Perhaps I might be a little old-fashioned, but I always thought that compliments were supposed to be passed to others, rather than given to oneself.
So to hear Joe Duckworth, the chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports, ‘tweeting’ how he supposedly won a debate with me is odd. The debate, entitled “The rights and wrongs of hunting” was organised by the School of Law at Middlesex University and I spoke as an animal welfare consultant to the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations. I say it’s odd because while I’ve witnessed all forms of hunting with hounds in the UK and abroad, apparently Mr Duckworth has never seen a hunt and so has gained all his knowledge from sitting watching films shot by other people who presumably don’t like hunts either.
There was no vote at the end of this debate, so unless he was somehow aware that the majority of people in the room were his supporters, he couldn’t possibly claim he’d won. Maybe that’s why he brought some of his LACS staff with him as insurance and in any case, in this world of social media, all that matters is getting your message out quickly, ‘retweet’ it and soon it becomes the truth.
But in reality the aptly named Mr Duckworth ducked a number of relevant questions. He argued that the Hunting Act was good legislation. What then was his response to the list of critics of the Act, including politicians from all parties, journalists, police, animal welfare experts, legal experts, veterinarians, senior civil servants and even former Prime Minister, Tony Blair? No answer.
What was his explanation for the numerous illogical clauses in the Hunting Act? No answer.
He described terrier work in graphic detail, but when asked why, if it is so bad, is it legal under the Hunting Act? No answer.
Why, when literally millions of pounds have been spent supporting and enforcing the Hunting Act, not a penny has been spent on researching its effects on wildlife? No answer.
Was wildlife management acceptable or needed? No.
What about the illogical, unprincipled exemptions in the Hunting Act? Get rid of all the exemptions, said Mr Duckworth.
One of the LACS staff members wanted to know why terrier work was legal under the Hunting Act. (One would have though she should know) It was due to the Labour Party’s original promise to deal with hunting, but not to affect shooting. When it became apparent that gamekeepers sometimes use terriers to flush out and kill foxes to protect birds to be shot, an exemption had to be made. Once again very odd if, as the LACS claim, they oppose killing for sport.
I made it absolutely clear that all the activities involving wild mammals, (hunting, shooting, gamekeeping and aspects of farming) could be done well or they could be done badly. So would Mr Duckworth accept a law prohibiting cruelty to all wild mammals in all circumstances, based on evidence rather than opinion? No answer, though he was soon on Twitter seeking to stir up concerns within the shooting world about my comments. He should try to understand that debating is not just about pontificating on what you believe, but answering questions too.
The manner in which he conducted his argument was predictable. It followed the same, tired old lines about “bloodsports fanatics”, how morally reprehensible hunting is, how the people who take part conspire to break the law and even how those undertaking terrier work were often involved in other serious crimes. Ironic really when one recalls that it was only last year that the LACS’ head of campaigns and communications was jailed for 16 months for fraud.
All designed to stir up anger… and all from someone who has never seen a hunt.
The pro hunting people in the audience could not have been further removed from the image Mr Duckworth and his supporters wish to create and it isn’t surprising that many simply don’t bother talking to those antis who have closed minds and have swallowed their own propaganda.
The issues involved in hunting and wildlife management are complex, a fact acknowledged and emphasised by the organisers of the debate. The American writer, Henry Mencken once said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat…and wrong.” That succinctly describes the Hunting Act. Those who think otherwise are only fooling themselves.
You certainly have my compliments along with many others I’m sure.
It must be extremely difficult to carry on a debate when faced with ignorance and disinformation. Unfortunately too many people are brainwashed by LACS propaganda.
We can but hope that their lack of answers and logic will eventually lead people to look deeper for the truth.
Thank you, Bruce.
Reasonable people with open minds will understand the arguments surrounding hunting and wildlife management, so we must keep at it !
Dear Jim,
It was refreshing to hear you yesterday. So many pro-hunting people are unable to argue in a way which will sway the undecided.
I want to take Joe Duckworth to task for one particular inconsistency (opening remarks sneering at people in red coats, followed by a protestation that he was not a class warrior and that the League was happy for people to dress up and ride around the countryside. What is his hashtag please?
PR
Thank you ‘PR’, your comment is very much appreciated.
Yes, I noticed that remark too and perhaps should have mentioned it in the blog, along with the way he simply dismissed all the other class war comments from supporters of the Hunting Act. By all means take Joe Duckworth to task at his Twitter hashtag @LeagueJoe. Good luck and thank you again.
It’s interesting that LACS now want to get rid of all the exemptions in the Hunting Act. I wonder how they tally this position with their 2009 parliamentary briefing that what the hunting act provides for is ‘humane pest control’. One wonders if they really believe this or if they have been attempting to mislead parliament as to their views.
This is actually quite a dramatic reversal of LACS policy up until now they have insisted there is nothing wrong with the Hunting Act. As they now want the law changed it is clear that they would in fact support a parliamentary debate on the matter because the law cannot be changed without such a debate as is correct under a democratic system.
When I wrote a blog criticising the flushing exemption and explaining that I do not comply with it. http://markavery.info/2012/05/18/guest-blog-shoot-giles-bradshaw/ Joe Duckworth immediately tweeted that their policy was to ignore this.
IF they believe that the law makes complete sense why do they then choose to ignore it being actively and deliberately broken?
The truth is that LACS agree with many of the criticisms that have been made of the Hunting Act but have been unable to say so for political reasons. They have been forced to support activities which they actually oppose. This is a deeply dishonest and unprincipled position to take.
As far as ‘humane pest control’ is concerned when I ‘phoned LACS up describing reports I had read from a hunt monitor of people complying with the flushing exemption both the receptionist and an investigator told me that they thought this was cruel.
