool themselves that they are not part of what is happening because they are just joining the hunt to have a ride in the countryside on their horse?


That's what I don't get either the very name in itself kind of indicates hunting is on the agenda. That's like going pheasant shooting with a farmer and not understanding pheasants will be shot. Just doesn't really make sense.

And picking up on what Noushka said about what if they were Shelties being hunted instead, I think that's why people are so disgusted at dog fighting as we love dogs, they're domesticated and we can really feel for the dogs. Foxes are 'just' wild animals. People can't attach the same emotions to a Fox as they can a dog.

I stand by what I said that either as an active member of the hunt, or just a spectator out for a country ride, you're still as much a part of the whole act. Just as I'd consider someone spectating at a dog fight to be just as guilty.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Just as I'd consider someone speculating at a dog fight to be just as guilty.


Someone spectating at a dog fight is going to *see* a dog fight in all it's horror. 
Someone riding with a hunt is not necessarily going to see any animal being hurt. 
Like I said, I didn't even know if the one I went on was a drag hunt or a real hunt, someone said "the fox got away" and I didn't know if that was tongue in cheek (because it was a drag hunt) or that there really was a fox who got away.

As for the name "hunt", I also participate in "barn hunt" where rats are not harmed at all, they're quite tame and well cared for, they're switched out often and made sure they're not stressed or physically uncomfortable. There are very strict rules for the "rat wranglers"  No harm to any animal in a barn hunt


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Someone spectating at a dog fight is going to *see* a dog fight in all it's horror.
> Someone riding with a hunt is not necessarily going to see any animal being hurt.
> Like I said, I didn't even know if the one I went on was a drag hunt or a real hunt, someone said "the fox got away" and I didn't know if that was tongue in cheek (because it was a drag hunt) or that there really was a fox who got away.
> 
> As for the name "hunt", I also participate in "barn hunt" where rats are not harmed at all, they're quite tame and well cared for, they're switched out often and made sure they're not stressed or physically uncomfortable. There are very strict rules for the "rat wranglers"  No harm to any animal in a barn hunt


If you had seen a hunt master come back with a dead Fox, even if you hadn't witnessed it, would that have changed your mind at the time? 
Whilst some may turn a blind eye or not be witness to the hunt itself I still believe people kid themselves about exactly what might happen.

I know nothing about barn hunts, but was you participating in them at 17? If not you didn't have that comparison to make and surely hunt just meant hunt.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> If you had seen a hunt master come back with a dead Fox, even if you hadn't witnessed it, would that have changed your mind at the time?
> Whilst some may turn a blind eye or not be witness to the hunt itself I still believe people kid themselves about exactly what might happen.
> 
> I know nothing about barn hunts, but was you participating in them at 17? If not you didn't have that comparison to make and surely hunt just meant hunt.


If I had seen the dead fox, yes, for me that would have been it. But I didn't. And if people are participating in drag hunts, they're not going to see dead foxes, or how the hounds are trained and treated, they're just going to go out for a ride to have fun. I know it's shallow, but most humans ARE shallow and don't *want* to know.

As for barn hunts, I participate now, as an adult.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think if anyone has any specific questions they would like to ask me personally, it would probably be best now in private messages, which I'll do my best to answer. I really do think I've posted enough on the thread now.  

For those who think I might still be a nice person, even if you don't necessarily like what I do/did or my (considered) views, thank you, for those who don't, you're entitled to your opinion, of course and maybe we'll bash heads on another day, on another thread and another subject.


