|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 10:46:13 GMT
The drag hunting claim is a ruse. They drag a rag soaked in fox urine. Therefore, the hounds will remain trained to follow true fox scent. There are no hounds in use now that were in use prior to the ban. Any other scent could have been used but, given the hunts ultimately believe that the ban will be repealed, they continue to use fox urine in order that the hounds remain capable of hunting foxes. Thereafter, any kill is claimed to be accidental. And hunts seem to have rather a lot of accidental kills. There are indicators around when a trail is laid, where it is laid and how it is laid that often demonstrate it is done simply as a show, to make out that they are trail hunting. Supposed "hound training" or "hound exercising" are often covers for fox hunting, particularly at this time of year, when the hunt are, in fact, out cubbing. I cannot dispute that some hunts might genuinely trail hunt but I doubt many are purely trail hunting and I absolutely doubt, until I see solid evidence otherwise, that foxes are being actively hunted by dogs by most hunts.
Thuggish behaviour is evident on both sides and I would say that it often goes well beyond self defence. Granted, the sabs absolutely do not help their cause more often than not but the hunts have some members who have shown themselves perfectly capable of violence, criminal damage and intimidation.
The police are coming under increased pressure to deal with fox hunting. The law is, it seems, being widely flouted. Our own PCC has stated that his force will investigate. As such, along with many colleagues, I get to spend weekends over the hunting season traipsing down rural lanes trying to ensure as best we can that any evidence of illegal hunting is being gathered, together with trying to deal with complaints from both sides of the argument about the other and investigating allegations being made. It is time consuming and extremely challenging, not least the evidential requirements needed for a prosecution. The CPS, LACS and the RSPCA have all found out just how much evidence is required to meet the burden of proof and how difficult it is to get that chain of evidence. Not all police forces (in fact hardly any) pay hunting much attention at all but ours does, as best it can, balanced against all the other demands placed on a police force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 10:47:24 GMT
My Dad has a story from the late 70s about a hunt - he was travelling down the A68 north of Corbridge and on the section where you have a sequence of fairly extreme up and down bits he came across one of the blind brows to discover a full hunt crossing just after the summit. He had been 'making progress' (as much as you could in a Maxi 1750) and was never sure how he managed to miss everything but reckoned he left a scattered hunt in his wake! As frequently still happens. So they laid a trail across a busy A road? Doubt it... |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 10:52:32 GMT
I imagine they do encounter them by accident. Hard not to not galumph around the countryside for a couple of hours with a pack of hounds bred over centuries to sniff out foxes and not actually encounter a fox. There are no shortage of them. There were three great fat bastard foxes yickering (it was an odd noise for which that is the best description I can come up with) in our back drive about 10pm last night until I chased after them chucking gravel. I've actually had to move the car because the ripping of the cover was getting worse - I've no idea why for 10 months, it was fine with no rips, just muddy footprints and now suddenly I'm getting ripping. A heavier fox with bigger claws perhaps. Fortunately our neighbours are away for a couple of weeks so I've been able to park the car away from the wall in the turning area and maybe that'll wean them off the habit for the time being. Can you put some of those plastic spike strips on top of the fence/wall beside the car? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 10:59:07 GMT
The drag hunting claim is a ruse. They drag a rag soaked in fox urine. Therefore, the hounds will remain trained to follow true fox scent. There are no hounds in use now that were in use prior to the ban. Any other scent could have been used but, given the hunts ultimately believe that the ban will be repealed, they continue to use fox urine in order that the hounds remain capable of hunting foxes. Thereafter, any kill is claimed to be accidental. And hunts seem to have rather a lot of accidental kills. There are indicators around when a trail is laid, where it is laid and how it is laid that often demonstrate it is done simply as a show, to make out that they are trail hunting. Supposed "hound training" or "hound exercising" are often covers for fox hunting, particularly at this time of year, when the hunt are, in fact, out cubbing. I cannot dispute that some hunts might genuinely trail hunt but I doubt many are purely trail hunting and I absolutely doubt, until I see solid evidence otherwise, that foxes are being actively hunted by dogs by most hunts. Thuggish behaviour is evident on both sides and I would say that it often goes well beyond self defence. Granted, the sabs absolutely do not help their cause more often than not but the hunts have some members who have shown themselves perfectly capable of violence, criminal damage and intimidation. Pretty much my experience exactly. When I'm up staying in the village with my mother-in-law I just don't attend the hunt meets outside the pub as I can't stand the sham of it all and wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 10:59:13 GMT
