Hunting ban in the UK - Updated: it's now official. [Archive]

gothedistance

Sep. 15, 2004, 05:18 AM

Oh, so true. So true. An Irish friend of mine (who hunted for years in Ireland, and now hunts here) said the same thing. Foxhunting is highly elitist in England, she said, which is most of the problem.

I read the bill on the Parliment website. It was so convoluted and confusing and included a LOT more about hare coursing than foxhunting. What I found really funny (and so strange it was hilarious) was this passage as a legitimate defense for someone brought up for charges if this ban takes effect ...

"...that reasonable steps were taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the fox, hare or rabbit would be shot dead." What a loophole! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And under the Scottish ban do you know if you consume the fox after the hunt, then foxhunting is perfectly ligitimate?! BUT you can't sell the fox for human consumption because that would be a punishable offense.

Too strange for me to fathom. Glad I hunt here in the good 'ol USA where our gun lobby will taken the entire population down before hunting would ever be outlawed. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (I read that comment on one of those on-line police forums and about died laughing. One cop said he never heard of any fox hunting in the US. Deer, bear, elk, etc, yes, but not fox. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Also read on that forum that statistics say that you have a better chance of being shot by a fat cop if you run from a crime. Words of wisdom to remember! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif)

Anyway, back to the topic --Like every law-abiding citizen I carry my hunting license in my jacket pocket, yet I thoroughly enjoy the fact that our native fox are crafty enough to forever give the hounds the slip, and that they never have to worry about being dug from their earth by those nasty little terriers.

Foxhunt4me

Sep. 15, 2004, 10:32 AM

"I thought the English were more intelligent than that "

I dont think we are any brighter on the intelligence curve here just behind the times.

Look at Iowa - where Dove hunting was again outlawed - there are millions of the dang things but AR activists lobbied politicians - its happening all over - check out :

http://saova.org/

This is a good group to support.

We will let the PETA / HSUS / anti hunters / anti gunners nibble away at our shoes here if we dont stay on top of things.

You bet foxhunting is the easiest target because people are actually having FUN doing this even if they dont catch the fox !

You dont think there is class warfare here? Listen to the rhetoric of a certain political party that is always talking about 'the rich' well you know by their definition I am RICH - tell that to my bank account. I guess them Billionaires in that group arent 'rich'. The other hidden agend word is ' working people' well I think they mean that to mean a certain income group and below ( even if they NEVER worked in their life ) because I dont think they are referring to me even though I work more hours than the average hourly employee.

Keep you guard up, join the NRA and other groups that are working to protect our rights.

...BAN IT

Sep. 15, 2004, 10:47 AM

I dont see the point in hunting, it cruel and just not needed.

Plus by the way all the hunting people acted today you can really see what kind of people they are. willing to kill animals for sport ... willing to kill anything?

J Swan

Sep. 15, 2004, 11:03 AM

Thanks for the link to that site - I will definitely look into it.

It's such a shame that animal lovers confuse animal rights and animal welfare. Groups like PETA and HSUS prey on that - trust me. PETA should be on the list terrorist organizations.

I'm an animal welfare advocate - and still hunt, own guns and support those rights. Strangely enough - I'm a vegetarian.

I really did think the English were smart enough to figure out what the real problem is. Very sad.

silver

Sep. 15, 2004, 04:14 PM

The comparison that comes up a lot in the UK is with the miners strike (when Thatcher broke then unions). Several MPs have made comment son the TV basically saying, well we got screwed then so you guys can deal with it now.

There is a huge battle in the UK right now about building houses in greenbelt areas. I imagine there will be quite a few farms up for sale now.

J Swan

Sep. 15, 2004, 05:00 PM

Told ya so. It's all about money.

And the folks who use firearms to hunt are next. Mark my words.

Makes me sick. And entire industry and culture and tradition - gone.

Now here's a stupid question - in the US we'd be litigating this all the way to the Supreme Court on all sorts of theories.

What can they do in the UK? I admit to being somewhat ignorant of the appellate process.

Foxhunt4me

Sep. 15, 2004, 05:55 PM

They are a land that has lost its moral compass.

We still have one but its kinda messed up at times.

Funny to hear any sorry whining about the conduct of a few hunt supporters, those cowardly lowlife sabs in the UK have been damaging private property, terrorizing farmers , killing hounds and the like for years. Thats what happens when you have a land in which you do not have the right to bear arms or the right to protect youself or your property.

Moesha

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:29 AM

Honestly there is so much going on in this case...it stretched far into class systems and a much different way of thinking.

Honestly, I have found in England, that more people are "aware" of what goes on in their country and with their government than most people here in the U.S....maybe that is part of the "problem"........here for example the average citizen doesn't even care about what does not concern them directly...and surely the majority of people could care less about horseback riding at all here...but in England like in many parts of Europe people are simply more involved..maybe not in decision making or with the political power and clout interest groups here have...but are generally more apt to take sides on an issue and support it in some way.

This being said...a lot of people for whatever reason and I mean people of all levels of life..simply have a negative opinion of hunting in England..whether it is class based( which is ironic coming from wealthy or upwwardly mobile Londoners) or animal rights based...I can't tell you.
I love England, I love our house there and we plan on moving back to live..but like many of you I worry about the "door" this is opening..and the ramifications next....will I suddenly find myself defending my right to have a farm at all? Will showjumping come under the same scrutiny? Who knows?

T

Moesha

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:41 AM

One thing that would be interesting to add...I wonder if there is a way for someone more research savy...to find which major players/politicians were all for sending young people to the Gulf wars..and are supporting and fighting/pushing for this ban?

Just a thought?

BustersMom

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:50 AM

Yeah...we are real stealth hunters....a pack of hounds at full tongue followed by a huntsman blowing his horn and 25-50 riders on horseback sneeking up on a poor fox. Does anyone realize how few are actually caught and killed?

Moesha

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:54 AM

BustersMom..that is one point that I think so many involved in trying to ban hunting don't seem to understand....equating an afternoon of fox hunting to ninja massacre is ridiculous....what worried me so much is with the world in the state it is....why should this and topics like it bring so much passion in both governments and nations....how about we try to find ways to bring people together instead of tearing them apart and wasting energy.

BustersMom

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:57 AM

Moesha...well stated.

Equibrit

Sep. 16, 2004, 06:26 AM

This is the link to the commons information;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmvote/40915v01.htm

From the BEEB

Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 08:32 GMT 09:32 UK

MPs vote to ban hunting with dogs

A mass protest was held in Parliament Square
MPs have voted to ban hunting with dogs despite mass demonstrations and the debate in the House of Commons being interrupted by protesters.
The Bill's third reading was passed by 339 votes to 155 after Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael insisted the will of the elected chamber would prevail.

The government has said the bill will be pushed through if peers oppose it.

The Conservatives' rural affairs spokesman James Gray accused Labour of having an "Islingtonian outlook".

Peers warned

But any ban will not come into force until July 2006 after a suggested amendment to the Bill was passed by MPs by 342 votes to 15.

The government originally wanted to delay the enforcement of the ban until November 2006 to enable people working in hunting to readjust and for dogs to be rehomed.

The Bill has its first reading in the House of Lords on Thursday, but will not be debated by peers until next month.

During the debate, Mr Michael urged the Lords to behave democratically.

And he reiterated the government's intention to use the Parliament Act to push the bill through if it was rejected by peers: "I still hope that peers will engage with the Hunting Bill this time around.

"If they fail to do so the only way in which the matter can be properly resolved at this stage is for the will of this House to prevail under the provision of the Parliament Act."

With the world in the state it is in...people will not understand Labour's warped priorities

James Gray
Tory spokesman

Analysis: The real hunt battle starts
How did your MP vote?

He also urged hunt supporters not to defy any ban on the grounds that the use of the Parliament Act meant it was "unfair".

"That argument turns democracy on its head," he said.

"The rightness or the wrongness of a particular piece of legislation is always subject to argument in this House and our parliamentary processes are the means with which these issues are argued through in the legislative process.

"The Parliament Act is part of that legislative process and part of the structure of our democracy - used sparingly, used only under provocation."

But Conservative environment, food and rural affairs spokesman Mr Gray said: "I think the nation and the world as a whole will be looking at our procedures with some amazement and some horror.

'More cruel'

Mr Gray said: "With the world in the state it is in, with the million patients waiting for treatment on the NHS, with the Middle East and Iraq in turmoil, with Beslan and Darfur so much in our minds, people will not understand Labour's warped priorities and their fixation with the issue of banning hunting with hounds."

The ban would probably lead to an increase in the numbers of foxes being killed, he told MPs.

But they would be killed by poisoning, gassing, snaring and shooting which were "a great deal more cruel" than hunting, he warned.

Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Opik, one of the leaders of the group seeking a compromise solution, said the stalemate between the two Houses was an indication there was something "seriously wrong" with the Bill.

"The pro-ban lobby can win the vote today but they cannot pretend that by stifling the debate and ignoring the existence of alternative views they have won the argument," said Mr Opik.

'Elongated debate'

During the debate, James Paice for the Tories said the ban risked criminalising people who were usually thought to be valued members of the community.

Any hunting ban would be delayed to allow workers time to readjust

But Environment Minister Elliot Morley said the issue was a moral one.

"It is a nonsense to suggest it's an attack on rural society," he said. "It's a nonsense to suggest that every person who lives in the country supports hunting."

Labour former minister Gerald Kaufman said hunting had been the subject of "the fullest and most elongated debate" he had experienced in the Commons.

Backing the ban was "a vote against cruelty and callousness", he added.