The truth is that LACS are well aware that the Hunting Act is an illogical law what we need is a law which clearly seeks to discriminate between acts which are cruel and those which are not cruel. The main argument that they have made against such a law is that it would not criminalise people who were not being cruel. This is patently ridiculous.
We also need to continue an honest debate and inquiry into if how and when wildlife management is needed. Jow Duckworth is entitled to oppose all wildlife management but he should then take responsibility for the consequences of that policy. LACS have previously claimed that it would be better to allow species to explode to the point where they fall victim to outbreaks of disease and starvation due to resource depletion. This is especially relevant to wild deer. However it is apparent that this would also have both welfare and environmental consequences that many would say would outweigh any benefits from the animals not being managed.
I can’t over emphasise the important of honesty in such a debate. LACS need to stop tailoring their principles to suit the particular needs of a particular argument as they did when they argued that wounding by shooting is irrelevant for fox control and relevant for badger control. Adopting such highly disingenuous positions does nobody any good.
One really should look at the LACS sanctuary in Baronsdown to see what might follow from this if a total cessation of wildlife management was adopted nationwide. Between 2002 and 2008 Baronsdown had 76 recorded cases of BTB in wild deer – that is 85% of the total number of recorded BTB cases in the national park. These cases arose because of chronic overcrowding and together with starvation/lungworm &c caused huge suffering.
Dear Mr Barrington,
I was at the debate yesterday, and yes, you are a little old fashioned, both in your support for an archaic bloodthirsty pastime, and in your feeble attempts to get even the RSPCA is on your side. Your reasons for thinking this way date back to the founder, Mr Richard Martin, who was also a hunter. This was back in 1824 when we also had hanging and no protection for children. The rest of your argument relied on RSPCA deeds in the 1950s. We and they have moved on since then, and we and they have evolved to become much more compassionate towards ALL animals. It is 2013 now Jim, and no decent person thinks blood sports are okay today.
As for your next comment, re Joe Duckworth never having witnessed a hunt first hand, you said quite clearly at the beginning of the debate that you yourself have never hunted. Now you claim you have witnessed all forms of hunting, where Joe just watched films shot by others. I wasn’t at the massacre of the Jews, and others, in Nazi Germany, and I have only seen a tiny amount of the footage from that time. It was more than enough, though, for me to deem those actions as the work of a psychopath, and his followers as brainwashed barbarians. JD has told us he has seen hours of footage supplied by the monitors. I have again seen only a tiny amount of what Joe has seen, but it was more than I care to see, and it was enough to enable me to form the opinion that hunting is most definitely animal cruelt,y and the practice must be stopped. Perhaps when you formed your benign view, your witnessing did not include such things as the pregnant vixen who lay dying as her tiny cubs were ripped from her belly, or the terrier men who dug out a fox so terrified, that in its attempts to escape, its lungs were found to be full of soil at autopsy. If you have truly witnessed this barbarism, I am amazed that you can still support the pastime. Joe Duckworth did not duck even one question, he had reasonable, reasoned answers for everything you claimed. Although he did have to repeat himself several times when you attempted to ignore what he had just explained. I’m afraid he whopped your nether regions well and truly, Jim.
Now we come onto the Act itself. I don’t think you must have been listening properly, or perhaps you just misunderstood. Joe Duckworth said that the Hunting Act was working properly, and he gave you the figures for the convictions. I think those figures were fairly convincing and even encouraging, given that police and the CPS are often reluctant to take hunting evidence presented any further. Recidivist criminals, like those from the Heythrop, are being caught and prosecuted; this is a good thing. Did you also miss the part where Joe also said the Act must be improved, and he gave you some really good suggestions? Mr D didn’t draft the Bill that led to the Act. If you remember it was a hotly debated issue which had been going on for some time, and politicians were treading on eggshells. They had to be especially careful with the thugs who rioted in London when they thought their fun was about to be ended. The Act has its shortcomings, but that is not Joe’s fault. What we have is a piece of legislation that must be worked upon. It must be strengthened, and its contradictions and loopholes addressed in a manner which is favourable to British wildlife. The Act is good for this reason; it is pathway to improve the lives of wild animals, where before we had nothing. It is difficult to make humane Laws if we don’t have humane lawmakers, and we also have those who deliberately break the Law because they think they have the right. You mention the millions that are spent upholding this Law, and you comment that nothing is spent on researching the effects on wildlife. Why don’t you encourage your supporters to set up a charity (like Cancer Research) to look into this issue if you feel it is so important to you? I would even donate to that. There must be the condition though, that the research is done by respectable, unbiased scientists. You could also help the public purse out by advising your followers to not break the Law, and then money would not have to be spent on bringing them to justice. The RSPCA saved the tax payer a quarter of a million, which the Heythrop should have been made to pay. You don’t thank them though, you supported those who broke one of Britain’s laws, and you (the Countryside Alliance) tried to discredit the RSPCA by saying public donations should not have been used this way. Unless they donate, what has the CA got to do with how the RSPCA spends its money? Those public spirited hunters could have saved a respected organisation a huge amount of money if they hadn’t ducked and dived the way they did when they were caught. This is part of the Act which could so easily be put right. Make all those breaking the Law pay ALL of the costs, and confiscate their tools of trade, just like we would do with a burglar. You cannot absolve hunters from all responsibilityin the money spent on chasing up their nefarious doings. They should not break the Law in the first place. They want to rip animals with dogs, and the Law says they can’t, what is unworkable about that? Perhaps we should scrap all motoring offences, because quite a few motorists deliberately and frequently break those laws. This must mean they are unworkable by your reckoning. The CPS and the police spend a lot of time and money prosecuting motorists, yet they still speed in cars, because they think it’s fun.