I would counter that any thuggish behaviour from hunts is reactive rather than initial aggression. Drag hunting is generally bullshit? Sorry, but that is bollocks. If that were true then the RSPCA’s private prosecutions would have been a lot more successful. I imagine the reason the CPS don’t want anything to do with hunt prosecutions is that there is no real evidence of illegal activity. I am sure illegal hunting does go on, but that it is the exception rather than the rule. I would imagine the the police have better things to do as well. Certainly up our way the "drag hunts" are thinly-veiled real hunts. To be honest they don't really try to hide the fact. As you say the police have better things to do and turn a blind eye. Prosecutions are notoriously difficult as the drag hunts usually encounter a fox by "accident" and then all bets are off. It's not necessarily that "all bets are off" but recording the right chain of events that would disprove a claimed accidental kill or prove an offence of hunting is extremely difficult. There are a number of challenges, not least locations, distances of view, availability of quality video recordings, decent witness accounts, etc. All that before you even get to the CPS and Court. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 3, 2017 11:03:33 GMT
My Dad has a story from the late 70s about a hunt - he was travelling down the A68 north of Corbridge and on the section where you have a sequence of fairly extreme up and down bits he came across one of the blind brows to discover a full hunt crossing just after the summit. He had been 'making progress' (as much as you could in a Maxi 1750) and was never sure how he managed to miss everything but reckoned he left a scattered hunt in his wake! As frequently still happens. So they laid a trail across a busy A road? Doubt it... I doubt they laid a trail across a busy A road - it was the 1970s they would be hunting a real fox. It was more that they decided to cross a busy A road over the brow of a blind summit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 11:03:43 GMT
I used to love seeing the hunt come through our village as a child but now I know what goes on, despite the law not allowing it, I have no time for them at all. The wider public generally turn out in their droves, too, for the xmas period hunts yet, if asked if they agree with foxes being ripped to bits by dogs in this day and age, the majority would probably be disgusted. It's just not on most people's radar and I think it's fair to say that in rural areas it is simply seen as tradition and supported as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 11:04:24 GMT
As frequently still happens. So they laid a trail across a busy A road? Doubt it... I doubt they laid a trail across a busy A road - it was the 1970s they would be hunting a real fox. It was more that they decided to cross a busy A road over the brow of a blind summit.
Sorry, I was referring to it still occurring today, exactly because the hunts are still hunting foxes. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 3, 2017 12:23:32 GMT
The wider public generally turn out in their droves, too, for the xmas period hunts yet, if asked if they agree with foxes being ripped to bits by dogs in this day and age, the majority would probably be disgusted. Why is "this day and age" any different from the past? You mean that today is an age where a good chunk of the population doesn't realise that a plastic-wrapped chicken breast was once really part of a living chicken and is so divorced from the realities of nature that it gets put off by that? That's not progress in my book.
Further, I do not see that those who are disgusted by it have any right to impose their view on those who are not disgusted by it. After all, outrage ensues when those who are disgusted by eg homosexuality try to legislate against it.
So I'm afraid I firmly take the view it was very bad law wrongly enacted to satisfy a vocal minority of animal rights activists and as a smokescreen from the Iraq war. It's shameful that as a nation, at the time we got more excited about the hunting of foxes (at best a minority activity that impacts almost none of the lives of those who get fussed about it) than the invasion of Iraq.
That's not, however, to say I support rescinding the ban. I don't. First, I really don't care enough, and secondly and more importantly, I can't condone wasting yet more parliamentary time on such a ridiculously irrelevant topic. But do I think that the Police should not waste their time on it, given scarce resources. When it comes to crimes where the victim is a fox and crimes where the victim is human, I'm afraid the latter should win every single time.
Animals are not humans and it is preposterous to suggest that they should have the same rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 12:39:22 GMT
I would have thought that the issue is not that they should have equivalent rights, but they have some rights. Have you heard of (or read) The Better Angels of our Nature, by Steven Pinker? The chapter on the rights revolutions is very interesting.
You're spot on about denial though - I suspect there would be a massive increase in vegetarianism if people had to kill their own food, or at least bear witness to the processes involved. We are mollycoddled by distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 13:09:48 GMT
I don't support dog fighting or bear baiting with dogs. I similarly don't believe in the digging out of foxes and throwing them to hounds to be ripped apart. I also don't believe I belong to a vocal minority who oppose such practices.
