I used to oppose fox hunting. But, in the spirit of self-learning, I decided to find out more about it to ensure I was right in my opposition.
I had a long conversation with a supporter of hunts to understand his particular perspective. He was a gardener, living in a tiny, rented cottage within the grounds of a member of the House of Lords who took his hunting very seriously. He argued very persuasively that hunting benefits the countryside
I spoke to opponents and learned more about the harm that hunts do; they argued equally strongly that pfox hunting must be banned.
I spoke to farmers and learned more about the harm that foxes do; their point of view was crystal clear; foxes must be reduced in number.
I attended a hunt (as part of the rabble that drinks Port and waves the riders off, rather than someone squeezing into ridiculous clothes and forcing a horse to carry my weight round the countryside) to understand more about the mix of people that enjoy hunting. My prejudicial view that hunting is just for toffs was wrong.
I invited a hunter (are they called hunters?) over for drinks so I could grill him. He's a High Court Judge (actually, quite a famous one so I won't name him). This was after the ban. He explained that the primary reason he hunted was that he enjoyed it (ie the exercise, the camaraderie, the fact it contributes to the local economy). I asked him to justify riding with dogs, even though hunting with dogs was banned. He said that he does drag hunts, but sometimes a dog will find a fox, hunt it down and kill it. That wasn't the purpose. I asked him if it was ever deliberate, ie did the hunt ever knowingly go after a fox, with dogs? He said that if he was ever riding in a hunt and he had any suspicion whatsoever that the hunt was intentionally going after foxes, he would turn his horse round and head home. He would not - could not - ever break the law. And he made it clear to the rest of the hunt that he would never do so - this was a tacit instruction for them never to consider deliberately going after foxes with dogs.
So, what did I conclude? I think foxes need to be culled to limit the harm they do; but there are more "humane" ways of doing it than hunting with dogs. I think hunting should be allowed because it's good for the countryside economy and good for the people that do it; but hunting for foxes with dogs is not justifiable.
I was mildly against the ban when it came in, in 2005: hunting gives a stimulus to rural economies and helps to reduce the detrimental effects of foxes. But I don't think there is any reason now to overturn the ban: fox numbers can be controlled without hunting with dogs, and hunters can enjoy their passtime - and the economic stimulus it provides - without having hounds rip foxes to shreds.
Last thing: it's really good to learn about a specific topic by talking to many of the people that are immediately impacted by it. I changed my mind about hunting (originally I was vehemently opposed to hunting; ultimately, I became a mild supporter. More people should take the time to find out more about it. I won't say that most people would reach the same conclusion I did. But it would be a very good thing if more people armed themselves with plenty of knowledge from both sides of the topic, as they would then have a good chance to come up with a better-informed decision and would also be able to use that knowledge to influence others. It would have been a far better exercise to run a referendum on this, than on Brexit.
I hate the idea of torturing animals in the name of sport.
It isn't a class issue, I know plenty of working class people who support and take part in Fox hunting.
It isn't a townie v bumpkin thing as lots of rural people oppose hunting. It just isn't a good idea to make your views too obvious. There are townies who go out to the country to join in. In fact when I lived in se london I had to see off some lads who came on to private land to dig out a foxes earth.
It definitely ain't about vermin control or the huntsmen wouldn't encourage foxes on to land to train their dogs to rip the pups apart and give the hunt some quarry.
If foxes are causing specific issues, which they certainly can, then deal with it humainly.
It's a sick past time that cannot be tolorated in a society that calls itself civilised.
Forelock tugging like that is part of the class system.
Some people still believe that fawning over the Lord of the Manor will get them somewhere in life.
Everything else in your post is spot on, especially the last line
How utterly ridiculous, nowadays it's far more likely to be the exact opposite.