----------



## witchyone (Dec 16, 2011)

I used to hunt many years ago but fortunately I have seen the light, I am very anti hunt now. I think what finally did it for me was seeing the hunting fraternity get a fox cornered and these so called human beings were baying for its blood. Poor fox had no chance and no escape. That is not sport its barbaric blood lust


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> I appreciate Elles' courage in posting an unpopular view, but the problem I find is that there is no substance to any of what she says. It is not "putting the other side of the argument", because she is not making an argument. She has not come up with one sound fact in favour of hunting, she has only shown how attitudes were, and for some people still are. Now when people object to killing animals for meat, I can put forward arguments for eating meat ( suitability of the soil for growing crops versus grazing, addition of animal manure rather than artificial fertilizers back into the soil, etc). Not everyone agrees with my arguments, but I think I make sound points, from a farming and science degree background. What point is Elles making? That in the past she did it because others in her social circle did is not an argument, it is the excuse of a person who was too blind or too uncaring or too afraid to be different. Even now she only wants it banned for democratic reasons, I suspect if the vote went in the direction of bringing it back she would be joining the hunt again tomorrow. As for her description of the rides she still takes with her friends, lets just say I wouldn't ride in such a dangerous, irresponsible way. People ask why monitors don't go with the hunt on horseback? Because they love their horses too much, and don't want a broken leg, that's why. As for Lurcherlad's comment that using "fox scent" should be banned I can only say WHAT? Maybe I've not being paying enough attention since the ban came into effect, I wrongly supposed that hunts were accidently killing foxes because the hounds had hunted fox previously. They're still using FOX SCENT to TRAIN?!!! Like dangling a pet dog in front of a fighting dog for bait, then being surprised if it attacks some pet dog in public. Of course training with fox scent should be banned, how the xxxx has this slipped through unnoticed?


Yes that's right, 'Trail hunts' use fox urine Catherine - this is obviously going to incite the hounds to pursue foxes. It was a huge error giving the deceitful hunting fraternity this concession.



silvi said:


> Okay, thanks. that's a more complete answer
> Noushka, you have to realise that the average person, like me, does not understand all that goes on during hunts, or all the legalities involved.
> 
> Yes, you post many videos and articles on the subject. But most of them are from the point of view of the sabs, so are bound to be biased, even though the intention is good. That's why I am keen to consider other points of view as well, especially if they can bring in personal experience and knowledge or other evidence.
> ...


No problem.

I don't claim to know everything about the ins & outs of hunting myself Silvi, but what I do know is that it is morally unacceptable to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal, especially in the name of a sport. I'll try my best to answer your points though.

But how can you hope to understand both sides when you dismiss video evidence of monitors & sabs because they're biased? even when they clearly show acts of violence & intimidation? Anecdotes & opinion from hunt sympathisers are also biased. Imo its just as valid to watch those videos - probably more important because its a well known tactic of pro hunt set to demonise & fabricate stories about the sabs, just like they demonise & fabricate stories about foxes,badgers,raptors - animals they want to kill . Even if you did think it was acceptable to gallop at full speed towards people on horseback, surely you wouldn't condone someone not stopping when they go & knock someone down & trample them? - that very act, imo, proves it was no accident or he would have got straight off the horse to check how badly injured she was - she could have been dead!. Can you imagine the outcry on here if that rider HAD been on sab or a monitor? Yet some people made excuses for the huntsman - including Elles I might add.
The 2nd video isn't an attack on a sab but a monitor. Can it ever be excusable to ride at & terrify an elderly lady with a horse? Again, if hunts are acting within the law why do they intimidate hunt monitors who are not sabbing hunts only filming them? And what about the poor horses used as weapons? The video evidence was enough to get the huntsman prosecuted.

Its not illegal to film hunts, I can't see monitors ever being given the role officially though. Who would give them that role anyway? The police? If so, I couldn't see that ever happening. Most police forces are rarely impartial when it comes to hunting & often complicit with the hunts. Don't forget the hunts have very influential members & the support of the Elite. It was the same in the badger culls, especially in Somerset, Somerset police were acting as the NFU's private henchmen. Another reason why people defending wildlife will try to record everything. I thought you might be interested in this HSA document -
http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/tactics/Howl_94_legal article1.pdf

I don't know anyone who opposes hunting with dogs that doesn't think the law needs strengthening, the loopholes closing. If I had my way, any hunts caught killing foxes illegally would be banned altogether.