You go on from moaning about an unworkable Act to a personal attack on Joe D, calling his arguments tired etc. Then you bring up the head of LACS campaigns who was jailed for fraud. What has that got to do with the integrity of the organisation as a whole? You get dishonest people in all walks of life and you deal with them and move on. Harold Shipman murdered his patients, but that is not a reason to insult and berate the CEO of the NHS. I must add here, that I feel a tad cheated myself, after I read an article last night, which alleged you were paid by LACS while you were having secret talks with the opposition. The article may be a tissue of lies, but if it turns out to be true, I will deeply resent the hours I spent collecting money in all weathers to pay your salary. I had never met John before yesterday, but I found him to be a pleasant, open, relaxed man with a gentle manner, who knew his subject and who could talk with authority. He was an easy speaker and he stuck to his point. He even made us laugh at one stage. Joe didn’t make me angry, you did. I get very angry at the smears and the lies from the Countryside Alliance. It seems impossible for them to fight fair. You even got a tiny personal dig in at the RSPCA over the Live Export row. Surely, the CA cannot support the barbarism that is the live export trade, yet they would discredit an organisation which fights cruelty on many fronts, purely because they prosecuted an illegal hunt? From spite, and the desire for revenge, hunters and their supporters are attempting to grind down the RSPCA and if you succeed, the RSPCA will be unable to protect ANY animal from cruelty. I am also angry at the phrases you use in your attempts to sanitise the terrorising and disembowelling of foxes, and other wildlife abuse. Comments like ‘Wildlife Management’ and ‘Conservation’. Then there is ‘Habitat’ and ’Preservation’ and ‘Pest Control’. It is all nonsense, and was revealed as such in the leaked email from Simon Hart in 2004,
Sunday Mirror, October 3rd . by Grant Hodgson
‘The pro-hunting lobby’s main argument for killing foxes – to control them as pests – is today revealed as a lie. The Sunday Mirror has learned that a letter sent by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association to 800 hunt masters and chairmen warns of a nationwide “shortage of foxes”. It also urged that landowners should be encouraged to breed more foxes to solve the “problem”. The letter came to light when the Sunday Mirror obtained a copy of an email sent in response to it by Simon Hart, chief executive of the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance. In the email to Lord Daresbury, chairman of the MFHA, he expressed his concern that if the letter was leaked “we would be ridiculed in Parliament, the Press and in all parts of Britain where hunting is firstly population control and secondly recreational.” He added: “I do want to re-stress that the Alliance is here to play its part in securing hunting’s future but we cannot do this if the core arguments are undermined. I am one of those who has never been happy about our reliance on the ‘pest control’ case, partly because so few people understand that control is not always the same as extermination – in fact it rarely is.” He calls the letter – which he says “advocates the artificial enhancement of a pest species for purely sporting benefit” – “politically naive”. He says the letter’s suggestion that hunt masters “should be firmer with subscribers ‘who do not keep foxes’ dismays me”. Incredibly, he then asks: “How do we explain that to the Mirror?” He is also critical of the suggestion that hunt masters should express “polite disappointment” if more foxes aren’t spotted on shoots. He continues: “Hunting sits on the edge of a precipice as far as its future is concerned.” Josey Sharrad, of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said: “These admissions completely destroy the argument for retaining fox hunting” .’ Ref http://www.realca.co.uk/bloodsports/countryside-alliance/bloody-liars
Mr Duckworth didn’t need a show of hands to win the debate. It was won before he even stepped off the train. Most of the British people don’t want the Act repealed, they want it strengthened, and your arguments don’t hold water. Do you remember shooting yourself in the foot at the end of the debate, when you were asked why you REALLY want to kill foxes? After much blustering, you finally said it was “human nature”. That was the only part of your speech with which I agreed, but you could have phrased it better. You could have said, ‘hunting is in the nature of a MINORITY of bloodthirsty humans.’
Dear Patricia
As promised, here are my thoughts on your rather long comment, though I would say that it would be better for all if you were a little more succinct in making your points.
1. Up until the late 1970s the RSPCA’s position on fox hunting was moral opposition, but it did not want fox hunting prohibited because they knew that if more foxes were shot, probably by people who were less experienced shooters, there would be more wounding. That situation has not changed, apart from the fact that those now in control of the RSPCA ignore that fact and dismiss validated scientific research that indicates higher levels of wounding.
2. I have never taken part in a hunt, but I have WITNESSED numerous hunts first hand, and spoken to participants and experienced the whole activity. That is very important if one is going to comment on an activity. Surely you can understand that there is a vast difference between experiencing an event and watching edited films?
3. You move into highly controversial waters when you say that the information gained by watching footage of the Holocaust can be likened to that when watching film of hunting. Many would find that an outrageous statement and extremely offensive, as I do.
4. So Joe Duckworth didn’t duck any of the questions I posed on the night and repeated in my blog? I’m sorry, but I don’t recall any answers to those questions. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what he said to each point I listed?
5. I did indeed hear Joe say that the Hunting Act was working well…and then I heard him say that it could do with improving, but by removing all the exemptions. That flies in the face of what has been said many times by the LACS and others during the various parliamentary debates, that they were simply trying to prevent killing for sport, not necessary control. If the change Joe Duckworth proposed is now the LACS’ policy, that should be made absolutely clear to all its parliamentary supporters.
6. You are so sure that the Hunting Act has improved animal welfare, but suggest that it should be for hunting people to commission research into its effects on wildlife. Surely, if your argument is so strong, the anti-hunting groups should do that, prove their case and that would be an end to the argument.