What, the land owning classes are fawning over the lower orders? Haven't seen any of that since the Britpop era and even then it was cultural tourism
The self-appointed 'Guardians of the countryside'. I have attended foxhunts in Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex since the 1990s and have seen some sights. There's arrogance demonstrated by some of the hunt 'top brass' and cap-doffing deference shown by some of the hunt followers. Some of the latter are not able to keep up with the hunt and haven't a clue about what's going on. They offer support in some belief that they are preserving tradition. Lest anyone should think that the hunt ban holds fast, it does not. Some hunts go out during the midweek, hoping to avoid opposition and catch a fox. There's a need for greater enforcement of the law on this issue but the police, for the most part, aren't interested in providing officers....so now, as in the past, it's the hunt sabs that reduce / prevent the maiming and killing. Please don't believe that hunting is about the 'thrill of the chase'. When an exhausted fox goes to earth, the hunt doesn't give up. The terrier-men are called in and engage in a dig-out. The poor fox, dragged from its hole by a snarling terrier is, if alive, shot and held up as if a trophy...and is then thrown to the hounds. A British tradition...preserving values...This activity is seen as being of worth and merit by David Cameron and Theresa May. I suggest that Lifers don't afford them the opportunity of a free vote on hunting with dogs. If you're going to vote, why not vote for someone else?
My vote won't depend on a single rule, but I have to admit, historically I have been a conservative voter and May is testing my resolve. Big issue though, I can't see where Labour are going to get money from without damaging our economy further.
I used to oppose fox hunting. But, in the spirit of self-learning, I decided to find out more about it to ensure I was right in my opposition.
I had a long conversation with a supporter of hunts to understand his particular perspective. He was a gardener, living in a tiny, rented cottage within the grounds of a member of the House of Lords who took his hunting very seriously. He argued very persuasively that hunting benefits the countryside
I spoke to opponents and learned more about the harm that hunts do; they argued equally strongly that pfox hunting must be banned.
I spoke to farmers and learned more about the harm that foxes do; their point of view was crystal clear; foxes must be reduced in number.
I attended a hunt (as part of the rabble that drinks Port and waves the riders off, rather than someone squeezing into ridiculous clothes and forcing a horse to carry my weight round the countryside) to understand more about the mix of people that enjoy hunting. My prejudicial view that hunting is just for toffs was wrong.
I invited a hunter (are they called hunters?) over for drinks so I could grill him. He's a High Court Judge (actually, quite a famous one so I won't name him). This was after the ban. He explained that the primary reason he hunted was that he enjoyed it (ie the exercise, the camaraderie, the fact it contributes to the local economy). I asked him to justify riding with dogs, even though hunting with dogs was banned. He said that he does drag hunts, but sometimes a dog will find a fox, hunt it down and kill it. That wasn't the purpose. I asked him if it was ever deliberate, ie did the hunt ever knowingly go after a fox, with dogs? He said that if he was ever riding in a hunt and he had any suspicion whatsoever that the hunt was intentionally going after foxes, he would turn his horse round and head home. He would not - could not - ever break the law. And he made it clear to the rest of the hunt that he would never do so - this was a tacit instruction for them never to consider deliberately going after foxes with dogs.
So, what did I conclude? I think foxes need to be culled to limit the harm they do; but there are more "humane" ways of doing it than hunting with dogs. I think hunting should be allowed because it's good for the countryside economy and good for the people that do it; but hunting for foxes with dogs is not justifiable.
I was mildly against the ban when it came in, in 2005: hunting gives a stimulus to rural economies and helps to reduce the detrimental effects of foxes. But I don't think there is any reason now to overturn the ban: fox numbers can be controlled without hunting with dogs, and hunters can enjoy their passtime - and the economic stimulus it provides - without having hounds rip foxes to shreds.
Last thing: it's really good to learn about a specific topic by talking to many of the people that are immediately impacted by it. I changed my mind about hunting (originally I was vehemently opposed to hunting; ultimately, I became a mild supporter. More people should take the time to find out more about it. I won't say that most people would reach the same conclusion I did. But it would be a very good thing if more people armed themselves with plenty of knowledge from both sides of the topic, as they would then have a good chance to come up with a better-informed decision and would also be able to use that knowledge to influence others. It would have been a far better exercise to run a referendum on this, than on Brexit.