The IFAW on opinion the issue - http://www.theguardian.com/environm...act-stopped-cruelty-towards-foxes-10-years-on

.



ouesi said:


> Someone spectating at a dog fight is going to *see* a dog fight in all it's horror.
> Someone riding with a hunt is not necessarily going to see any animal being hurt.
> Like I said, I didn't even know if the one I went on was a drag hunt or a real hunt, someone said "the fox got away" and I didn't know if that was tongue in cheek (because it was a drag hunt) or that there really was a fox who got away.
> 
> As for the name "hunt", I also participate in "barn hunt" where rats are not harmed at all, they're quite tame and well cared for, they're switched out often and made sure they're not stressed or physically uncomfortable. There are very strict rules for the "rat wranglers"  No harm to any animal in a barn hunt


In this country you'd have to be pretty dense not to know the difference between a genuine drag hunt & an illegal hunt. The terriermen on quads armed with their terriers & spades would be a dead giveaway


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

witchyone said:


> I used to hunt many years ago but fortunately I have seen the light, I am very anti hunt now. I think what finally did it for me was seeing the hunting fraternity get a fox cornered and these so called human beings were baying for its blood. Poor fox had no chance and no escape. That is not sport its barbaric blood lust


Good on you for turning your back on it & seeing it for what it is


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> No problem.
> 
> I don't claim to know everything about the ins & outs of hunting myself Silvi, but what I do know is that it is morally unacceptable to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal, especially in the name of a sport. I'll try my best to answer your points though.
> 
> ...


I'm not dismissing anything, but I am questioning some of the evidence from both sides.

I know how easily video evidence can be selected and even altered to validate either side's argument. And it doesn't take much of an expert to do this.
Any organisation committed to its cause is going to employ someone who knows how to present video evidence so that it makes the strongest point possible. They would not be doing their job properly if they didn't do that.

Therefore I will always question video evidence. It's not being blind to what is presented or saying that events haven't happened; it is questioning how it was obtained and presented, which is very different.

None of this means that I am pro-fox hunting. I'm not.
But that is because I find it obnoxious that any animal be killed in the name of 'sport'. It's a gut reaction, rather than one bred out of facts and figures. And I would guess that most members of the public feel the same way.

However, the more I read, including the Guardian article you linked to, makes me feel that this Act is flawed.
That doesn't mean that I would like to see it repealed, but I would like to see an amendment to the Act which covers some of the loopholes discovered over the last 10 years.

However, as the article shows, the fact that the Act is flawed (or at least limited) has given Pro Hunt campaigners the chance to call for a repeal of the whole Law.

So, when the Act is considered in Parliament, it surely has to be considered in such a way that allows for amendments, otherwise more MPs will be able to back out of their support for the Act on the argument that it isn't working in the way it was expected to.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> I'm not dismissing anything, but I am questioning some of the evidence from both sides.
> 
> I know how easily video evidence can be selected and even altered to validate either side's argument. And it doesn't take much of an expert to do this.
> Any organisation committed to its cause is going to employ someone who knows how to present video evidence so that it makes the strongest point possible. They would not be doing their job properly if they didn't do that.
> ...


So if people aren't going to accept video evidence, what is the point of hunt monitors?
Marles (who rode at the elderly lady) pleaded guilty & got 6 months - he didn't use 'edited video' in his defence. Just out of interest, prior to that attack Marles was sentenced to 9 months for attacking another hunt monitor.

The 'hit & run' video - the Hunt apologised for the 'accident'. Don't you think they would have said something if the video had been edited?

The Act is one of the most successful pieces of wildlife legislation - it just needs the loopholes closing & better enforcement in regards to hunts.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> So if people aren't going to accept video evidence, what is the point of hunt monitors?
> Marles (who rode at the elderly lady) pleaded guilty & got 6 months - he didn't use 'edited video' in his defence. Just out of interest, prior to that attack Marles was sentenced to 9 months for attacking another hunt monitor.
> 
> The 'hit & run' video - the Hunt apologised for the 'accident'. Don't you think they would have said something if the video had been edited?
> ...