I do believe in farming practices that contribute to the maintenance of the countryside and rural economy, and the humane slaughter of animals raised in that environment for food.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Oct 3, 2017 14:04:52 GMT
I don't support dog fighting or bear baiting with dogs. I similarly don't believe in the digging out of foxes and throwing them to hounds to be ripped apart. I also don't believe I belong to a vocal minority who oppose such practices. I do believe in farming practices that contribute to the maintenance of the countryside and rural economy, and the humane slaughter of animals raised in that environment for food. +1. And that's the difference. I trust entirely that the meat I buy is from animals that have beendespatched humanely. Whether it happens that way or not is down to regulation and enforcement. Do those crowds that turn out for the spectacle of the hunt ALL support the hunting? I very much doubt it and I also very much doubt that many of them have thought about the gory bits of it. I totally stand by that comment. The law on fox hunting, as it stands, needs some relatively minor tweaking of the wording to become much more effective. Whilst I support the comment that those against don't have the right to enforce their views on those that do, neither do those in support have any more right to practice an illegal activity. |
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 3, 2017 14:19:11 GMT
It’s only illegal, if it can be proved. There has only been sufficient evidence to prove a small minority of cases. Innocent until proven guilty is how it is in the UK thank goodness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 14:32:38 GMT
It’s only illegal, if it can be proved. There has only been sufficient evidence to prove a small minority of cases. Innocent until proven guilty is how it is in the UK thank goodness. So far there have been over 430 successful prosecutions so if you're saying that's a small minority it would appear the problem is far worse than we thought. As Stu says a few tweaks to the law (particularly in Scotland) could make prosecutions less complicated. You have this bizarre situation where you can flush out the fox with dogs and drive it towards the guns to be shot but amazingly the shooters never manage to quite pull the trigger before the hounds get the fox. Funny that. |
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 3, 2017 14:41:39 GMT
I wasn’t aware there were that many. I stand corrected. I am with Racing. It’s a stupid law, badly thought out as your example above proves. ETA: I’m assuming you got that from here www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/ . That doesn’t specify fox hunting prosecutions from easier to prosecute cases such as coursing so the figure of 430 is in relation to all hunting with dogs, and not just fox hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 14:59:55 GMT
I wasn’t aware there were that many. I stand corrected. I am with Racing. It’s a stupid law, badly thought out as your example above proves. ETA: I’m assuming you got that from here www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/ . That doesn’t specify fox hunting prosecutions from easier to prosecute cases such as coursing so the figure of 430 is in relation to all hunting with dogs, and not just fox hunting. Are they not the same? Same outcome. Or is it a class thing - hunting with dogs by the proles = bad, hunting on horses by the gentry = good? And I'm well aware that not all those that hunt are gentry, but they are the most vocal. I would have more respect for the hunting fraternity if they were just honest and said; "hey we like riding our horses after hounds and watching them tear a fox apart, we like whole spectacle and the daubing of new members with the blood of the dead animal - it appeals to our human blood lust". |
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 3, 2017 15:02:35 GMT
I wasn’t aware there were that many. I stand corrected. I am with Racing. It’s a stupid law, badly thought out as your example above proves. ETA: I’m assuming you got that from here www.huntingact.org/prosecutions/summary/ . That doesn’t specify fox hunting prosecutions from easier to prosecute cases such as coursing so the figure of 430 is in relation to all hunting with dogs, and not just fox hunting. Are they not the same? Same outcome. Or is it a class thing - hunting with dogs by the proles = bad, hunting on horses by the gentry = good? And I'm well aware that not all those that hunt are gentry, but they are the most vocal. The only person who made it a class thing was Blair. We were talking about foxhunting, were we not? Coursing isn’t foxhunting. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 15:07:39 GMT
Are they not the same? Same outcome. Or is it a class thing - hunting with dogs by the proles = bad, hunting on horses by the gentry = good? And I'm well aware that not all those that hunt are gentry, but they are the most vocal. The only person who made it a class thing was Blair. We were talking about foxhunting, were we not? Coursing isn’t foxhunting. Like I said, what's the difference? The pikies round the corner from where I work have dog fights, they'll often catch stray dogs and throw them to their fighting dogs to train them to kill. They'll then pit their fighting dogs together and watch them tear into each other. It's their tradition, they bet large sums of money on it. If a dog is too injured to continue it is shot or strangled. What's the difference between that and fox hunting? If you support one it'd be hypocritical not to support the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 3, 2017 15:12:06 GMT
I'm sure it was perceived as a 'class thing' long before Blair came anywhere near power.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 3, 2017 15:15:30 GMT
The only person who made it a class thing was Blair. We were talking about foxhunting, were we not? Coursing isn’t foxhunting. Like I said, what's the difference? The pikies round the corner from where I work have dog fights, they'll often catch stray dogs and throw them to their fighting dogs to train them to kill. They'll then pit their fighting dogs together and watch them tear into each other. It's their tradition, they bet large sums of money on it. If a dog is too injured to continue it is shot or strangled. What's the difference between that and fox hunting? If you support one it'd be hypocritical not to support the other. The difference is that coursing doesn’t involve foxes - we were specifically talking about foxhunting. Dog fighting was illegal well before the Hunting Act came in and is very different to hunting in any of its forms. Hunting was initially for food and then for pest and population control. Dog fighting is purely for the pleasure that certain people get from watching two animals fight it out to the death so I am afraid I will have to disagree with your last statement and leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 3, 2017 15:31:31 GMT