Well that's a contradiction.
Of course those involved in this barbaric act will say it helps their economy!
Draghunting is a far better thing for them to do, the dogs require more skill as the smell has not been laid by a an animal scarpering for it's life therefore their noses need to be on point... But they can't settle for that, these scumbags want blood because they're savages and think themselves above the law and well above the rest of us.
Why do foxes have to be culled? If something causes us the slightest economic inconvenience, is it fair to cull it?
(I've heard culling arguments more sympathetically if they refer to, for example, mustelid culling in protected seabird nesting sites, but that is expressly done to sustain ecology rather than save the odd lamb)
I used to oppose fox hunting. But, in the spirit of self-learning, I decided to find out more about it to ensure I was right in my opposition.
I had a long conversation with a supporter of hunts to understand his particular perspective. He was a gardener, living in a tiny, rented cottage within the grounds of a member of the House of Lords who took his hunting very seriously. He argued very persuasively that hunting benefits the countryside
I spoke to opponents and learned more about the harm that hunts do; they argued equally strongly that pfox hunting must be banned.
I spoke to farmers and learned more about the harm that foxes do; their point of view was crystal clear; foxes must be reduced in number.
I attended a hunt (as part of the rabble that drinks Port and waves the riders off, rather than someone squeezing into ridiculous clothes and forcing a horse to carry my weight round the countryside) to understand more about the mix of people that enjoy hunting. My prejudicial view that hunting is just for toffs was wrong.
I invited a hunter (are they called hunters?) over for drinks so I could grill him. He's a High Court Judge (actually, quite a famous one so I won't name him). This was after the ban. He explained that the primary reason he hunted was that he enjoyed it (ie the exercise, the camaraderie, the fact it contributes to the local economy). I asked him to justify riding with dogs, even though hunting with dogs was banned. He said that he does drag hunts, but sometimes a dog will find a fox, hunt it down and kill it. That wasn't the purpose. I asked him if it was ever deliberate, ie did the hunt ever knowingly go after a fox, with dogs? He said that if he was ever riding in a hunt and he had any suspicion whatsoever that the hunt was intentionally going after foxes, he would turn his horse round and head home. He would not - could not - ever break the law. And he made it clear to the rest of the hunt that he would never do so - this was a tacit instruction for them never to consider deliberately going after foxes with dogs.
So, what did I conclude? I think foxes need to be culled to limit the harm they do; but there are more "humane" ways of doing it than hunting with dogs. I think hunting should be allowed because it's good for the countryside economy and good for the people that do it; but hunting for foxes with dogs is not justifiable.
I was mildly against the ban when it came in, in 2005: hunting gives a stimulus to rural economies and helps to reduce the detrimental effects of foxes. But I don't think there is any reason now to overturn the ban: fox numbers can be controlled without hunting with dogs, and hunters can enjoy their passtime - and the economic stimulus it provides - without having hounds rip foxes to shreds.
Last thing: it's really good to learn about a specific topic by talking to many of the people that are immediately impacted by it. I changed my mind about hunting (originally I was vehemently opposed to hunting; ultimately, I became a mild supporter. More people should take the time to find out more about it. I won't say that most people would reach the same conclusion I did. But it would be a very good thing if more people armed themselves with plenty of knowledge from both sides of the topic, as they would then have a good chance to come up with a better-informed decision and would also be able to use that knowledge to influence others. It would have been a far better exercise to run a referendum on this, than on Brexit.
Well that's a contradiction.
Of course those involved in this barbaric act will say it helps their economy!
Draghunting is a far better thing for them to do, the dogs require more skill as the smell has not been laid by a an animal scarpering for it's life therefore their noses need to be on point... But they can't settle for that, these scumbags want blood because they're savages and think themselves above the law and well above the rest of us.