This does not mean that the ban is law. What it does mean is that the bill is going to the Upper House (The House of Lords, where Peers sit) who are unlikely to rubber stamp it. Thats when the real pissfight begins!!!!!!!!!

imissvixen

Sep. 16, 2004, 06:39 AM

I find it ironic that in GB foxhunting is banned and in the US they let the assault weapons ban lapse. Human priorities these days are perverse.

Painted Wings

Sep. 16, 2004, 07:14 AM

I read somewhere that if it passes they are going to put hidden camera's in trees to catch illegal foxhunters. This may require a change in "Proper Hunt Attire" to add a disguise.

>By Al Webb
>THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>
>LONDON They've used them on the streets and highways, enraging thousands
>of motorists, and now they're going to install them on trees and fences, to
>the certain fury of hunters: Authorities in Britain have found a new use
>for spy cameras.
> The infuriating gadgets are envisioned as a key tool to enforce the
>law when, as the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair expects, the
>ancient English tradition of hunting with hounds is legally abolished.
> The government's immediate aim is to stop fox hunting, and to protect
>the foxes, the police are planning to use roadside-type spy cameras to
>catch the hunters, their horses and their hounds as they "tally-ho" their
>bounding way across the countryside.
>
> According to the Sunday Telegraph, the measure to turn the cameras
>into a new weapon in the class warfare that has simmered below the surface
>in Britain for centuries was agreed to at a secret meeting between Home
>Secretary David Blunkett and senior police officers in London last week.
> Under the scheme, the police will install modified versions of the
>speed cameras on trees, fences and hedgerows along known hunting routes to
>photograph hunt members as they pursue the foxes across the countryside.
> The Blair government said last week the move is intended to get its
>anti-hunting legislation through Parliament with alacrity. That is expected
>to happen Wednesday, when the House of Commons, dominated by Mr. Blair's
>Labor Party, gets ready to vote its certain approval.
> An aide to Mr. Blunkett said the home secretary was enthusiastic.
>"This is the sort of imaginative policing solution that we will need to be
>able to police this ban, without incurring massive extra costs."
> But some police, according to the Sunday Telegraph, aren't so sure
>about the savings that spy cameras could provide. Some police chiefs have
>told Mr. Blunkett that the price could reach $55 million and probably more.
> If the police's experience with speed cameras is anything to go by,
>the cameras could run much more. What began with a few strategically placed
>cameras at known danger "black spots" has burgeoned to many thousands of
>the yellow-box gadgets dotting the landscape.
> Furious motorists and other protesters have begun a form of guerrilla
>warfare against the devices. Speed cameras have been chopped down, pulled
>down with ropes and chains or run over and their replacements swiftly and
>equally maltreated.
> Paint has been smeared across their lenses, and powerful laser beams
>have been used to try to blind them. Others have been pelted with eggs and
>overripe fruit. Hundreds of motorists have taken their rebellion to the
>courts, costing police more time and more money.
> Hunting with hounds, anchored in hundreds of years of tradition, is in
>its own way just as contentious, pitting wealthy hunters, who view their
>hobby as a way to control the predators on their land, against poorer urban
>liberals, who view it as a rich man's hobby that amounts to nothing more
>than animal cruelty.
> Stances already are hardening, and critics predict that the spy
>cameras on trees, bushes and fences are certain to meet the same kinds of
>vandalism as the snappers on the highways.
> For hunters determined to continue the chase and minimize their
>chances of getting caught on film, one observer suggested balaclava,
>knitted hats that cover the face.

Chaser

Sep. 16, 2004, 07:17 AM

Some recent figures on the fox population in the UK and number of foxes killed:

IC Wales (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/1000farming/tm_objectid=14514636&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=divided-view-of-new-hunt-figures-name_page.html)

"Divided view of new hunt figures Aug 10 2004"

Steve Dube, The Western Mail

NEW research suggesting the British fox population has remained stable for the past 25 years has prompted different interpretations from either side of the hunting divide.

The Countryside Alliance said a survey showing 225,000 adult foxes living in rural Britain - and a further 33,000 in urban areas - proved that the current system of management by hunting with hounds is working perfectly.

But the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which paid for the research by Stephen Harris, Professor of Environmental Sciences at Bristol University, said the survey demolished claims that the fox population was increasing.

The report estimated that fox numbers have remained roughly the same for the last quarter of a century and that habitat can be as important as population management in determining densities.

Countryside Alliance spokesman Darren Hughes said this long-term stability showed that the current system of managing foxes through hunting, shooting and other legal methods, works perfectly and produces a stable and sustainable population acceptable to farming interests.

"One part of that management has been the creation and conservation of natural habitats by hunts, which has been carried out for hundreds of years and is recognised by a number of reputable research establishments as having far reaching biodiversity benefits," said Mr Hughes.

"The research only looked at a tiny proportion of the land area of Britain but the findings are entirely consistent with the most comprehensive survey of fox numbers recorded by 200 hunts twice a week throughout the autumn and winter.

"In the absence of any evidence that hunting is any less humane than other methods of control, as confirmed by the Burns Report, it would seem that Professor Harris's work proves that the best result for foxes, wildlife and farming is achieved by enabling the current proven systems of management to continue."

The study, published in The Journal of Applied Ecology last week, is seen as baseline data against which the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs could be measured.

A team of scientists and volunteers led by Professor Harris counted fox faeces in more than 400 one-kilometre squares across Britain.

This information was combined with estimates of the number of faeces a fox produces each day, and with the proportion of faeces that can be found during field surveys, to produce the final figure.

Previous attempts to estimate Britain's fox population gave a figure of 252,000 adult foxes in 1981 and 240,000 in 1995, compared to the new figure of 258,000 in 1999/ 2000.

The IFAW said the previous estimates were less precise, and suggested there has been no change in fox numbers over the past quarter of a century.

Professor Harris, who is chairman of The Mammal Society and receives substantial funding for his department from the anti-hunt lobby, said the study found that fox numbers were more heavily influenced by habitat features than by the number of foxes killed by people.

"This suggests that there is no reason to expect fox numbers to rise when hunting is banned," he said.

IFAW campaigns officer Josey Sharrad said the survey did not show whether fox numbers would increase if people stopped hunting them.

"But this research demolishes arguments by the hunting lobby that foxes need to be killed to prevent a population explosion," she said.

"It will also allow us to monitor the impact of a ban on this cruel sport."

Foxes emerged as the UK's favourite land mammal in an NOP poll conducted in 2000. An estimated 20,000 to 25,000 are killed by hunting with dogs in Britain every year, and another 100,000 are killed by road traffic.

The tradition of hunting on horseback with hounds was banned in Scotland in August 2002, and the UK Government has promised a new vote on the issue following the backbench wrecking of its compromise proposals last year.

However, hounds can still be used in Scotland to flush out foxes, which must then be dispatched with guns.

At present there are still 10 packs registered with Master of Fox Hounds Association and another six registered Scottish hill packs.

Following the Scottish ban, the number of households who subscribed to Scottish Hunts fell by 33%, full-time hunt employees dropped by 69% and part-time employees by 54%.

Horses kept solely for hunting decreased by 59% and hounds kept in kennels fell by 43%. The total reduction in spending by hunts was estimated at 36%

Expenditure by hunts on local trades are down by as much as 30%.

An appeal against the ban by the Scottish Countryside Alliance was dismissed by three judges on the grounds that human rights had not been breached because it was not a total ban.

"We are still deliberating to see if we can take it further," said Scottish Countryside Alliance director of hunting Alan Murray.

The next stage would be an appeal to the privy Council in the House of Lords on a route that would end in the European Courts.

Mr Murray said the ten remaining registered hound packs in Scotland are still used to flush foxes to guns.

"There have always been gun packs, as in Wales, operating in the Highlands, and lowland packs have adjusted in order to stay within the law," he said.

"Landowners have to invite the hunt onto their land, and hounds are still the most effective method of control," he claimed.

"People come to watch the hounds on horseback and landowners often organise them to go over fences, walls and jumps. The only difference is that there is no chase."

He added, "As long as there are hounds and kennels we will go out to watch them work."

Chaser

Sep. 16, 2004, 07:23 AM

The effects of the ban in Scotland.

From Scotsman.com News (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=40&id=221562003)

"More foxes killed since hunting ban introduced

WILLIAM CHISHOLM

THE number of foxes being killed by Scottish hunts has increased significantly since hunting with dogs was banned last year, The Scotsman has learned.

Since foxhunting was outlawed by the Scottish Parliament in August 2002, packs of hounds and hunt staff have been operating a fox-culling service in their own area.

Foxes are flushed from cover before being killed with a bullet from a marksman’s rifle.

The Duke of Buccleuch’s Hunt, the country’s premier pack, has accounted for 80 foxes since it began working with guns under the new regulations.

Trevor Adams, a huntsman with the Buccleuch, said that figure is about one-third higher than the average numbers killed in a traditional hunting season when the sport was legal.

Mr Adams played a leading role in the campaign by the Scottish Countryside Alliance (SCA) to prevent the introduction of the controversial Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act.

Alan Murray, of the SCA, said the exceptions created by the act meant fox-control services would keep going: "The biggest difference now is the fox has lost that sporting chance of getting away. Virtually every fox flushed out is now being taken, and more of them are killed."

The Buccleuch foxhounds now provide a pest-control service for farms and estates, and are called in when foxes cause damage or threaten livestock.

Local fox populations escalated rapidly during the foot-and-mouth disease restrictions imposed across many rural areas of Scotland in the wake of outbreaks of the farm plague in the Borders. The lifting of restrictions and the subsequent ban on hunting has combined to push up the number of requests for fox control.

But there have already been a small number of incidents where foxes have not been killed by the guns, and hounds have had to be sent in pursuit in a bid to make sure wounded animals are put out of their misery.