Like I said, what's the difference? The pikies round the corner from where I work have dog fights, they'll often catch stray dogs and throw them to their fighting dogs to train them to kill. They'll then pit their fighting dogs together and watch them tear into each other. It's their tradition, they bet large sums of money on it. If a dog is too injured to continue it is shot or strangled. What's the difference between that and fox hunting? If you support one it'd be hypocritical not to support the other. The difference is that coursing doesn’t involve foxes - we were specifically talking about foxhunting. Dog fighting was illegal well before the Hunting Act came in and is very different to hunting in any of its forms. Hunting was initially for food and then for pest and population control. Dog fighting is purely for the pleasure that certain people get from watching two animals fight it out to the death so I am afraid I will have to disagree with your last statement and leave it there. Since fox hunting has evolved so that it has become purely for pleasure that certain people get from watching two animals fight to the death (where one always wins) perhaps it's best it does stay in the past with dog fighting and we move on as a species. I'm happy to move on from this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Oct 3, 2017 15:42:56 GMT
Its often the same folk that get their knickers in a twist over fox hunting that also think it great you can buy a whole chicken for less then £4. Me, I eat cheap chicken and continue to support the hunt, Anyway what will people do for placemats if we don't repel the fox hunting ban
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 3, 2017 16:36:18 GMT
I would have thought that the issue is not that they should have equivalent rights, but they have some rights. Have you heard of (or read) The Better Angels of our Nature, by Steven Pinker? The chapter on the rights revolutions is very interesting. You're spot on about denial though - I suspect there would be a massive increase in vegetarianism if people had to kill their own food, or at least bear witness to the processes involved. We are mollycoddled by distance. I have neither heard of it previously nor read it. But it sounds interesting so thank you for the recommendation.
My mother's parents farmed. We had pet dogs and cats growing up which I loved dearly. I studied Environmental Biology at university. I watch nature documentaries avidly. I find nature and wildlife fascinating and amazing. I am generally a soft touch with animals. However, notwithstanding all of that (or probably because of it) I simply refuse to be excessively sentimental about animals and I generally find the animal rights movement perverse in both its logic and motivations.
That's not to say I in any way condone wanton cruelty to animals, particularly defenceless ones. I switched off American Psycho at the point near the start where he kills the dog. Harming or mistreating animals for pleasure is simply sadistic and should be illegal, as should inhumane farming practices. But that is very distinct from practices such as hunting, shooting and fishing.
|
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 3, 2017 17:05:08 GMT
The difference is that coursing doesn’t involve foxes - we were specifically talking about foxhunting. Dog fighting was illegal well before the Hunting Act came in and is very different to hunting in any of its forms. Hunting was initially for food and then for pest and population control. Dog fighting is purely for the pleasure that certain people get from watching two animals fight it out to the death so I am afraid I will have to disagree with your last statement and leave it there. (where one always wins) perhaps it's best it does stay in the past with dog fighting and we move on as a species. I'm happy to move on from this topic. Fair enough, but I will say this: It isn’t about that at all for a lot of people - I would say the majority of the field followers - it was never about that for me as I stated a long while ago. Tarring all hunt followers with the same brush is unfair. Stu addresses that issue further up although it doesn’t disgust me. I don’t have a problem with any form of hunting. Dog fighting isn’t hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2017 12:07:47 GMT
Ok, been away for a few days and this morning discovered that the foxes have notched their vandalism up a gear by ripping a gash in the cover and having a gnaw on the roof aerial.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2017 12:08:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 12:27:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 12:50:08 GMT
Coursing, hares and rabbits? I agree sweeping generalisations work far less often than not and while landed gentry are better represented than not that would seem to me to be because they would own the land hunted by and large. My dad was a butcher and as a small child I was exposed to animal slaughter and butchery (Smithfield market). My neighbour upstairs is someone from a much earlier generation and supports hunts vigorously with no tolerance whatsoever for fox or badger population. She states that these animals are vermin damaging crops and farmed animals for the sake of doing so. She challenged me to find one animal that does as much damage for no reason or compassion for other animals and I gave her Homo Sapiens. She thinks that is different as WE have a right to do what we want/need to.
I know, I am weird but I believe that ALL species have a right to live without interference, peacefully. There is a problem with animals reared for slaughter but as long as the slaughter is humanely done accept it. Yep, that old contradiction is alive and well here too and periodically give up eating meat for a while. How about sport fishing which is likely to be the next target?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 6, 2017 13:08:45 GMT
ALL species have a right to live without interference, peacefully. This is all I ask of the fox. But the bugger insists on interfering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 13:38:34 GMT
Fox parcours perhaps?
|
|