7. Many people support the wider work the RSPCA undertakes and, as a charity, in effect it is publicly subsidised. Often, if the RSPCA loses a case, its legal costs are paid out of public funds – that’s you and me, the taxpayers. That might be acceptable to the majority of people if the actions brought were proportionate to the alleged crimes. But you seem to be under the impression that funds are limitless and that RSPCA announcements about fighting cruelty on all fronts is somehow clever. It is not. Goodness knows what projects, campaigns, investigations and staff members jobs have been curtailed because of the ridiculous prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. That means animal welfare has suffered -can you not understand that simple point?
8. I brought up the jailing of the senior LACS official because shortly before he was caught he was spouting the same arrogant nonsense that Joe Duckworth was saying about hunting people being criminals. Yet, for all your anger at the hunting world, I can’t recall anyone going down for 16 months. And that is without mentioning the flock of anti-hunting MPs who also found themselves on the wrong side of the law. Do you really expect anyone in the hunting world to take lessons about criminality from the likes of them?
9. I said at the end, if you remember correctly, that it is human nature for people to kill foxes if their livelihoods are threatened. I really doesn’t help if you take words out of context.
10. It’s clear that you still don’t understand the concept of wildlife management, as your quote from the Sunday Mirror confirms.
11. You say that “Mr Duckworth didn’t need a show of hands to win the debate. It was won before he even stepped off the train”. Well, that’s it then – let’s just ask LACS what laws they’d like and get on and pass them. No debates necessary. Perhaps the best example of a closed mind that I’ve ever heard.
Finally, you say that “no decent person thinks blood sports are okay today”. If, by that you mean hunting with hounds, are you really saying that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, including doctors, nurses, veterinarians, carers and many others who support hunting are all somehow morally indecent?
I look forward to you answering my point number 4.
Jim Barrington
I have been doing some research over the last couple of days so that I can be more acquainted with the Hunting Act. I feel foolish that I took at face value, the comments and opinions of pro hunters in their interpretation of the legislation. I was gullible, and I believed that perhaps there would be some kind of respect for seeking the truth. I was wrong, and it would seem that pro hunters are only interested in turns of phrase and those words they can spin as suspect, so that they may single them out and apply their twisted logic to turn the words into some kind of case for repeal of the Act. Let me now reply to your comment of the 18th.
1. The RSPCA and the League have progressed much in the years since the seventies. Organisations which are set up to improve conditions for humans and animals usually reflect the popular views of the time. In 2013 it is recognised that chasing, terrifying and tearing an animal to pieces with dogs is a barbarism that cannot be accepted. Neither can it be accepted that using the bodies as living animals as targets is anything other than cruelty which can cause much suffering. The Act is quite clear about what can and can’t be done and the reasons behind the reasoning. The loopholes that do exist, exist because at the time the legislation was being discussed, the powerful pro-hunting lobby caused serious trouble, which even included death threats, and threats of serious violence against MPs and their families. 700 hours of Parliamentary time was given to the discussion about hunting, and countless hours in the years prior to the Bill becoming Law, were spent by dedicated people who wanted to see an end to the cruelty that is hunting. If loopholes do exist they are due to the conniving and weaving of pros with their own occult agendas. It is absolutely disgraceful that a bunch of people can attempt to bully and intimidate British politicians in this way, in order to hamper and derail a legitimate Parliamentary process. I will not waste my time paraphrasing the part of the Act which deals with flushing. It is perfectly clear to me now, that Mr B is talking nothing but rubbish in his attempts to sabotage a clearly worded piece of legislation. I am ashamed for telling him that I agreed with him in part. Now that I know more of his meanderings and his ridiculous attempts at publicity I must say that I dissociate completely from ALL of his ridiculous statements and remarks. I cannot speak for the RSPCA or the League, and I am not certain what you are trying to get me to agree about. Why don’t you ask those bodies for a statement on where they stand regarding the Act in 2013? I would point out that every site I have researched so far, apart from the Countryside Alliance, has not in any way been ambiguous about flushing animals from cover, or what can and can’t be shot, or by whom and where and when. A child could decipher it without too much trouble. The Act even covers the ‘higher levels of wounding’ which concerns you so much. An troublesome animal may only be shot by a skilled marksman, and this may only be done for reasons of habitat protection or the protection of livestock from predation. This includes protecting game birds from predators. On one site, I read of a group of people who shot a stag twice, it tried to escape, although mortally wounded, by walking up a slope. It was decided by the group to allow the stag to get up the hill before they finished it off, because it saved them the exertion of having to carry a heavy dead animal up an incline. That was an example of breaking the Law. What do you think about that, Jim? Even on the Dark side, surely as Animal Welfare Consultant to the Countryside Alliance, you cannot approve of such cruel behaviour.
2. I think in my original post I covered ‘witnessing’ as opposed to film footage in determining cruelty, so I won’t bother to cover old ground other than to give you an example of how footage can be better than a first-hand account. First-hand has the disadvantage of the adrenaline shot which accompanies the experience in real time, and events can easily be misconstrued or even missed by an observer. The serious crime squad watches endless hours of footage when dealing with child abuse, and prosecutions are successfully mounted on video evidence. Animal abuse can be shown in a similar way, and those who have the unfortunate task of having to examine the footage, are clearly able to see what has occurred. (Before you take me to task and accuse me of likening child abuse to animal abuse, let me say I was giving you an example of how film footage is more helpful than first hand witnessing when determining if a crime has taken place.) That you accuse JD of doctoring his evidence, is a matter for you and he to discuss. I can’t possible comment.