But I said 'selected or even altered', rather than edited. Meaning that even cutting out the 'before and after' events on a video does not change it as a video, but selects a certain part only and can change the focus, as can not being able to see the view from another angle, or whatever... As with the 'accident' video you mention. It was not clear exactly what happened - could the huntsman see the woman for instance as he approached the gate? When he turned to see what happened, did he assume she was okay? (I'm not saying his actions were correct, just that they may not have been as heartless as some have made out).

A video only tells us so much. sure, it is good evidence, but must be seen in the context of other evidence. As it is, that video had to be accepted as 'an accident' because on its own it didn't show intent to harm.
So that's what I'm saying - video evidence is useful, but often not enough to tell the whole story.

In the case of Marles, the video evidence was damning, and he got what he deserved (some would say not enough though) but it is often not the case.

As for the video evidence provided by hunt monitors, again, it is important as part of the evidence, but, just like the Act itself, has limits to its effectiveness simply because it should be a part of the evidence, it shouldn't be the whole evidence.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> But I said 'selected or even altered', rather than edited. Meaning that even cutting out the 'before and after' events on a video does not change it as a video, but selects a certain part only and can change the focus, as can not being able to see the view from another angle, or whatever... As with the 'accident' video you mention. It was not clear exactly what happened - could the huntsman see the woman for instance as he approached the gate? When he turned to see what happened, did he assume she was okay? (I'm not saying his actions were correct, just that they may not have been as heartless as some have made out).
> 
> A video only tells us so much. sure, it is good evidence, but must be seen in the context of other evidence. As it is, that video had to be accepted as 'an accident' because on its own it didn't show intent to harm.
> So that's what I'm saying - video evidence is useful, but often not enough to tell the whole story.
> ...


At what point in the video do you see him looking back Silvi? :/ (clearer viewed on full screen) 




The CPS are reviewing the case. Do you not think Nid deserves her day in court? If he'd be driving a car he'd be charged with a hit & run (at the very least!)


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> At what point in the video do you see him looking back Silvi? :/ (clearer viewed on full screen)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That clip is horrible to watch, he did not even stop to see if she was okay.

And as you say, he didn't even turn around to look at what he had just done.

And the rest of the hunt tried to obstruct the medical assistance. So you can't even just say it was a one off bad egg, they all colluded.

He even "partied" afterwards, speaks volumes about his character.

Poor lady.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Thanks for the update video Noush 
And I apologise because I admit that I cannot see the guy on the horse turn around on this video, so me remembering that happening before must have been in my imagination.

But this video still makes it clear what I mean about a selective video.

I hadn't seen this version before, but the one linked to in the original thread was eventually blocked by the site where the video was uploaded.
This version definitely looks different to the original [it actually looks faster in places, but that could because in others they have slowed it down], but I have no way of comparing because the original cannot be accessed.

But adding text to the video is definitely pushing the opinion in one direction.
I haven't got the sound on so may be missing more, but this is the transcript of the video linked here:

(Text [in speech marks] and events on the video in normal print, with my comments in blue)

.................

Text:
"The Blackford and Sparkford Vale Hunt Are About To Illegally Kill Fox Cubs" (may well be true but in this case is speculation)

"Peaceful Protesters Attempt To Call Off The Hounds"

"Then This Happened"

Shows protestors getting ready near the gate and not looking towards the gate at all.

Huntsman then rides in from the camera's right and knocks down a protester.

Other protesters rush to assist the fallen woman (later identified as 'Nid') as huntsman carries on on his horse.

Text:
"The Huntsman Left Her On The Ground Struggling To Breath"

"He Continued To Hunt Then Attended A Barbecue" (what has that to do with the incident?)