Mr Murray said: "The men who carry out the shooting are professionals and carry out their duties to the very best of their ability. But no-one is capable of making a 100 per cent kill, and sadly there have been reports of wounded foxes not being found after being shot.

"Of course strictly under the law, the dogs should not kill wounded foxes even though they are trained to do just that. The current control methods are a stop-gap, and all hunts and hunters want to get back to the situation before the ban."

A hunt follower told The Scotsman: "These figure show the hunting ban is not protecting foxes, and new control methods are a real mess. They have done nothing to reduce levels of alleged cruelty."

The Dumfriesshire Hunt is the only pack in Scotland to disband as a result of the ban on hunting with dogs. All other Scottish hunts remain active.

Les Ward, a director of Advocates for Animals, which lobbied hard for the hunting ban, said: "A certain number of foxes reside in a particular area because there are limits on what each territory can support."

He added. "Shooting has always been a more efficient way of control than hunting, so the gun packs probably are killing more foxes than the hunts did."

Mr Ward said 18,000 foxes are killed in Scotland annually, and the hunts were taking 400-500 between them prior to the ban."

J Swan

Sep. 16, 2004, 07:38 AM

Wait -ok - now I'm really confused.

So what's going on in Scotland is that you can flush them out and then shoot them? What's the difference?

20,000 to 25,000 killed by hunting and 100,000 killed by road traffic? How many people stop their cars to take those foxes to the vet and then rehab them? Shouldn't the UK ban cars instead?

It's great that the fox is their favorite land mammal - I guess the hedgehog has been replaced. Of course, the hedgehog won't be rooting through the garbage and killing their cats when their numbers get out of control.

And it occurs to me that the UK really has more important problems to solve than a dispute over how foxes live and die. Sounds like a great diversionary tactic - create a great big ruckus over this and little things like health care and education can be glossed over.

Lordy - what nonsense.

And for the little troll who posted earlier - if you don't care for hunting, don't do it. Oh - and throw away every product made with animals, including your china and toothpaste, and eat nothing but bean sprouts and water. Then you can say you are not a hypocrit.

Glimmerglass

Sep. 16, 2004, 07:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Painted Wings:
I read somewhere that if it passes they are going to put hidden camera's in trees to catch illegal foxhunters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

England has largely the same land use and protection rights we have - so how could a government put a camera on private lands? The union of many private landholders forming a hunt easily could put a drag hunt well away from public eyes.

I'm sure the anti-hunt foes will send in spies to see if the ban is adhered to of course.

And while you can't hunt with hounds (btw they are NOT dogs - idiot media folks!) there is no issue of a faux drag hunt with hounds, right? Basically turning England's fox hunting element into an "executive" Disneyland for wealthy Americans who want to feel like the English Squire while on holiday ....

For the record US hunts have expanded in the last 10 years with more participants and newer areas now being hunted.

J Swan

Sep. 16, 2004, 10:27 AM

Glimmerglass -

I think it's true about the cameras. I read in the horse and hound (on-line) about an interview with the police, and how they will have to work out how to enforce the law if it does come to pass.

Because trying to police such a law would mean more police to be hired, and cops redeployed to rural areas.

There was also some blurb about how the British military use primarily private land to conduct training exercises - somehow that played into the whole camera thing. I'll try and post a link to the article. You'll want to confirm the info since this issue is very volatile.

That completely freaks me out. I tell you what - if that happened here I'd be using those cameras for target practice.

Here's the article:
Police prepare to enforce hunting ban (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/58143.html)

Xanthoria

Sep. 16, 2004, 01:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by imissvixen:
I find it ironic that in GB foxhunting is banned and in the US they let the assault weapons ban lapse. Human priorities these days are perverse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assault weapons have been banned in the UK since the 1986 Hungerford massacre when someone killed I think 9 people with an AK47.

Xanthoria

Sep. 16, 2004, 01:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
I'm an animal welfare advocate - and still hunt, own guns and support those rights. Strangely enough - I'm a vegetarian. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is *quite* strange. Do you mean you just like killing, and not eating your kill?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:I really did think the English were smart enough to figure out what the real problem is. Very sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK, that's the second time you've called into question the intelligence of the entire country, not to mention calling everyone in the United Kingdom "English" - I gathered from other threads that you'd been to the UK before?

Glimmerglass

Sep. 16, 2004, 02:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
I read in the horse and hound (on-line) about an interview with the police, and how they will have to work out how to enforce the law if it does come to pass .... Here's the article: H&H Article (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/58143.html) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, J Swan, for the article link.

Very interesting and I really doubt the MoD (Ministry of Defense) really wants to have the civil government leverage off their association with private landholders. Especially if it puts in jeopardy the cooperation they've enjoyed.

The US Army for example can't use it's high tech spy gear to perform drug enforcement / monitoring work domestically on citizens.

J Swan

Sep. 16, 2004, 02:30 PM

Xanthoria -
Well - I don't eat meat because I don't like it. Never have. Eat eggs and dairy. That in moderation doesn't seem to offend my tummy or my cholesterol level.

Only reason I posted anything remotely personal is to illustrate not all of us fit into some preconceived notion of conservative or liberal - as those are defined in this country.

I didn't call everyone in the UK English. You inferred that by taking the comment out of context. Unless I am mistaken, the present argument mainly involves England, as Scotland, Ireland and Wales have already limited the hunt to some extent.

And I don't think the English (as opposed to the Welsh, Scots or Irish) are stupid. I had just hoped there would be some evidence in mainstream media that John Bull was questioning the true motives behind all the political posturing. I don't see it. If you do, let me know and I'll read it. Thanks.

And yes, I spent some years overseas and like all Americans, except for aboriginals, - I'm a mutt of dubious ancestry. Big deal. Is it to you?

And I think the post about the assault weapons was not to point out that the UK had already banned them, but more to illustrate how different our "similar" countries can be.

If you are from the UK, and my comments offend in any way, well, they weren't intended to offend. If they did, I think you'll get over it.

Glimmerglass - glad you read the article - yeah - I think that's a bit of a can of worms - don't know how that will work out. Maybe someone with knowledge of the UK legal system could post on civil rights in the UK. I think there are some differences - but won't go into at the risk of starting a Revolution on the BB.

Xanthoria

Sep. 16, 2004, 02:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
And I don't think the English (as opposed to the Welsh, Scots or Irish) are stupid. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, then I don't know how to interpret your two posts, below:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:I thought the English were more intelligent than that - but based on the amazing popularity of the trashy yellow journalism rampant in the UK - I guess not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:I really did think the English were smart enough to figure out what the real problem is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I'm not insulted - I've come to expect this sort of talk from Canadians http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

J Swan

Sep. 16, 2004, 03:16 PM

Well, remove the "UK" from the first quote and it would be more accurate. I'll apologize for sloppy writing - but not for my opinion.

And sorry - I gotta stand by the trashy yellow journalism comment - not that the US is any better mind you - but some of the stuff I've seen or seen referenced is real doo-doo - especially about the Princess of Wales. Jesus. And I've seen some of the anti-hunting propaganda - it's really inflammatory and inaccurate. I remember one shrill woman screaming about the safety of her children.....

Not saying the US is any better. But we're not talking about the US.

Canadians? Do you mean the Quebecois or all Canadians? They don't like you? I thought y'all were peace love and flowers.

race_run_jump

Sep. 16, 2004, 04:27 PM

Can I comment that I'm just delighted that no one responded to the troll on page 1!! Yay!! What most people dont' realize is that foxhunters - as well as other types of hunting afficionados - are some of the best land (and habitat) conservationists out there. Unlike many of the "city" people who live in condos built on what used to be open space, have a fit if a "wild animal" walks on their lawn, but still manages to deride those who hunt or endeavor to protect a traditional, outdoor way of life.

J Swan

Sep. 16, 2004, 05:04 PM

race_run_jump - I'm sorry - I took the bait. Last sentence of last post on page 1. Moment of weakness...

Having been an eyewitness to PETA tactics, I can testify to the fact that their methods and aims have more in common with Osama bin Laden than St. Thomas Acquinas.

Darkhollow Farm

Sep. 17, 2004, 05:47 AM

Race_run_jump ...as I was reading this topic I was thinking the same thing about land conservation. In my area the Genesee Valley Hunt has been instrumental in the preservation of land (through local members). Land that most likely would have been housing tracts is preserved and provides excellent habitat for all kinds of wildlife, especially foxes. Landowners, farmers and nature lovers all benefit.

I don't hunt anything, but in my youth was a hunt groom for one of the finest people in the Valley. The work was hard, but I fondly remember the great people and their wonderful horses. As I recall, the hunt was not about killing, which seems a strange thing to say. Foxes were rarely killed as when they went to ground the hunt moved on. If they were caught above ground and killed it was generally observed that they were not healthy foxes.

Is this the difference between the hunt in the US versus the UK? Are foxes hunted and then persued below ground for extermination?

Old School

Sep. 17, 2004, 05:59 AM

I am not a foxhunter, but I am very much against the ban. VERY much. I see it as a civil liberties issue and a prelude to conversion of the UK into a strip mall, a strike against riding sports and all kinds of bad things.

When I mentioned this to my sister, who is a very practical sort, she asked me why they can't trap the animal humanely at the end of a run. Not having been on a hunt, I couldn't answer, but I'm sure this has been thought of and discarded: why?

Equibrit

Sep. 17, 2004, 07:04 AM

Because the idea is to kill the fox. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH. They are present in the UK in ever increasing numbers and are pests! I wonder who will be crying foul when the nasty things are over-runnung the "the great unwashed fox hugging urbanites" and spreading desease and pestilence throughout the country. Hunting is a form of selective cull, mostly the ones that get caught should have been caught.(old or infirm etc) I think what the antis hate is that people have fun while they are doing it. I don't know where they get the idea that the kill is inhumane - unless you have witnessed it you could not possibly have an opinion.