3. I think we have covered number 3 , unless you need me to provide more evidence from Holocaust survivors who compared their experiences with how we treat animals. (I would, however, encourage you to read Eternal Treblinka. )
4. Joe Duckworth did not duck any of your comments. He replied to everything you said and he stuck to the point and was obviously well acquainted with your attempts at ridicule. He mentioned ‘Gunsmoke and Mirrors’ about the shooting industry, and how the industry traps, poisons, shoots and snares perceived predators, domestic animals and birds of prey. All this, so people can blast birds out of the sky in the form of recreation. I am still waiting to hear your reply to that. You completely ‘ducked’ that comment and I could be forgiven in thinking perhaps you had been stuck deaf for a few moments. There were other points he mentioned about the myth that foxes are killed by a single nip on the back of the neck, you didn’t answer that either, but brought the subject round to attacking the LACS, and Joe personally about the ‘exemptions’. This was your tactic with anything that was said that would have meant you had to actually defend animal abuse. It would seem pros pontificate more than the Pope, and they are all ‘experts’ in all animal species and all parts of animal life cycles. The reality is most, if not all, are completely ignorant of the life cycle, way of life and the valuable place the hunted play in the balance of our ecosystem. It would seem that the psychopathic lust for killing things blocks all reason and rational thought. Some of the comments on this thread show a completely ignorant view of animals. One or two commentators refer to foxes as vermin and are adamant that we are in danger of being overrun. This is just absolute nonsense and flies in the face of ALL scientific evidence. These people have been brainwashed. It is almost like a lynch mob, who demonise and vilify innocent animals.
5. I am not privy to LACS policy so you must ask JD about this. How can I possible comment on policy?
6. The hunting Act only fails when people break the Law. If not one animal is saved that is entirely the fault of those criminals who kill them, and who hamper and hinder Monitors who are observing hunting. I have watched some horrific footage of attacks both by hunters on horseback and the terrier men and other followers. These attacks are made upon innocent people who are doing the job of the police, but because they are civilians they are fair game to the thugs who have no one to stop them and few witnesses. You were the one who was complaining that no research was being done to see the effect the Act was having, therefore if you are so concerned that it is not saving aniams, when it clearly is, then you must provide the evidence. Although I must say, I would be very suspicious of any evidence produced by the Countryside Alliance on this subject. At the debate you invited us to attend a hunt and see for ourselves that hunters are nothing but loveable pussycats, who actually are helping animals by hunting rather than torturing them to death. I would not observe a hunt unless I was dressed in full riot gear with at least a dozen armed body guards. Perhaps you could make an exception to ‘witnessing’ activities on this occasion, mostly because it wouldn’t be safe, and take a look at the footage produced by the monitors which clearly shows the violence.
7. The RSPCA were right to take the test case against the Heythrop Hunt. The RSPCA supporters endorse this view, and I hope it has shown hunters that breaking the Law will not go unpunished. How else are we to stop them if we don’t prosecute them? There is a clause in the Act which says that dogs and horses may be confiscated as well as fines paid. I think this will happen in the future. The RSPCA have a fighting fund with which to prosecute illegal hunting. This is separate to the money they use for other animal cruelty concerns. The RSPCA has enjoyed a surge of donations and support since the successful outcome of the trial and they are well equipped to take on the cases the CPS is too afraid to touch.
8. I really think the jailing of the LACS official is best not used by you as a stick with which to beat the organisation.
9. I remember very well what you said at the end of the debate. It is probably the one thing which stands out clearly in my memory above everything else, and I can hear you saying those words now as I am typing. You were asked to take away all the other issues by the lady sitting on your right. She persisted and stuck to her question, which was why do you support killing foxes? Eventually, after she had repeated that one question several times, you said, and I quote “It is human nature”. You did not qualify that with livelihoods, or animal welfare or any other waffle. Those are the exact words you said, and I am sure you didn’t miss the gasp of incredulous amazement from those listening.
Finally, for the commentator who thinks foxes are prey species and are used to being hunted by wolves.
Taken from the fox website>>>
Did wolves regulate the number of foxes in Britain?
Grey wolf
“It is a myth that wolves regulated fox numbers and that, with the loss of wolves, fox numbers increased. The best data on the impact of wolves on foxes comes from Isle Royale, a large island in Lake Superior, where wolf and fox numbers have been monitored for fifty years. Wolves do not reduce fox numbers, and in fact foxes benefit from scavenging on wolf kills. Wolves disappeared from England many centuries ago, but fox numbers remained low, so much so that large numbers had to be brought over from Europe in the 1800s to ensure an adequate supply of foxes for hunting. So there is no truth in the story that wolves regulated fox numbers in Britain and that, in the absence of wolves, they need to be killed to reduce numbers.”
The grey wolf is a large animal and survives in and for the pack. There would not be much of a meal for a wolf pack in a small fox who can be seen to be not particularly meaty without his fur. Most of the comments against foxes really show the ignorance of the commentator.
Dear Patricia
I see that you have not learned to make you points succinctly and I suspect that this dialogue is getting a little boring for readers. I also note that you were quite prepared to debate the Hunting Act without fully understanding it. It would appear that you still don’t.
Nevertheless, let’s address your points.
1. Nothing has changed as far as wounding is concerned – it is the RSPCA’s policy that has changed.
2. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the validity of witnessing an activity before condemning it.
3. I still think using the Holocaust to make your point was foolish, as is bringing in child abuse. The LACS in the past has likened hunting to paedophilia – an utterly ridiculous and tasteless comparison.
4. Your response about Joe Duckworth not answering certain points still has not been answered by your reply. What was his view on a wild mammals welfare law – that would resolve the whole argument!
5. “I am not privy to LACS policy so you must ask JD about this. How can I possible comment on policy?” Looks like that is exactly what you have been doing.
6. Regarding research, the anti-hunting groups were happy to ignore peer-reviewed research commissioned by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group and indeed use non-validated “research” to counter it. Such “research” has never been peer-reviewed or published.