Then we get a slow motion re-run of the same bit.

Text:
"Huntsman Clearly Kicking The Horse On Without Looking Back" (That's not actually clear to me, as it seems like the huntsman reacts to the horse floundering on hitting Nid, but I'm not sure)

"Initially The Hunt Obstructed An Ambulance Arriving At The Scene" (Can't remember the other thread exactly, but I believe there was more to it than this?)

"However, The Female Protestor's Injuries Were So Severe That an air Ambulance Was Called" (now I'm not discounting the severity of Nid's injuries, but I would say that an air ambulance would have been called in any case, simply because of the location and fears of moving anyone knocked down by a horse a long distance to a roadside ambulance)

Shots of Nid being attended by the air ambulance crew.

Text:
"The Force Broke 7 Ribs, Tore Her Lung Causing Partial Collapse And Caused Trauma To Her Shoulder"
(Very nasty I agree)

Then we get the picture of the x-ray, (which was disputed at the time as actually belonging to Nid.Has it been proved yet?)

Text:
"She Was Hospitalised For Two Weeks And Is Still Recovering 5 Months Later"

More pictures of Nid on the stretcher.

Text:
"The Huntsman Was Arrested And Investigated For Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm"

"5 Months Later The CPS Decided Not To Bring Charges, Citing 'Insufficient Evidence'"

"Whilst On Bail The Huntsman Was Charged With An Unrelated Assault For Attacking A Fellow Hunter At Their Hunt Ball, Breaking His Nose" (Yes, he doesn't sound like a great chap, but as the text said, this was unrelated - so why put it there?)

Then we get another replay of the incident.

Text:
"This Is The Violent Truth About Hunting"

No. This is the violent truth about an incident with one man knocking a woman down with his horse. 
Yes, he was a huntsman and yes, there was more he could possibly have done. But his intention to harm her was not proved and this video still doesn't prove it.
This video is about one man - a huntsman it's true, but the actual video is not about a Fox Hunt because it did not involve other members of the hunt.

Followed by appeal addresses.

End of video

.................

One thing not taken into account on this video is the position of the camera person in all this.
Did the huntsman turn his horse to avoid him/her and then find himself hitting another protester?
(But I won't comment more on that although I'm sure plenty of others have....)

IMO, this video is about a violent event, but it would never pass in a court of law.
The fact that emotive text has been added to it makes no difference to what happened; but it does try to influence our opinion on what happened and why.

By the way, none of my comments here are saying that the guy was not in the wrong.
But you asked me to look at this video in view of my earlier comments, so that's what I did.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...icy-collapse/story-26273194-detail/story.html

"
The charity has been heavily criticised for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds taking hunts to court. Last month it dropped the case against Mr Bryer, huntsman with the high profile Cattistock. His solicitor, Honiton-based country sports legal expert Jamie Foster, writing in today's WMN, criticises the RSPCA for wasting the court's time, eight months of William Bryer's life and thousands of pounds on legal fees. Costs were awarded out of central funds, meaning taxpayers will pick up the bill for the RSPCA's aborted attempt at a prosecution".

Looks like the last time an actual hunt person was found guilty under the hunting act was September 2013 
http://huntingact.org/?q=node/18


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Thanks for the update video Noush
> And I apologise because I admit that I cannot see the guy on the horse turn around on this video, so me remembering that happening before must have been in my imagination.
> 
> But this video still makes it clear what I mean about a selective video.
> ...


You're welcome.

Just picking up on a few of your points. It was a cubbing event. The B&SV hunt is a 'trail' hunt - I think we've already established what trail hunts are. What kind of person knocks some one down, seriously injuring them - doesn't even stop to find out if they are dead or alive, and carries on as normal? I imagine this is why the HSA highlighted what he did afterwards & his attack on a fellow huntsman. To show that hes NOT normal.