Old School

Sep. 17, 2004, 07:35 AM

I think we all know that if foxes cause the least bit of annoyance to the "fox-hugging urbanites" the critters will be trapped, shot, and gassed immediately. I know the ban reeks of hypocrisy. I hate it.

Thing is, I'm offering a admittedly dim-witted, outsider's perspective by someone who appreciates the sport as an outdoor tradition that should be preserved. Since the issue has been made against killing the fox - not galloping across the countryside - why not give up the killing (which is a service, I understand) and just enjoy the sport.

It could be a temporary measure. If foxhunters stop eliminating the foxes and the vermin overrun the cities, you will see minds change very quickly. I remember reading about a child being bitten a few months ago by a fox ... oh the horror expressed, but beyond the horror was - surprise. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

J Swan

Sep. 17, 2004, 07:38 AM

Because in the UK the goal is to kill the fox. Trapping and hunting are different. And in the UK the fox has no natural predator to ensure a balance.

And one thing we should all remember, is that nature is red in tooth and claw. Hunting fox with hounds is "natural" - generally the slow, the weak or the infirm are killed. Natural selection. Just like lions on the Serengeti. No one is trying to ban folks from watching from vehicles as lions stalk and kill their prey.

I too see it as a civil liberties issue and urban vs rural - not about animal rights.

And for folks in the US who don't like it - I'm sure the children in Fairfax County who were attacked and bitten by a rabid fox would have much rather a hunt had killed it - but oh - too many houses - no more hunting. Just lots of rabies.

Now urban and suburban areas are infested with deer, fox and racoons among other things - but there is no way to decrease the population due to the number of houses. So exterminators are called. I'd rather shoot or have a hound kill an animal than gas or poison.

Death is unpleasant - whether at the hands of a lioness, a needle and a gentle hand, or a hound. The needle and gentle hand merely assuage our guilt and is more asthetically pleasing to us - but we kill nonetheless.

As far as anti's go - though many are undoubtedly sincere animal rights advocates, many more are disaffected people who want to inflict their version of morality upon the general population. Or merely have some grudge.

The same types who would injure a horse or hound to prove a point are the same types who would blow up an abortion clinic, or lynch a black, gun down children in a school, burn a cross. Intolerance, hatred, ignorance, a perveted sense of morality - but just plain intolerance.

Equibrit

Sep. 17, 2004, 07:58 AM

Old school - how would you propose to preserve the sport without the fox. Are you saying we all need to take up horse trials? In my view the sport is the fox - but you would have to have experienced it to understand that. I suggest that you try it before treating us all to your opinion!

Xanthoria

Sep. 17, 2004, 08:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
And sorry - I gotta stand by the trashy yellow journalism comment - not that the US is any better mind you - but some of the stuff I've seen or seen referenced is real doo-doo - especially about the Princess of Wales. Jesus. And I've seen some of the anti-hunting propaganda - it's really inflammatory and inaccurate. I remember one shrill woman screaming about the safety of her children.....

Not saying the US is any better. But we're not talking about the US.

Canadians? Do you mean the Quebecois or all Canadians? They don't like you? I thought y'all were peace love and flowers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah - I agree about the lower echelons of the British press! And the US... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Canadian reference is my sly joke on Americans: whenever someone asks me what part of England I am from I say the Welsh part. When they look confused, I ask them "so, what part of Canada are *you* from...?" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Darkhollow Farm:
Is this the difference between the hunt in the US versus the UK? Are foxes hunted and then persued below ground for extermination? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I can tell from having hunted in the UK and being around hunters in the western USA, hunting in the UK is done to control the fox population - i.e. kill them, while enjoying good sport. In the USA hunting is done to have a grand gallop and chase a coyote - AFAIK they very, very rarely catch anything and are in fact quite proud of it. Which doesn't bother me at all either way.

gothedistance

Sep. 17, 2004, 10:01 AM

I've only foxhunted in the US (all on the eastern seaboard in PA, VA and NC), for well over 30 years. In addition, two of my Revolutionary War ancestors (a Colonel and his son, a drummer boy) were both members of the first recorded foxhunt in the US --the Gloucester County
Fox Hunt in New Jersey, organized in 1766 with fixtures in and around Woodbury -- which shows just how far back my US foxhunting blood goes! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

While the ideological philosophy of foxhunting in the US as opposed to the UK were similar in the colonial era (i.e.: getting rid of "vermin"), in our modern day sport there is now a HUGE difference between the two. From about the 1940's onward (in the US) any incentive, or desire, to kill the creature pursued became less and less a part of the sport. Modern foxhunting in the US has basically done away with the kill aspect and developed into the sport of just watching the hounds work. The fact that the sport can be done on horseback (as a historical feature) is a plus because you can follow and observe the hounds easier from the saddle vs doing so from a car, or from sitting on a hillside. Even the hounds develped for the sport are of different breeding (more mixing) and conformation from the original purebred staghounds and foxhounds imported in colonial times from England and France.

I will firmly attest to the fact that NO ONE in the hunts here (eastern US) that I've been associated with have EVER been "quite proud" to catch a fox. Nor have I heard of hunts in the west being happy to "do in" a coyote, either. As a matter of fact, I know many hunters that have been horrified, and saddened, when that occurs because our sport is to watch the hounds use their natural instinct to puzzle out a fox's line and attempt to stay on the scent to the conclusion (which is) in sending the fox to ground. We don't block the dens to prevent it's escape, carry terriers to dig it out of any refuge, or carry guns to shoot it. Unlike the hunts in the UK whose sole aim is to find, chase, and kill the quarry, here in the US our sole aim is to just "follow the hounds" enjoying the music of their voices, their drive and determination to they do what they've been bred to do -- follow a scent --, and then when our quarry decides to quit the hunt, we move on.

We like the fox, admire it's skills, and are thrilled to pieces when we are lucky enough to catch a view of that bright russet coat. We are delighted when our hounds can find and hold hard on a line through thick and thin, hill and dale, good scenting and bad..... but we are also delighted when the fox finally gives the hounds the slip -- fully knowing that it will still be around to give us and our hounds grand sport yet another day.

For those looking for a simple one line definition, here it is:

Foxhunting/coyotehunting in the US is all about following, watching, and listening to the hounds in pursuit of a wild quarry.

Foxhunting in the UK is all about killing foxes.

J Swan

Sep. 17, 2004, 10:36 AM

Uh oh - go the distance - it may be that my great great grandaddy took a pot shot at your great great grandaddy.

Xanthoria - didn't know you were Welsh! Entirely too cool. Never made it to Wales... My maiden name is Welsh. But not "from Wales" kind of Welsh.

If any of y'all that don't hunt want to come and see what it's all about - please do. go the distance puts it well - but you can't appreciate it until you do it.

For me, watching and listening for the hounds, and that oh so rare glimpse of a fox - is wonderful. And I foothunt with Bassets - they chase rabbit. It is absolutely fascinating to watch how a well trained pack of hounds communicate and work a line. Can't describe it.

I can attest to the goal of not killing - though the kills of rabbits that I have seen have been lame or mangey looking or ones that made a really big mistake. Little known fact is that if a rabbit is truly frightened - it leaves NO scent.

And the hounds, Bassets, Beagles and Foxhounds, seem to be the happiest, healthiest most well adjusted dogs I have ever seen.

Here in the US the quarry is given every possible chance to elude the hounds. There is a code of ethics the staff honor, and the Master makes sure no fixture is hunted too much - only a couple of times over the season. The deck is stacked against the hounds, really.

Darkhollow Farm

Sep. 17, 2004, 11:17 AM

Thank you gothedistance. That was an excellent portrayal of fox chasing as I remember it. I would sometimes be lucky enough to hear the huntsman's horn and the hounds calling as I exercised the old, retired hunters at the home farm.

Xanthoria

Sep. 17, 2004, 11:50 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by gothedistance:
Unlike the hunts in the UK whose sole aim is to find, chase, and kill the quarry, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say sole aim - UK fox hunters are known for their sportsmanlike behavior in regards to the fox. For example, giving him a field's distance head start if he's flushed under their feet *purely* in order to let the chase go on longer. This can result in Mr Fox getting away!

Although in general I'd say you'r right that UK fox hunting is about the control of vermin - hence cubbing and the terrier man...

J Swan, you must be very fit to follow Bassets on foot!

Magnolia

Sep. 17, 2004, 12:00 PM

I would much rather not die a violent death, but given the choice I'd prefer to be hunted down and killed by a pack of dogs rather than packed on a filthy, overstuffed trailer, let in a line where I saw the person in front of me shot in the head, then eviscerated while I waited my turn.

Unless, as I believe someone eluded to earlier, you exist soley off of soy sprouts with water and air, don't criticize hunting.

At any rate, do you suppose the wealthier of the hunters in England would be compelled to move here and set up shop? I think we have quite a few BBers who would love to see some new blood buy and protect farm land and hunt country over here.

alabama3870

Sep. 17, 2004, 01:30 PM

Les Ward, a director of Advocates for Animals, which lobbied hard for the hunting ban, said: "A certain number of foxes reside in a particular area because there are limits on what each territory can support."

He added. "Shooting has always been a more efficient way of control than hunting, so the gun packs probably are killing more foxes than the hunts did."