7. The RSPCA was right to prosecute the Heythrop Hunt? Well, that’s your view, but you must accept that other animal welfare work will have suffered. I’ve seen two different advertisements for the RSPCA on TV this weekend and both were about domestic animal cruelty – either directly or through abandonment. Two thoughts; firstly I wonder why the adverts didn’t say anything about highly paid lawyers and expensive prosecutions and secondly if hounds and horses belonging to a hunt were to be confiscated, how on earth would the RSPCA cope – they haven’t enough facilities and resources to deal with the animals they already take in !
8. I, and many people in the hunting world, will NOT take lessons in criminality from criminals.
9. I remember precisely what I said about human nature and protecting livelihood, so, once again, please don’t twist my words.
10. Joe Duckworth said that predators don’t hunt predators. Wrong, as Giles Bradshaw clearly explained. The relationship between apex predators and mesopredators is, as he says, complex, so simplistic and incorrect statements like Joe Duckworth’s are unhelpful.
Final point, just because you don’t like something that is no reason for it to be banned by law. You would like the public and gullible politicians to believe that everyone who goes hunting is a blood-lusting sadist because it suits your thinking. The reality is very different and the more people make up their own minds about hunting the sooner a sensible conclusion will be reached.
I still do not understand why, if your argument is supposedly so strong, why you will not let it be tested by a wild mammals welfare law. The reluctance on your part is the strongest condemnation of your whole argument.
I’m trying to reply to Patricia’s comment of January 20, 2013 at 1:29 pm however there’s no reply option on it presumably because of the depth of the comment tree.
I have to say I am really really pleased to read Patricia’s criticisms of the current legal situation. It’s becoming clear that she does not agree with around half of the Hunting Act and although she clearly has different ideas as to how to resolve the situation it’s a step forward to building a consensus that the current situation is unsatisfactory. That is essential for getting Parliament to look at the law again.
I’ve always thought that the antis want to close down debate on the obvious shortcomings of the law. Indeed a debate such as this would be unthinkable on a LACS blog. Mr Barrington deserves praise for allowing Patricia to express her views so we can explore both areas of agreement and disagreement.
With regards to her comments about the loopholes (by which I assume she means exemptions) being there because of the hunting lobby we must remember that LACS have fully supported these loopholes and insisted in a Parliamentary briefing that they ‘provide for humane pest control’. Are LACS part of the Hunting Lobby? I suspect not!
In actual fact many people at LACS do not hold this position however they are afraid to speak out. I have been told privately by a LACS staff member that this is because up until now any criticism of the Hunting Act has been a sackable offence. With JD’s apparent call for repeal of half of the law this situation may well change.
Patricia – if you are reading this would you mind if I copy some of your comments to Richard Benyon MP? I’ve recently corresponded with him on the Hunting Act and I think he would find some of your statements very interesting.
WRT wolves and foxes on Isla Royale – as I said the presence of wolves can actually increase fox numbers and Isla Royale may indeed be an instance of that. However and this is a key point wolves will also increase general fox health because they kill sick foxes. To balance the Isla Royale case a study of the boreal forest in Sweden found that wolves reduce fox numbers there.
The effect of wolves on ungulates is also complex and not just confined to numerical reduction. There has been some research looking at woodland regeneration which found that the behavoral impact of wolves on deer meant that deer kept away from the forest edge where they were most likely to get pounced on from the shadows. This was found to have a significant effect on woodland regeneration.
IMO this explains partly why my dogs , by chasing wild deer help my coppice to regenerate.
Oh by the way I just had my dog Magic onto a rabbit in the snow! She’d managed to put it up out of some brambles. I urged her on.
Best wishes
Giles
One more point to Patricia.
WRT ‘expert marksmen’ you really should look at the research on fox wounding rates. This found that the proportion of kills to woundings was roughly the same between expert and novice marksmen. The difference between the two groups lay in the overall numbers hit with novice marksmen missing a lot more. This means that expert marksmen both kill AND would more foxes than novice marksmen.
If someone was to be shooting at me I’d want them to be a BAD shot rather than an expert sniper.
Kind of an obvious point really!
cheers g
ps patricia for the record if people did shoot a stag twice and the deliberately not shoot to kill it until it had got to the top of a hill I would very strongly disagree with that action and think it should be illegal.
Just looking at the law – the exemptions which Joe Duckworth now wants repealed are almost half of the Act! If this was a debate on the Hunting Act and Joe Duckworth has acknowledged he is only actually in favour of about half of it. How can he claim he won the debate???
Mr Barrington, as you stated, the debate was entitled “The Rights & Wrongs of Hunting”. Yet instead of debating the issue, i.e. the act of hunting, focus was diverted into extolling the virtues of dispatch by hound over gun, and a distasteful (and ongoing, as your blog shows) urge to mudsling at your former organisation, allowing bad blood to sully and detract from an otherwise objective debate.
I wholeheartedly agree in your plea for people to witness a hunt and ignore propaganda. Interestingly, the more you used the word “propaganda”‘ the more it highlighted the irony of no less than 17 pro-hunt focussed handouts liberally distributed throughout the room, against a marked absence of anti-hunt paraphernalia. I do believe, Mr Barrington, that you asked us to ignore your own literature?
A interesting point, when confronted with a historical quote of your own which contradicted your current views, you countered sentiment was “what do you expect? I said that when I was working at the League”. A confirmed admission that your opinions are defined by your payroll somewhat drained the gravitas from your entire contribution, all by your own volition.