I don't think it's a contradiction at all. I looked at many of the aspects of fox hunting, both pro- and anti-. And I concluded that, on balance, I was a supporter of killing foxes, but did not accept that doing so with dogs was justifiable, when there are other means of reducing numbers.
People who made money out of fox hunting have a perfect right to argue that it helps the rural economy. You can't blame anyone for wanting to protect an income stream.
I also think you're wrong to say "these scumbags... think themselves above the law" in response to a post where I have spelled out exactly how a High Court Judge reconciles his hunting with the need to protect the law. He wanted to hunt but was prevented from doing so by the law; a law which he was prepared to go to the nth degree to uphold. That's the definition of someone *not* above the law.
Some people want a law changed. It's only right for those people to have an opportunity to state their case. For what it's worth, I finished my post by saying I don't' think there's any reason to overturn the ban.
Why do foxes have to be culled? If something causes us the slightest economic inconvenience, is it fair to cull it?
(I've heard culling arguments more sympathetically if they refer to, for example, mustelid culling in protected seabird nesting sites, but that is expressly done to sustain ecology rather than save the odd lamb)
If you're a farmer and foxes prey on your livestock, you might want to cull them. In the same way, if you own a take away restaurant, you might prefer the area around it not to be over-populated by rats.
Farmers protect their livestock from predators by setting traps or shooting. Rat poison and traps are used to kill rodents.
However, it's now illegal to use packs of dogs to hunt down and kill foxes.
Theresa May's lust for the reintroduction of fox hunting is misleading. You can hunt foxes now. You ride on horses and chase after them. You can catch them and hill them. You can even allow your dog to hunt them down and kill them. What she wants is the abolishment of the Act that prohibits the use of packs of dogs to hunt down foxes (or deer, mink or hares) and kill them. In my view there's no new reason to support the lifting of the ban.
How many people really depend on the hunt for their living? Not as many as depended on pubs before the smoking ban scuppered literally thousands of them. Where were the objections from the high and mighty on employment grounds then? Miners, steelworkers and people in hundreds of other obsolete industries are told to "get on their bike". Objections on "rural economic" grounds just don't hold water.
How many people really depend on the hunt for their living? Not as many as depended on pubs before the smoking ban scuppered literally thousands of them. Where were the objections from the high and mighty on employment grounds then? Miners, steelworkers and people in hundreds of other obsolete industries are told to "get on their bike". Objections on "rural economic" grounds just don't hold water.
I was going to post something similar but you have summed it up perfectly as usual.
Chizz - thanks for your post setting out your findings and I guess finding peace with yourself on the decision that fox hunting is not necessary. I'm also pleased to hear that a top judge would not hunt a fox with hounds and if the hunt did he would turn around. As he quite rightly points out it's illegal. But this man's profession leads him to do the right thing otherwise he would be ridiculed as a judge. However, I have also witnessed a conversation with the daughter of a very senior and notable politician when asked about the hunt said she just ignores it and carries on hunting foxes with hounds. A different attitude but sometimes typical of the higher echelons thinking they are above the law. An earlier poster alluded to the lack of policing a hunt and this is where double standards land especially with the money involved not only the cost of participating in the hunt but mainly the people that hunt that have money and the power association. I have listened to these people talk casually chatting about hunting and I have yet to hear of a convincing argument to revoke the law against fox hunting. I can't believe the PM at this time wants to put it back on the table other than from pressures to appease the high echelons that currently support her. A very small minority but powerful in terms of financially backing the Conservative party.
For fox sake ban hunting - it's so last century and inhumane.
So part of your animal protection involves distressing dozens of dogs (dogs who struggle to complete tasks they have been trained to complete or receive confusing messages experience stress and depression) in order to protect one fox?
Yeah, no thanks, rather you stayed home and watched The Animals of Farthing Wood, less likely to needlessly harm dogs.
So part of your animal protection involves distressing dozens of dogs (dogs who struggle to complete tasks they have been trained to complete or receive confusing messages experience stress and depression) in order to protect one fox?
Yeah, no thanks, rather you stayed home and watched The Animals of Farthing Wood, less likely to needlessly harm dogs.