I thought the whole point that the hunt ban people were trying to make was that LESS foxes would be killed? Total hypocrisy.

alabama3870

Sep. 17, 2004, 01:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
Canadians? Do you mean the Quebecois or all Canadians? They don't like you? I thought y'all were peace love and flowers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's just leave the Canadians out of this.

gothedistance

Sep. 17, 2004, 01:48 PM

Magnolia -

I think you may just see the wealthier of the hunters go across the channel to Ireland to continue the old sport. Not many are willing to uproot from hearth and home, much less have a president in lieu of a queen ( http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) to consider encamping here merely for a sport. They might come for short periods of time, but ... shipping over a hunting horse for the season is horribly expensive, and it's so much closer to home and easier just to ship it across the channel.

I think that what you *might* see happen in Englandwill be a shift in the type of foxhunting. It may be that the kill will be eliminated from the conclusion, and that a drag will be installed as a "front" for the continuation of the chase portion of the sport. I mean ...you can start off as a drag hunt but who's to say the hounds are going to stick to it if they cross the line of a live quarry? And the whips can make a great show of trying to stop the hounds (which is impossible anyway) to show "good faith", but in the long run things will carry on as before except that the terrier man will be divorced from the hunt itself and will become a separate entity hired out for providing vermin control.

In my mind there are all ways around this coming ban, and the government certainly isn't going to put the skids on a sporting event where people on horseback chase after a little bag of scent laid down by another rider. That would be not only a civil rights issue, but ludicrious. The police already know (and this is from their own internet chatboards) there is very little they can do to enforce the ban if it ever takes place. The sport occurs in remote areas over large tracts of land, and unless each hunt was compelled by the government to have an official riding with it, the legal system would have their dockets overflowing with cases that were difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Who knows what will happen? Put one hunting ban in place and next thing you know the birding and gun hunters may be next on the hit list.

However, I don't think that their type are as much into B&B's . http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Glimmerglass

Sep. 17, 2004, 02:10 PM

I didn't see this link in this thread:

Boston Herald/AP Sep 17 "Britain's hunting fraternity counts cost of looming ban on fox hunting" (http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=44797)

Excerpt:

The bill still must go through the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of Parliament, where it faces stiff opposition - but the government says it will invoke the rarely used 1949 Parliament Act to force through the legislation if the Lords balk.

[snip]

Hunting supporters say a ban would disrupt the balance of rural life by allowing foxes to proliferate, put thousands of people out of work, and condemn hunting dog packs to death.

``Not enough is said about the good that hunts do,'' said Gerald Sumner, kennel master of the Puckeridge Hunt, who stands to lose his job. He argues that the hunts remove old, ill and weak foxes.

Pro-hunting groups say the sport provides work for around 60,000 people; opponents say the number is probably about half that.

Foxhunt4me

Sep. 17, 2004, 02:38 PM

Oh yeah, the Irish are just dying to welcome wealthy Englishmen into their hunts...

Yeah , right

Foxhunt4me

Sep. 17, 2004, 02:40 PM

""you can start off as a drag hunt but who's to say the hounds are going to stick to it if they cross the line of a live quarry? And the whips can make a great show of trying to stop the hounds (which is impossible anyway) to show "good faith", ""

Yes, look at all the erstwhile Stag hunts happening in the USA ' by accident '....where deer hunting with hounds is illegal.

:-)

J Swan

Sep. 17, 2004, 02:52 PM

I think there's a lot more going on here than meets the eye. If it's ok to shoot them, trap them, gas them or otherwise kill them, then it should be ok to chase them. I think that's where the class warfare thing comes in. Cuz the only difference is a horse.

And the whole political thing - which I don't come close to understanding. Besides - we got rid of all that doo-doo with the Crown long ago. Now we have our own doo-doo to deal with.

Xanthoria - foothunting is absolutely fantastic and members can get a lot closer to the hounds - I've had rabbits run right past my feet. I often wish I had a horse, as much of our territory is hilly.

You know - as much as I hate to see the problems in the UK - I'm concerned about it coming over here next.

It was no coincidence that the Piedmont Hunt was libeled in our local paper here in Fauquier County - the same day this issue was decided in Parliament. There are already letters on-line decrying the cruelty of hunting with hounds.

And so it begins.....

Glimmerglass

Sep. 17, 2004, 03:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
It was no coincidence that the _Piedmont Hunt_ was libeled in our local paper here in Fauquier County - the same day this issue was decided in Parliament. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ironically I thought the exact same thing when I read this article (I assume it was the one you are thinking of too): Fauquier Times-Democrat 9/15 "Foxhunt death angers landowner" (http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=12925182&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

An active member on this Hunt board works for the F T-D so I'd be interested in knowing if this was just a slow week for news or was this really a big ta-do. Frankly negative stories like this, as you said, when hunting is already in the media's eye is not good. It suggests reckless huntspeople when in fact most hunts go well out of their way to establish and preserve excellent relations with land owners.

gothedistance

Sep. 17, 2004, 03:34 PM

Oh for heavens sake!!! I didn't realize this article existed, and when I read the name of the party I almost died! She's a near neighbor and the next time she and I stop to chat in the grocery store like we did the other day (our kids went all through school together and we are good friends) I'll speak to her about it, and I'm going to be pretty strong in what I say to her. Her property is right on the edge of a VERY busy major artery -- one of only two paved roads running through western Loudoun County -- and the hunt doesn't go anywhere NEAR her place!! I sincerely doubt whether the hunt EVER crossed her land AT ALL. Too much risk of the hounds running across a 55 mph road and getting killed. I've been going to all the fixtures since cubbing started and NOT ONCE have they met closer than 4 miles to her, nor has the hunt gone in that direction! PLUS the other side of the road is Middleburg Hunt country so there is no validation that the fox (which could have just been sick and died on it's own!) was any quarry of either hunt.

As for that "cut" on her one horse -- she has only two old horses that she keeps out 24/7 in a heavily wooded, au naturale section of her property with lots of downed trees and underbrush. Need I explain any further? In the spring she breed one or two Tb babies for the sale, but they are gone by the time the hunt season starts.

I can't believe she was that <blank> to make statements like that to a newspaper.

Magnolia

Sep. 17, 2004, 03:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> You know - as much as I hate to see the problems in the UK - I'm concerned about it coming over here next. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there a strong presence/lobby/relationship with the NRA and some of the clubs like Ducks Unlimited and the like? I could not see any such thing happening with Bush in power (hey, go ahead, buy an AK-47) and supposedly Kerry is an avid shooter/hunter/fisher. I would think those groups would see the slippery slope and nip anything of the sort in the bud.

J Swan

Sep. 18, 2004, 05:22 AM

Magnolia - I hope so. A few years ago in Orange County, Virginia there was a big push for a leash law to include ALL hunting dogs. It almost passed! Only a tip off to local hunters (all kinds) stopped it. No joke. Very sneaky.

For those of us in Fauquier - I am so incensed by that article that I am writing a complaint to the paper. Not about hunting per se - but about really really bad journalism. The copy editor should never have allowed such a "non-story" to make the news. No facts at all. Just veiled allusion and shocked, stammered apologies. Horrible.

I'd encourage you to do so to - even mention about the highway and old horses. I mean - this is REALLY bad journalism and since the incicdent occured 2 WEEKS AGO - and is just NOW making the paper - I'm sure it was calculated.

Really - libel and defamation. Shame on them.

Morris

Sep. 19, 2004, 04:04 PM

Good its about time!!! woo hoo!!! Its a disgusting vile blood sport.
I've seen too much film footage, where these poor foxes are actually DUG out of their dens after out smarting the hounds, only to be shredded after reaching the safety of their dens.
Or the dens are filled in with dirt, so the foxes have no where to go. Real fair.
Heres one for Tony Blair !!!!

Glimmerglass

Sep. 19, 2004, 08:25 PM

Here, here to Prince Charles!

Daily Scotsman 9/20/04 "Prince Charles intends to hunt despite ban" (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1101582004)

Excerpt:

It was reported yesterday that the Prince of Wales intends to ride with hounds when the season starts this winter, despite both the decision of the House of Commons to back a ban and the Queen’s plea for him to stay out of the battle.

The Commons’ ban will not take effect for another two years but hunting has suddenly become a highly-charged political issue, a development which will only escalate as the season starts. The Queen was reported to be concerned that Prince Charles would become involved in that political battle if he continued to hunt, particularly if he hunted with his two sons, William and Harry.

armandh

Sep. 20, 2004, 02:40 AM

cheaper to change the government.
with tony teetering, a few good elections and presto no ban. on a local level, the animal wackos had control of our city hall. [we have too many deer] it took 3 elections to wear them down fighting every race, but they gave us the issues by over spending. we now have a split board and our mayor in place.

J Swan

Sep. 20, 2004, 04:38 AM

I think Bonny Prince Charlie must have read Thoreau or Payne. Civil disobedience.

I'm wondering if Blair goes - if the US/UK relations will change on Iraq. But that's a whole nother subject....

I the meantime, I went Basseting yesterday and had a really good time watching the hounds chase rabbits. Lots of rabbits. Wonderful hound work. Difficult scenting conditions but the hounds were spot on every time. So there!

Whistlejacket

Sep. 20, 2004, 07:49 AM

Here is the link to a article that appeared in today's New York Times. It describes what seems to be a related issue.

NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/international/europe/20britain.html?pagewanted=1&8hpib)

It has to do with so-called Land Access Laws, which, from what I understand, provide public access (for hiking or "roaming") to privately held land. Similar to the dynamics in the fox hunting debate, class issues, or the perception of those issues, seem to be a major root cause.