I am left wondering what possible gain your cause can find by your admission that it is human nature to kill foxes. So Mr Barrington, to paraphrase your summary above: I attended yesterday with an open mind, and I swallowed the propaganda- yours. Without even touching the subject matter debated, I think you did a tremendous job for the LACS by proving that foot-in-mouth is still rife in the Countryside.
Dear Ms Marshall,
The reason I criticise the LACS is because they support a flawed law that is detrimental to animal welfare. Furthermore, they stand in the way of a sensible, fair law that would resolve the whole debate. If you regard that as ‘mudslinging’ you’re welcome to your opinion.
The issue you raise about my comment at the time of working for the LACS is clear and not as you imply. When I was executive director of course I was in support of the policies, but when I started to consider more deeply the consequences of a ban and learnt more about how hunts operate, I changed my view, not about animal welfare, but about the aim of a hunting ban. Your payroll jibe is just silly. People give their services and receive money – it’s called salaried employment. I am now a self-employed consultant and I say what I believe. If that is liked by other bodies, fine, but to suggest it’s just chasing money is cheap and untrue. Is that so hard to understand?
I said that it was in the nature of humans to protect their livelihoods, which means that sometimes they will kill wild animals. Please don’t twist my words.
If your last jibe is true, then you should be thanking me, shouldn’t you?
I cannot agree Mr Barrington about the need for hunting with hounds but where I do think he has a good point is regarding the removal of all the existing exemptions from the Wild Mammals Protection Act. This would in effect make all cruelty to wild mammals illegal. Irrespective of what happens to the Hunting Act this has to be right in principle. All cruelty to wildlife is wrong and should simply be illegal. How cruelty is caused is not the point what is important is that it is cruel. It’s a nonsense to say it should be legal in some ways and not in others.
One wonders why the League oppose such a move? It seems to me it can only be for short term political reasons and not ones based on any real principle.
However they dress up their position what is clear is that they are in effect supporting some forms of cruelty remaining legal and to my mind this is simply wrong.
Dear Jason
Thank you for the comment, which is very welcome.
We may disagree on the use/need for scenting hounds, but to say that there should be a level playing field with regard to cruelty to wild animals has to be right. A law that says it is wrong in whatever circumstance to cause unnecessary suffering to any wild animal for whatever reason is principled. It is that same principle which is at the core of domestic animal welfare laws. I don’t see why that principle should not be applied to wild mammals too, provided we understand that life in the wild is not the same as that of domesticated animals. The test would then be if evidence of such cruelty can stand up in a court of law. What would then be obvious – and this is why the LACS do not like such a measure – is that the Hunting Act would be redundant.
What I think clouds the issue is the ‘killing for fun’ argument. Some people seem to equate cruelty with killing for fun but this isn’t really the case. The question of cruelty rests on whether there is a need to kill the animal and the degree to which it suffers. Compared to those two factors whether people enjoy the process or not should always take at least third place.
Couldn’t agree more. Thank you
All credit to you Jim; you were the only one truly concerned about animal welfare? Joe Duckworth’s group were part of the campaign against hunting, they got the law they had paid for and animal welfare was put on the back burner and replaced with crueller alternatives. How LACS can claim a victory over that is shameful. Little wonder their own supporters have seen what ghastly little monsters LACS are and and are leaving in their droves?
‘And all from someone who has never seen a hunt’
That doesn’t put him in in a very strong position when commenting on hunting. If all I’d ever seen was League propaganda videos, I’d most definitely be anti hunting as well.
By the sounds of it, all he did was spew out the same tired lines.
I bet Mr Duckworth’s views (maybe not entirely, but partially) could be changed if he went hunting. At least he’d find out that we aren’t bloodthirsty monsters-get someone to understand that and you’ve won half the battle. Approach things with an open mind!
I’ve written in the past to Joe Duckworth suggesting he comes out with me and observes the process of pursuing wild mammals first hand but he refuses. Which seems odd as he could bring his video and get some footage for a prosecution f he really thought I was being cruel.
Well done, Jim. I know from first hand how long you have been labouring in support of common sense and humanity in wildlife management. I admire the way in which you deal so patiently with the fraudulent activities of those who try to manipulate the law to serve their own perverted purposes, while ignoring the welfare of the creatures they purport to represent.
Keep up the good work.
Not part of the debate but your opinion on the headline in the local press along the lines of “animal lovers v field sports enthusiasts”…
For the record I support human and animal welfare charities and am an urban fly fisherwoman…
Quite right.
It is simply ridiculous to imply that there is some sort of line between people who hunt and those that do not and that only the latter can be in favour of animal welfare. I know of many exceedingly kind people within the hunting world who are deeply caring about their animals and know of things they have done for animal welfare, both domestic and wild.
It is strange behaviour which seems to be unique to human beings that we can deplore one cruelty whilst embracing another. Killing a wild animal for fun and treating a domestic animal kindly is hypocrisy.
There is a fundamental misappreciation here about the motivation of people who hunt with the involvement of hounds. First it is essential to separate attitudes of hunting people today from some of those of times past. There is today a much greater appreciation of the role of hunting as being a tool for use in wildlife management. However assuming for the moment there were to be no ban, what would not have changed is the breeding and education techniques of the hounds themselves; their management and efficiency in carrying out their task and the organisation of hunting to achieve the selective culling that maintains a healthy pool of all wild species involved. Post-repeal, it would be the intention to continue this approach with all the regulations necessary for the conduct of hunting in place. However this ethos remains academic while the ban is in place.