The original video was only released because the CPS refused to prosecute, they are now reviewing that decision. You saw one thing, I saw another & the huntsman claimed she deliberately jumped in front of his horse Imo it should be a jury that decides - the justice system will have failed Nid if she doesn't get her day in court. But then even when sabs are killed they don't get any justice. http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/index.ph...liberately-rides-over-saboteur-with-his-horse



rona said:


> http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...icy-collapse/story-26273194-detail/story.html
> 
> "
> The charity has been heavily criticised for spending hundreds of thousands of pounds taking hunts to court. Last month it dropped the case against Mr Bryer, huntsman with the high profile Cattistock. His solicitor, Honiton-based country sports legal expert Jamie Foster, writing in today's WMN, criticises the RSPCA for wasting the court's time, eight months of William Bryer's life and thousands of pounds on legal fees. Costs were awarded out of central funds, meaning taxpayers will pick up the bill for the RSPCA's aborted attempt at a prosecution".
> ...


If you're caught abusing wildlife Jamies your man  Yes the act certainly does need amending with all loopholes closing.

Cattistock from the fox lovers side - http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...ening-failed/story-26200417-detail/story.html Good comments after this article.

The evidence - 




How anyone can be apolgists for these vile people is beyond me - if these were puppies would they still sympatise & excuse the hunts?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> Just picking up on a few of your points. It was a cubbing event. The B&SV hunt is a 'trail' hunt - I think we've already established what trail hunts are. What kind of person knocks some one down, seriously injuring them - doesn't even stop to find out if they are dead or alive, and carries on as normal? I imagine this is why the HSA highlighted what he did afterwards & his attack on a fellow huntsman. To show that hes NOT normal.
> 
> The original video was only released because the CPS refused to prosecute, they are now reviewing that decision. You saw one thing, I saw another & the huntsman claimed she deliberately jumped in front of his horse Imo it should be a jury that decides - the justice system will have failed Nid if she doesn't get her day in court. But then even when sabs are killed they don't get any justice. http://www.huntsabs.org.uk/index.ph...liberately-rides-over-saboteur-with-his-horse


Yes, it has been established on this thread what a 'trial' hunt is. But to know and to prove is not the same thing I'm afraid. Hence my argument that amendments need to be made to the Act to ensure that monitoring is made official and given official guidelines (and thus, hopefully, add a safety factor to monitoring and all involved).

My criticism of that video never said that the huntsman was not at fault. I just said that the video was not sufficient evidence to prosecute him.
As to my estimation of the huntsman involved, as I said, he doesn't appear to be a very nice man, but that is subjective and it is not up to me (or the producers of that video) to suggest that he is not 'normal'.

And of course, everyone deserves a fair shot at their day in court when they want to see justice served, but again, I don't think that a viral video is necessarily going to help Nid's case. I do of course wish her luck however.



noushka05 said:


> How anyone can be apolgists for these vile people is beyond me - if these were puppies would they still sympatise & excuse the hunts?


I don't think that anyone here is apologising for violent behaviour or barbaric behaviour.
It's just that official judgements are made on facts rather than feelings, and when facts are not always as clear cut as we would like them to be, that causes problems in getting justice served.

Pointing this out is not in any way sympathising with the hunt. It is just a case of trying to be objective.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Yes, it has been established on this thread what a 'trial' hunt is. But to know and to prove is not the same thing I'm afraid. Hence my argument that amendments need to be made to the Act to ensure that monitoring is made official and given official guidelines (and thus, hopefully, add a safety factor to monitoring and all involved).
> 
> My criticism of that video never said that the huntsman was not at fault. I just said that the video was not sufficient evidence to prosecute him.
> As to my estimation of the huntsman involved, as I said, he doesn't appear to be a very nice man, but that is subjective and it is not up to me (or the producers of that video) to suggest that he is not 'normal'.
> ...


I do. There are blatant hunt apologists on here. You will never see them posting any thing negative about these bloodthirsty wildlife criminals.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

On a lighter note


----------