Hunter's Rest

Sep. 20, 2004, 09:34 AM

Aw, crap. Sorry I just NOW caught up with this thread.
As to the suggestion that there is something to the fact that the silly fox death story from Piedmont was in last week's Fauquier Democrat was in any way related to the English ban is silly. I mean, you people realize we produce the paper on Friday and Monday for its 'release' on Wednesday? And that who could possibly have known about the UK vote thing?
Anyway, I had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the story. (I am the longtime Horse and Field Sports editor for the Times Community Newspapers chain in northern Virginia, of which the Fauquier Times Democrat is one.) My editor showed me the woman's pathetic letter she'd written about the dead fox in her barn and her horse's cut leg. My PUBLISHSER (Nick Arundel) apparently assigned this story to a good news reporter from the Loudoun Times Mirror in Leesburg (also a TCN paper) and she did a normal job on a silly story. Case closed.
Yes it was a slow news week. But the frantic woman with the dead fox had only written her letter 10 days after the 'incident' so, therefore, how could the reporter have known about the story? Since, of course, finding a dead animal is not exactly notable otherwise ...
Anyway, just a feeble attempt to protect the innocent - the woman's original letter was pretty scathing; I think the reporter did a fine job talking to everybody and presented a 'fair' story about a dead vermin. Geez. What a retarded story, granted, and ill timing (accidentally) but please please please don't jump on my newspapers ....

Equibrit

Sep. 20, 2004, 10:03 AM

whistlejacket
This is a link to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which you mentioned ;
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00037--a.htm#2

This act refers to "common land". Common land used to be used to graze livestock etc and has existed in the Uk for centuries.I don't think it exists in the same guise here in the USA.

J Swan

Sep. 20, 2004, 11:18 AM

Hunter's Rest - If the timing of the story was conincidental, then I apologize for that misunderstanding. However........

I will be writing a letter to your editor about something that really bothered me about that story. It's bad journalism. It doesn't matter what you think about hunting.

I read that story and didn't get it. What was the point? The incident did not even merit an article in the paper. The woman is not a forensic pathologist and was in no way able to determine if the "mauled" fox was killed by Canis familiaris, the "cut" on her horses leg could have been caused by any number of things, contacting a local hunt for their "version" of an incident to which they were not aware and had no affect on, having people engaging in perfectly legal activity and intimating that somehow they might have committed some sort of negligent trespass; even though the reporter mentions the statute it didn't serve to exonerate the "guilty" parties. There is no reason to believe anything happened other than the woman found a dead fox in her barn. Anything else is pure speculation unless other facts corroborate her story.

It was a non-story, it was irresponsible, it was inflammatory, it was borderline libelous, and it was just plain bad journalism. The copy editor should never have allowed such a story to be printed.

An actual incicent that merits attention would have been the fact that someone shot a cow and calf in Midland and left them to bleed to death. The police have no leads. I had to find that out from the local gas station and post the info on this board for local readers to learn about - so they could watch out for their livestock. Now THAT's a story worth writing about for your local readers - many of whom are farmers.

I get most of my news from the times-democrat. I have to be able to rely on your reporters to relay facts to me. Seeing this article makes me doubt the ability of your reporters to be objective and ethical.

Sorry - I really thought it was a bad call. And it's not about the foxhunting angle - it's just about bad journalism. And I think the woman, the reporter and the FTD owes Piedmont Hunt an apology.

I got just as upset at CNN for telling its viewers of the anniversary of Paul Revere's famous ride - saying that he was a Pony Express rider. Really bad journalism.

Painted Wings

Sep. 20, 2004, 02:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> In the spring she breed one or two Tb babies for the sale, but they are gone by the time the hunt season starts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, what a double standard! How many unwanted Tb race rejects go to slaughter every year? Lots more of them die than foxes due to foxhunting.

Personally after having lost many barn cats to coyotes and seeing up to four of them stalking my horses I'm all for eliminating some of the buggers. We welcome the hunt through our property.

Wait 'till the coyotes move in and they start stalking her foals. Maybe she'll see the light. Humans are the only predators coyotes have to my knowledge.

Hunter's Rest

Sep. 21, 2004, 05:43 AM

JSwan
I hope you do write a letter to my editors. I am so incensed that they didn't 'include' me in that reporting (what a big 'duh' - include the only regular follower of hounds in the entire 1000 employee company on a hunting story ....) So please do write it, but please don't criticize an innocent reporter reporting on what she was assigned to report upon (I don't know the girl. Woman? So she's no pal of mine - this is just compassion speaking.) There are loads of non stories that run every day in every paper in every place of hte world. Sorry this one touches home with all of us, but PLEASE limit your vitriol to the dope who wrote the original letter to the Democrat about her dead fox. I will try to get a copy of it so you all can see what an imbecile ... But I do hope you write a letter so my eds have an idea that they touched a nerve here. (If you want to include your outrage that I wasn't included on the story, so much the better....;&gthttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Glimmerglass

Sep. 21, 2004, 07:49 AM

Ah, a glimpse into the "blessed future" for those bleeding heart anti-Countryside folk in England ...The Scotsman 9/21/04 "Ban on hunting has taken heavy economic toll" (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040921/17/f2zr8.html)

Excerpt: Scotland's ten hunts employed 30 full-time staff; now there are only 15. In 2002, there were 1,100 hounds; today there are only 500, with more than 400 animals having been put down - a fate that may yet befall hundreds more. The irony is that, far from sparing foxes, the new legislation has resulted in a 50 per cent increase in the number of foxes killed during the newly adapted "hunts" with guns.
......

As someone said before this ban has nothing to do with the welfare of the animals but rather class warfare.

J Swan

Sep. 21, 2004, 08:05 AM

Hunter's Rest - as usual you are the voice of reason! Ok - I'll write the letter your way. The point is the same, but I won't cast aspersions on the reporter. Anyway - it's the copy editor that should catch these things.

So if y'all need a copy editor let me know.

I went hunting today and Lordy did I get to see a cool earth. The hounds stayed hot on the trail despite being sprayed by a skunk - as they were reveling in their success, and just looking so damned happy - I couldn't help but think of the hounds that have been euthanized because of the ban.

Seeing those hounds - so happy - so free - doing what they want to do - living in a pack - so healthy - what a shame their counterparts are put to death in their prime.

Hunter's Rest

Sep. 21, 2004, 09:02 AM

Wow Jswan, what a cool morning you had. (I am soooo jealous, chained to my desk ...)
Do write the letter and for gosh sakes don't do it 'my' way - I was just defending sort of normal reporting on a queer subject by a fine writer. Say anything you like, but you can certainly write LONG because they will use your letter as a 'forum' or 'commentary' if its nicely written and not inflamatory. This will be GREAT if you can take some time and get some numbers together (## of packs in Va., hounds, etc.) and maybe lead with your story from this mronign. Again, the idea is not to jump on the head of the poor schmuck in her barn in Upperville, but to EDUcATE the illiterate general public that we're not barbarians, just following mother nature's call to preserve and protect and steward Her bounty. Let me know how I can help.
Oh, and the story emanated from the Loudoun Times Mirror office, not here, so I had no way of hovering over the reporter. Believe me, I would have inserted myself somehow. !

J Swan

Sep. 21, 2004, 09:30 AM

No worries - I completely understand.

Forget I said anything about being a copy editor - I'd rather be hunting. I'm going Basseting in a few minutes - always gets the kinks out after a hard morning hunting. Especially since ten minutes into it my horse tripped in a ditch and I flew off and skidded about 20 feet on my face. Horse is ok - I scored 9.7, 8.9, 9.6,8.8,9.1 for my swan dive.

You shoulda seen this earth. It was pretty quiet up until the last run - hounds hit the line hard - no views though - right up to the side of a steep steep hill, about 8-10 holes, looked like a fox condo. It was entirely too cool - and I got to go right up to the hounds and see everything! Huntsman was pleased as punch and so were the hounds.

Now I'm off to chase the wacky wabbits!

Morris

Sep. 22, 2004, 04:39 PM

Seeing those hounds - so happy - so free - doing what they want to do - living in a pack - so healthy - what a shame their counterparts are put to death in their prime.[/QUOTE]

Can't help but think of the irony here:
Isn't that what the foxes want to do also??
Be free, happy, but put to death in their prime?
By euthanizing the hounds, I guess it shows that these so called "hunters", really don't care much for any type of life. Even their own hounds.

J Swan

Sep. 22, 2004, 05:16 PM

Morris - please contact a hunt in the UK and offer to adopt one. But you should also be aware that foxhounds generally do not adapt well to being housedogs. I fully expect you to do this - since you are obviously a sincere person.

There are not enough homes for them all. If the hunt disbands, where are the hounds supposed to go? Who will care for them? You? The RSPCA? What do you think the RSPCA will do? Did any advocates of the hunting ban offer to assist the hunts?

If you have a solution, please offer it. Because none of the affected hunts wanted to put down their hounds. And I can guarantee you tears were shed and it was a last resort.

Nature is red in tooth in claw. To see beauty in nature is to see an animal doing what it was meant to do, in a full, diverse, healthy environment.

For the fox, it means preying on lower life forms. For a spider, it means catching insects in its web. No more, no less. To experience joy in the beauty of one life form does not mean indifference to the fate of another. Animals are true to themselves. Humans have an agenda, as it appears you do.

I have seen more of nature and done more to protect it - for its own sake - than many who count me a monster. But I accept that nature is as beautiful and kind as she is ugly and cruel.

If you live on this earth, you are part of nature. All of it. If you use toothpaste, you are there in the slaughterhouse. If you use fabric softener, you are there in the rendering plant. If you take a pill, you are there in the research lab.

There is no way around it. None. We are all connected. Hunters are merely honest about it. You should be too.

Tupa

Sep. 22, 2004, 07:44 PM

Well said J.

Equibrit

Sep. 23, 2004, 06:11 AM

Morris - you're an ignoramus.

breezymeadow

Sep. 23, 2004, 09:24 AM

I have never hunted, but will say that fox go thru my barn day & night regularly. I've seen them. Obviously mousing, which is fine with me.