I believe you now when you said on another thread that you were on a big wind up.
I thought @Anna_Kissed 's description of how "sabs" disrupt the hunt was really interesting, never really thought about it before but sounds like lots of thought and effort go into impeding this barbaric ritual.
So part of your animal protection involves distressing dozens of dogs (dogs who struggle to complete tasks they have been trained to complete or receive confusing messages experience stress and depression) in order to protect one fox?
Yeah, no thanks, rather you stayed home and watched The Animals of Farthing Wood, less likely to needlessly harm dogs.
I believe you now when you said on another thread that you were on a big wind up.
The only possible reason for your comments.
Dogs genuinely experience depression if they fail tasks. Dogs in employment are regularly given dummy exercises (e.g. drug sniffer dogs presented with hidden drug cases) where they experience success in order to prevent mental anguish. It's well documented.
Once again a case of you butting in on a topic you never bother researching. Maybe stop following me around this website like a boring obsessive. You never seem to post except to post some snarky, pointless remark in my direction.
How many people really depend on the hunt for their living? Not as many as depended on pubs before the smoking ban scuppered literally thousands of them. Where were the objections from the high and mighty on employment grounds then? Miners, steelworkers and people in hundreds of other obsolete industries are told to "get on their bike". Objections on "rural economic" grounds just don't hold water.
I don't think we should be so quick to write-off the economic argument. In Gloucestershire there's a bloke that makes and refurbishes saddles, whilst on the outskirts of Cambridge there's a little tourist shop that does rather a good trade in selling those little horse-brass things to American tourists. Not to mention how the trade in red felt material would collapse without everyone wearing those silly hunting jackets.
I'm not sure how I feel about someone wilfully disrupting the communication between a stranger and his dog when they are not breaking the law. You wouldn't get away with distracting a stranger's child away from a park even if your intentions were not evil.
I'm not sure how I feel about someone wilfully disrupting the communication between a stranger and his dog when they are not breaking the law. You wouldn't get away with distracting a stranger's child away from a park even if your intentions were not evil.
Incidentally, I wonder what peoples views are on one of the most widely practiced past times across all walks of life....... fishing?
Hooking a barbed wire hook through a fishes mouth and pulling it from the river is pretty barbaric too - but we never hear anything like as much about it. Not every fish is put back so that cant be the reason.
As I have said before, I am not pro or against tbh with either - but do wonder how much of it is class war rather than animal rights.
Comments
How many convictions have there been?
I would guess, very few.
Just like the "middle lane hog" law, it was passed to appease a section of society with no proper plan to enforce it.
I had a long conversation with a supporter of hunts to understand his particular perspective. He was a gardener, living in a tiny, rented cottage within the grounds of a member of the House of Lords who took his hunting very seriously. He argued very persuasively that hunting benefits the countryside
I spoke to opponents and learned more about the harm that hunts do; they argued equally strongly that pfox hunting must be banned.
I spoke to farmers and learned more about the harm that foxes do; their point of view was crystal clear; foxes must be reduced in number.
I attended a hunt (as part of the rabble that drinks Port and waves the riders off, rather than someone squeezing into ridiculous clothes and forcing a horse to carry my weight round the countryside) to understand more about the mix of people that enjoy hunting. My prejudicial view that hunting is just for toffs was wrong.
I invited a hunter (are they called hunters?) over for drinks so I could grill him. He's a High Court Judge (actually, quite a famous one so I won't name him). This was after the ban. He explained that the primary reason he hunted was that he enjoyed it (ie the exercise, the camaraderie, the fact it contributes to the local economy). I asked him to justify riding with dogs, even though hunting with dogs was banned. He said that he does drag hunts, but sometimes a dog will find a fox, hunt it down and kill it. That wasn't the purpose. I asked him if it was ever deliberate, ie did the hunt ever knowingly go after a fox, with dogs? He said that if he was ever riding in a hunt and he had any suspicion whatsoever that the hunt was intentionally going after foxes, he would turn his horse round and head home. He would not - could not - ever break the law. And he made it clear to the rest of the hunt that he would never do so - this was a tacit instruction for them never to consider deliberately going after foxes with dogs.