I'd be curious to know how this woman "knew" the fox was killed by a pack of hounds. It would seem to me that if that were the case, there would be little left of the fox. Did she state as much? Because the condition of the dead fox wasn't brought up in the published article.

gothedistance

Sep. 23, 2004, 11:06 AM

..."I'd be curious to know how this woman "knew" the fox was killed by a pack of hounds..."

She didn't know. She just assumed because she "heard" the hunt around her area prior to finding the fox in her barn. Interesting to note: the hunt doesn't come anywhere near her property.

What she failed to do -- in writing her letter to the editor -- was take into consideration the fact that her neighbors on one side (the other side is a corn field) have multiple large dogs (two are Dalmations) that are not fenced. Second she failed to note that that just down the road from her, less than 1/4 mile, is a VERY low-income community that hosts SCADS of curs which are NOT confined by fences or yards. THEY also ALL roam freely. Third, she failed to realize that our area is being invaded by coyotes, and that coyotes kill foxes.

She jumped to a conclusion that was ill founded at best, and made an issue of it.

malarkey

Sep. 23, 2004, 12:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
If you live on this earth, you are part of nature. All of it. If you use toothpaste, you are there in the slaughterhouse. If you use fabric softener, you are there in the rendering plant. If you take a pill, you are there in the research lab.

There is no way around it. None. We are all connected. Hunters are merely honest about it. You should be too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's a great way to articulate it J Swan. I'll remember these words.

J Swan

Sep. 23, 2004, 01:12 PM

Thank you for your sentiments.

As far as the woman goes, I'm still don't understand what the copy editor found newsworthy. I could drive a truck through the holes in that story.

Perhaps the woman should be reminded that you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre - even if you don't like the movie.

Morris

Sep. 23, 2004, 02:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Equibrit:
Morris - you're an ignoramus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Equibrit, you just proved my point. Name calling is all you can resort to. Thank you.

gothedistance

Sep. 23, 2004, 03:22 PM

Tsk, tsk. Now guys, play nice. While constructive opinions are welcome, baiting isn't.

The first attempt at baiting in this thread was very thinly veiled. The second even more so. J responded to the second baiting attempt with a thoughtful, gracious post. And I think she elequently said it all, and in this case I think it deserves several re-reads for anyone hot under the collar regarding this issue.

So please: no more baiting or name calling. It serves no purpose other than to promote anger and hatred.

Tupa

Sep. 23, 2004, 10:46 PM

I don't think it was so much Equibrit calling anyone a name, so much as pointing out that Morris is obviously ignorent of the ramifications of letting a hunting animal with few natural enemies and quick reproductive traits "live free".
wow I think I needed more punctuation there http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

J Swan

Sep. 24, 2004, 03:44 AM

Morris - have you thought about adopting a hound? Or do you have any other ideas? Did you even read my post?

Because it would be great if you had an idea that no one had thought of yet. In that case, even local shelters would appreciate your thoughts - since so many wonderful animals are euthanized each day.

If your intent is to condemn without understanding, your anger is a bit misdirected. Whatever your position, the hounds are certainly the unintended victims.

Morris

Sep. 24, 2004, 06:00 AM

So now I'm ignorant because I have a different opinion? Isn't this is what a message board is all about? To share ideas?

J.Swan, yes I did read your post. I do my own volunteer work here in my town. I volunteer at an animal shelter, I donate litter, food and such. I have rescued 5, yes 5 cats from abusive barn owners and 2 others from shelters.

The "hunters" brought the dogs into existence and THEY should figure out a way to keep them, if they mean so much to them.

I have just seen alot of film footage of these hunts and they were disgusting. I believe it was "Dateline" who ran a segment, that showed a fox making it to its den, only to be DUG out so the hounds could rip it to shreds! Sorry, but I wouldn't call that fair at all. I have heard that they also fill in the dens so the foxes have no place to escape. Again, do you think thats fair? I certainly don't.

We had a fox family at a stable I boarded at, and they were the most beautiful caring parents to their kits.
They would go off hunting and never came back without a squirrel or other rodent.

I've had chickens and never lost one to a predator. Call it secure fencing I guess.

But thats my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs.

J Swan

Sep. 24, 2004, 06:52 AM

No, you are not ignorant because you have a different opinion. You may be ignorant because you don't have a full set of facts. That isn't an insult. I'm ignorant of many things - yet I do my very best to learn and to keep an open mind.

The huntsman couldn't find a way to keep the hounds. That's the tragedy. They were given a peaceful, painless death. Would you have preferred they were sold to a research lab? They wold have made a wonderful addition - documented pedigrees going back 100 years - great research material. Again, - share your ideas with us. Please.

What I have learned is that the media often has its own version it wants to share. Documentaries are boring; Survivor gets the ratings. Sensationalism is rampant in the media - I think it's irresponsible - regardless of the subject.

Rare is the farmer that loses no livestock to a predator. Even eggs to snakes. You are indeed unique.

You were fortunate to have a family living so close to your barn. It is wonderful to be able to observe nature in all its glory. May I point out that the lovely fox, returning with its dinner, stalked, ran down and killed that cute squirrel - who was also a caring parent? Did you know foxes - gray fox in particular - can climb trees?

That's what I mean about nature red in tooth and claw. You just didn't see the red part. But you still were in awe and wonder at the fox family. That isn't hypocritical at all. It's one of life's little ironies, I suppose.

What I'd suggest is perhaps that when you see things like the Dateline episode, or have questions about foxhunting, that you post those questions here. Perhaps we can answer them more fully. You may still not like the answer, but you will have both sides of the story. That can't hurt.

Equibrit

Sep. 24, 2004, 09:15 AM

Morris - you are ignorant because you do not possess the FACTS.In order to have a thoughtful and reasoned opinion one has to examine ALL aspects of the subject.

Morris

Sep. 24, 2004, 02:03 PM

J Swan,
Thank you for your reply without the name calling.
My point about the fox at our stable was that, yes indeed he did kill squirrels, but it was to feed his family. He did not kill the squirrel for the fun of it. I'm not trying to start an arguement, but just stating "my" feelings about fox hunting or any other blood sport such as bullfighting.

I also heard of a new design for chicken coops to keep predators from digging under. Instead of just putting the fencing under the ground a few inches, put it under the ground THEN bring it out a foot or so (under the ground). Most predators can't figure it out.

I'm sorry about the hounds being euthanized, but at least it was by a lethal and painless injection.
Better than being run to exhaustion and being ripped to shreds.

And to Equibrit, again your name calling is proving WHO is the ignorant one here. And I think that is probably YOU.

silver

Sep. 25, 2004, 08:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I also heard of a new design for chicken coops to keep predators from digging under. Instead of just putting the fencing under the ground a few inches, put it under the ground THEN bring it out a foot or so (under the ground). Most predators can't figure it out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lol, in that case I have a bridge for sale.. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that method is as old as the hills. It works sometimes, but evantually they'll get through it. Rabbits will dig a hole and something else will follow.

Morris you can't deny that many humans clearly have a hunting instinct and enjoy it as an activity, like many other animals. Hunting is something that you personally find distasteful, believe is harmful to wildlife, and choose not to participate in. Well I feel that way about owning cats as pets but I'm not saying you can't have one or calling cat owners songbird murderers. (Even though they are http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif ) Bit of respect of others please.

As for being ripped to shreds I think its been shown numerous times (in peer reviewed journals even) that foxes are killed basically instantly, long before they're ripped to shreds if the pack overtakes them. Which happens pretty seldom in any case. Compare that to the fact that the UK allows night hunting with lamps and small bore guns by practically anyone and tell me which is more likely to leave the animal to linger in pain? Personally the idea of lamping disgusts me in the way that hunting disgusts you as I have seen what happens to wounded animals. There is a reasons it is illegal most places.

Foxhunt4me

Sep. 25, 2004, 10:21 AM

"My point about the fox at our stable was that, yes indeed he did kill squirrels, but it was to feed his family "

Foxes regularly get into a chicken coop and kill a dozen chickens. Dont make them out like they are honorable creatures that only kill what they can eat. Just does not wash that way.

We don't have to justify chasing and killing pests or hunting for food. These pursuits are things that God has granted the right to do and the desire to do, it is NOT imoral which is more than I can say for the things that liberal governments allow and want to allow.

The facists on the UK are hypocrites that just dont want to see someone else having some enjoyment while performing a service to the farmers. Like others have said, this is NOT about the foxes its about class warfare and one group of people forcing its will on another.

Lets get back to talking foxhunting and Coyote huntin too !

Equibrit

Sep. 27, 2004, 07:58 AM

Quote;
And to Equibrit, again your name calling is proving WHO is the ignorant one here. And I think that is probably YOU.

Would you mind explaining the reasoning behind this statement? Is there a more PC way to describe someone who is not in possession of the relavent facts? Maybe a way that is more acceptable to your sensibilities? Either way it comes down to the same thing. Would you be refering to 1)my use of the English language or 2) my reference to you. You may not admire my use of the language (albeit correct) but my assessment on the second point was born out by your misinformed posting.

Old School

Sep. 28, 2004, 11:49 AM

..."liberal governments allow and want to allow?" Huh? And then the UK gov is fascist?

In case you have been blinded by neo-conservative American rhetoric, which many have been, remember that liberty and individual freedom are liberal concepts. Outlawing someone else's freedom is not "liberal," so I really don't understand that remark.

The "Labor Party" in Britain is politically opportunistic, this issue has nothing to do with being liberal. Fascism is rule by military, and, yes, the clubbing of the foxhunting protesters did seem a taste of that.

As far as Equibrit's question "Is there a more PC way to describe someone who is not in possession of the relavent facts? Maybe a way that is more acceptable to your sensibilities?" Yes, there is. Try being nice. It is a snotty kind of attitude that has brought foxhunting to this pass, after all. Class warfare was bred from callous disregard for other's feelings. Please take this from someone who agrees with you.

Such insults will only create dissention within the ranks, and it would seem foxhunting could use solidarity right now. If you can't answer people decently, then let someone else. Fox hunting doesn't need more arrogant representation.

I am sure you are well-informed, Equibrit, and I for one appreciate the information you give. There are a lot of people who would like to be supportive to the cause, but personal jibes will put them off.

Equibrit

Sep. 28, 2004, 12:02 PM

I am at a loss as to this "insult".

J Swan

Sep. 28, 2004, 01:37 PM

I think pro-hunting folks just get very very tired of being addressed and treated as psychopaths. I don't think it smacks of arrogance. I think it's frustration, defensiveness, worry, etc.

For some reason it's ok for the general population to eat meat, use toothpaste, wear natural fiber and sleep under down comforters, yet speak of the people that are involved in producing these as rednecks, bubbas, gun toting drunks, snobs, murderers, all kinds of horrible things.

I can't help but point out the hypocrisy and I will continue to do so - and yes - maybe sometimes I will get a little hot under the collar. A failing of mine, I admit.

The thing is, there is no reason a hunter needs to explain themselves to anyone. They engage in no illegal activity, do not affect others rights or privacy, and often perform a service.

Often the people who critize hunting, and foxhunting in particular - don't want anyone to give them the facts. And also don't know a heck a lot about what the natural world is really like.

They don't like it, so you can't do it.

I do get ticked off at people who feel free to make some wild accusation or value judgment about me or my choices, then smile indulgently at me when I try to provide a different view.

Because of course - I'm just a bloodthirsty arrogant snob who likes to murder small helpless animals for fun.

When I try to describe what I've seen, what I've felt, the wonder and awe, the things I've learned about the natural world - people look at me like I'm nuts. What am I supposed to say?

Old School

Sep. 29, 2004, 06:34 AM

For what it's worth, I am completely and totally against the ban, and I have a post on the H/J Forum about the hunting protests that outlines the questions I have. It is tyranny of the majority, and it is as ugly as tyranny always is.

The only disagreement we might have is the idea it is not necessary for the foxhunters to explain themselves to anyone. The is the 'crux of the biscuit' as Zappa said. It may seem, it may actually BE unfair to have to do outreach to explain that the sport is not cruel, but rather the most humane, conservationist way of culling vermin that would otherwise be destroyed. But it has to be done, because average people are often stupid and lazy, primarily, and also mean-spirited and sanctimonious, too.

The masses can have their endless, environment destroying habits, and hypocritical cruelty of the slaughterhouse, and still ban the hunt and feel 'good' about it. And if a fox eats a child, they can and probably will righteously back a wide-spread extermination of foxes in some future year. Without irony. This is the unfairness of the issue.

But it is also unfair that more than one billion people live on less than a dollar day, and poverty has been increasing as we grow richer. The wealthy have spent their time on this planet spending their money on themselves and ignoring the destitute - that is not the foxhunter's fault, but it is the environment of this issue. The 'people' are striking at a symbol of wealth, but, since they are ignorant it is the wrong symbol.

So I think yes, foxhunting and all equestrian sport has some 'explaining' to do in terms of public relations. I think foxhunters have the truth on their side. I also think that, if the projected attitude by riders is one of blanket entitlement that the masses will kill the sport off out of spite.

jetjocky

Oct. 23, 2004, 08:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by J Swan:
And for the little troll who posted earlier - if you don't care for hunting, don't do it. Oh - and throw away every product made with animals, including your china and toothpaste, and eat nothing but bean sprouts and water. Then you can say you are not a hypocrit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And even then, there was a thing on NPR a few weeks ago about plants' reaction to being harvested; seems they don't like to be killed either, so now what? I guess we all starve? Right.

J Swan

Oct. 23, 2004, 03:20 PM

Good point, jetjocky.

I guess we'll all end up eating Soylent Green. Please don't tell me you don't know what that is - it will make me feel old.

I missed Old School's post. She/he has a point too - we don't need to explain ourselves - but in the spirit of good PR and education - we should.

And that means supporting hunting in general - not just foxhunting.

I really should contact "Morris" and apologize for being so nasty. Must have had low blood sugar. I'm not usually a harpy.

Foxhunter1949

Oct. 24, 2004, 04:34 AM

Earlier this year I went to a major UK dog show (Crufts) There I saw Labradors that were thick set and heavy with thick heads. Spaniels that had so much hair they would be entangled in the first load of brambles they encountered.
Nearly every pedigree bred dog that has entered the home has major health problems unless they are from a pure 'working' strain.
I was working my Border Collie with three others last week, moving a large herd of sheep, I got a real kick out of watching those dogs work and seeing how quickly they melded together to work as one unit.
I go coursing and get a great kick out of watching the greyhounds run and turn after the hare. I still get excited when ratting with terriers, enjoy watching a good dog working the field when shooting and most of all love to watch and follow hounds when hunting.
I come to the conclussion that it is seeing a dog do the job it was bred for.

As for foxes they are vermin. always have been and always will be. They do and will kill for fun, not just to feed. Nevertheless, I will watch them and admire their cunning. I have witnessed many interesting things about them.
This includes seeing a fox take off a two week old (fit)lamb and, another trying to pull a lamb away from a ewe as she was birthing.

None of the UK hunting ban has anything to do with cruelty, the Burns report testifies to that. It boils down to a social issue and revenge for Maggie Thatchers treatment of the Miners way back.

Several farmers have now withdrawn their land from the Ministry of Defence using it for training, directly as a protest to Blair and Co. This will and is leading to problems for training of the troops. Many more will follow suit. Good for them.

If a ban comes into force it will be totally un-policable and more people will hunt as a result.

Morris

Oct. 24, 2004, 08:44 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Foxhunt4me:

We will let the PETA / HSUS / anti hunters / anti gunners nibble away at our shoes here if we dont stay on top of things.

_______________________________________________
While were on the topic of bashing Animal rights groups. Do you realize that the ASPCA was the first animal rights organizations founded to help the carriage horses in NYC? Founded by Henry Bergh in 1866.
Do you now know that because of these "terrorist groups" as you all refer to them, the carriage horses in NYC are brought in when the summer temperatures reach a certain degree?

Do you know because of these "terrorist groups"
that all domestic animals must have food, water and shelter at all times?
Horses are no longer supposed to be crammed into double decker trailers on their way to slaughter?

When the Taliban regime tortured and killed many of the animals in the Kabul Zoo in Afghanistan it was the WSPA (World Society for Protection of Animals) who risked their own lives and rescued them?

So before you refer to the animals rights groups that have done so much to protect the animals that you proclaim to love as "terrorist" (as others have labeled them)
think about this. Thank you

J Swan

Oct. 24, 2004, 09:25 AM

I doubt any of us would argue that animal welfare is a legitimate concern.

After all, most of us have dogs, cats, horses, all kinds of animals. And we do our best to care for them and hope others care for their animals.

There is a difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

Animal welfare groups did not seek to abolish the ownership of animals. The group of which you speak initially sought mandatory loosening of the overcheck on harness horses and sought legislation establishing minimum standards of care. They did not ambush and beat up people, destroy property, or attempt to keep people from having companion animals, eating meat, or keeping livestock.

The ultimate goal of animal rights is to completely eliminate human contact with any animal, for any purpose. The cats of which you are so fond are on the list. You could not keep them, care for them or feed them. Same with dogs. You could not keep a horse.

NOTHING. No contact with any animal except to observe from a distance.

If Osama bin Laden helped an old lady across the street, we can say he did a kind act, but is not, on the whole, a nice person. And we may also find out that the reason he helped the old lady across the street is so he could get her closer to the camera while he cut her head off.

If you don't believe me - why don't you look into some of these organizations in great detail? Don't you think I belonged to many of them? Don't you think I was astonished to find out the the address labels I bought with cute puppies on them was used to fund lobbying efforts whose goal is to abolish dog ownership?

I used to work for a non-profit. The inner workings are much different from what the public perceives.

Additionally, an organization's mission will change over time. The ASPCA founded in 1866 is NOT the same organization now.

PETA sends lovely little newsletters full of great vegetarian recipes. Their marketing department does a good job masking what the money is really used for.

When I worked at a non-profit, we targeted specific things with our marketing. For example, we'd send out solicitations with pictures of Bald Eagles on them because those got the greatest response with the biggest contributions. It didn't matter to us that the Bald Eagle is doing just fine. It didn't matter to us that the money wouldn't be used for Bald Eagle protection - but for operations. All that mattered is that our marketing research told us that people respond better to certain pictures, ideas, words and colors. Cute puppies bring in money. It's all about money.

Because the donor saw the picture of the Eagle - they would naturally assume that's what the money would be used for.

ALL non-profits are like that. It's BIG business.

All of these organization manipulate the public this way. That's how they get money to accomplish their mission. And it isn't what they tell the public - at least not the ENTIRE mission. The IRS is always examining these groups. They walk a very thin line.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Red Cross could do a heck of a lot more to help animals during disasters. They SHOULD. They don't and they won't. Because animals don't donate money.
That's the real world.

Do you know why I label those groups as terrorists? Because they seek to curtail or abolish my rights as a US citizen. I won't stand for it. Neither should you. If you don't like hunting, don't do it. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't like guns - don't own one.

I acknowledge and respect your decisions, beliefs and cultural traditions.
But you don't respect mine. Not only that, but you give aid and comfort to those who would seek to limit or eliminate my right to live without fear of reprisal, invade my person or privacy, or to exercise any right guaranteed me under local, state and federal law as well as the US Constitution.

That is what terrorism is.