So, what did I conclude? I think foxes need to be culled to limit the harm they do; but there are more "humane" ways of doing it than hunting with dogs. I think hunting should be allowed because it's good for the countryside economy and good for the people that do it; but hunting for foxes with dogs is not justifiable.
I was mildly against the ban when it came in, in 2005: hunting gives a stimulus to rural economies and helps to reduce the detrimental effects of foxes. But I don't think there is any reason now to overturn the ban: fox numbers can be controlled without hunting with dogs, and hunters can enjoy their passtime - and the economic stimulus it provides - without having hounds rip foxes to shreds.
Last thing: it's really good to learn about a specific topic by talking to many of the people that are immediately impacted by it. I changed my mind about hunting (originally I was vehemently opposed to hunting; ultimately, I became a mild supporter. More people should take the time to find out more about it. I won't say that most people would reach the same conclusion I did. But it would be a very good thing if more people armed themselves with plenty of knowledge from both sides of the topic, as they would then have a good chance to come up with a better-informed decision and would also be able to use that knowledge to influence others. It would have been a far better exercise to run a referendum on this, than on Brexit.
Of course those involved in this barbaric act will say it helps their economy!
Draghunting is a far better thing for them to do, the dogs require more skill as the smell has not been laid by a an animal scarpering for it's life therefore their noses need to be on point... But they can't settle for that, these scumbags want blood because they're savages and think themselves above the law and well above the rest of us.
(I've heard culling arguments more sympathetically if they refer to, for example, mustelid culling in protected seabird nesting sites, but that is expressly done to sustain ecology rather than save the odd lamb)
People who made money out of fox hunting have a perfect right to argue that it helps the rural economy. You can't blame anyone for wanting to protect an income stream.
I also think you're wrong to say "these scumbags... think themselves above the law" in response to a post where I have spelled out exactly how a High Court Judge reconciles his hunting with the need to protect the law. He wanted to hunt but was prevented from doing so by the law; a law which he was prepared to go to the nth degree to uphold. That's the definition of someone *not* above the law.
Some people want a law changed. It's only right for those people to have an opportunity to state their case. For what it's worth, I finished my post by saying I don't' think there's any reason to overturn the ban.
Farmers protect their livestock from predators by setting traps or shooting. Rat poison and traps are used to kill rodents.
However, it's now illegal to use packs of dogs to hunt down and kill foxes.
Theresa May's lust for the reintroduction of fox hunting is misleading. You can hunt foxes now. You ride on horses and chase after them. You can catch them and hill them. You can even allow your dog to hunt them down and kill them. What she wants is the abolishment of the Act that prohibits the use of packs of dogs to hunt down foxes (or deer, mink or hares) and kill them. In my view there's no new reason to support the lifting of the ban.
I am happy to say that, yet again, this is a Boris policy I am opposed to!
I have listened to these people talk casually chatting about hunting and I have yet to hear of a convincing argument to revoke the law against fox hunting. I can't believe the PM at this time wants to put it back on the table other than from pressures to appease the high echelons that currently support her. A very small minority but powerful in terms of financially backing the Conservative party.
For fox sake ban hunting - it's so last century and inhumane.
Yeah, no thanks, rather you stayed home and watched The Animals of Farthing Wood, less likely to needlessly harm dogs.
The only possible reason for your comments.
Once again a case of you butting in on a topic you never bother researching. Maybe stop following me around this website like a boring obsessive. You never seem to post except to post some snarky, pointless remark in my direction.
Hooking a barbed wire hook through a fishes mouth and pulling it from the river is pretty barbaric too - but we never hear anything like as much about it. Not every fish is put back so that cant be the reason.
As I have said before, I am not pro or against tbh with either - but do wonder how much of it is class war rather than animal rights.