So what of the attitudes of those humans taking part in the hunting process? The huntsman and his team take pleasure in observing the way the hounds go about their business. Only those with an appreciation of this phenomenon will understand the satisfaction that is inherent in watching a hunting dog performing with all its skill and application. Then separate from those closely involved `at the sharp end` we have the Field, mounted or on foot, who take a different pleasure; the thrill and challenge of riding a horse across country; the cameraderie of those like minded people who join in the exercise and the satisfaction gained from ending the day without mishap. There are a few who also add to their pleasure by understanding what the hounds are doing and the success or otherwise of their carrying out their task. All these people are kept at a distance from the hounds and what they do and the idea that they are illuminated by some sort of slavering blood lust, intent on slaughter, is so far removed from the truth as to be farcical.
So many of those who oppose hunting with hounds have manufactured in their own minds, aided by those who are against it for other quite different reasons, a view which is as archaic as is possible to imagine. The fun gained by those who hunt is not based on the slaughter of wildlife of any description. The sooner the image of Victorian sporting art and literature is dispersed, the better placed we shall all be to understand what hunting today might involve.
@Pattie B That’s not quite how I see it. I would start off by asking ‘Does the wild mammal need to be managed’ – this will be a complex question but IMO for various reasons the answer to this can be yes. Both in terms of the welfare of the specific species and because of other issues. Then I would look to see what is the best way of managing it – again this can be a complex question with different forms of management having pros and cons. The issue of whether in that process people have fun would come right down on the list and actually to be quite frank I would rather they did. Whether an element of fun is had does not have much specific bearing on the morality of the activity in my view.
I would however agree that delighting in the fact of causing pain to an animal is rather odd and would presumably lead to people devising ways to increase the suffering caused so to get more pleasure.
I think probably deploring cruelty is if not unique to human beings at the least generally confined to animals that we might call ‘higher order’ in terms of intelligence.
PR every empathic person sneers at people in red coats because they are animal abusers. What has class got to do with it? You are the ones who keep bringing up the ‘class’ word. No one today cares about the class system anymore. If you are Sir Richard Animal-abuser, or just plain Richard Animal abuser. An abuser is still an abuser, it’s just that more of the abusers are rich simply because they have the money to pay for all your paraphernalia. BTW Jim, you didn’t post my account of the debate yesterday, why was that? Was it because you just allow one sided comments, as in your side. That is a funny way to debate
But the Hunting Act fails to discriminate between animal abuse and non animal abuse. Even the RSPCA agree on that. I have for many years campaigned against the Hunting Act and practiced and promoted activities that it makes illegal. I have questioned the RSPCA on this and the written response of one of their inspectors was:
“Have read plenty of blogs/letters by you on this subject. I don’t have any argument with you on this one.”
What we need is a law which makes all deliberate cruelty illegal; and the anti hunt/pro cruelty lobby need to come clean on why they propose such a law.
We have a law which makes all cruelty to domesticated animals illegal – why not a similar law for wild animals?
Dear Patricia
Your previous comment raised so many inaccuracies I want to take time in responding – that is not curbing debate. Also, it was over twice as long as the original article , so a helpful suggestion would be to make your points more succinctly.
I have to ask in fairness to Mr Barrington would of Joe Duckworth publish and responding to pro hunt points on a League blog?
Patricia – sorry to disappoint you. I actually come from a humble town in South Wales – but thank you for deeming me worthy of promotion to the aristocracy! I have simply made an effort to understand the country – and country people.
I agree that class should be a non-issue these days. However, as others have pointed out, prominent parliamentary supporters of the Act have categorically admitted the ‘class warfare’ element which motivated them.
There are some respectable arguments against hunting (which I do not share) – but opponents of hunting do themselves no favours by attacking the people, rather than the activity. PR.
Did you not know Patricica Betty that former New Labour backbenchers have admitted that the Fox-hunting legislation had nothing to do with animal welfare but was about Toff bashing?
I quote former Labour M.P. Peter Bradley. “Now that hunting has been banned we ought to own up to it. The struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom— it was class-war” In the fight to overturn the so-called hunt-ban Peter Bradley’s comments should help greatly—you must agree Patricia.
Dear Jim I look forward to your reply
Danny, there may be an element of Toff bashing, you get idiots in any Cause, but those of us who are serious about stopping cruelty to wildlife are not concerned whether the abuser is a toff or whatever the opposite of a toff may be. I/we really don’t care about the ‘class’ system; I don’t feel intimidated or jealous because someone has more money or status than me. What I care about, is that wild animals are being systematically and ruthlessly abused by the hunting fraternity. There are psychopaths in all walks of life; it’s not just rich people who are cruel. We have a Law which forbids hunters to disembowel wildlife with dogs. To bring in all the parts of that same Law which are flawed is not an argument in support of hunting with dogs. That part of the Law should be really easy to obey. Stop using dogs to rip British wildlife. What on earth is complicated about that? All this furore and hatred and smearing of the RSCA for bringing a successful prosecution against those vile men from the Heythrop is just despicable. Those people deserved to be punished because what they did was morally and legally undefendable. The CPS should do what the tax payer pays them to do, which is prosecute criminals. I would add, that perhaps the ‘class’ war you seem to want to start is working on the CPS, they seem terrified of upsetting rich and powerful hunters as is demonstrated by the types of cases they have taken out, which have mainly been against louts with Lurchers chasing hares.
Patricia – leaving aside the issue of dogs for one moment I’d be interested in what your views on animal cruelty are generally – would you be in favour of it being illegal across the board?
Batchelor rejected this idea because such a law would not criminalise and allow him to prosecute people who were not being cruel. I’m not sure what the Duckworth position is on this – it would be interesting to know.
One example might be how animals are shot. Should people be allowed to do this under conditions where they are very likely to wound? I’ve seen some horrific examples.
Unfortunately Jason, however skilled a marksman may be, it is inevitable that occasionally an animal will be wounded and potentially die a horrible lingering death because of it. I do not know any shooter personally that would intentionally take a shot they were not “certain” of at the time but a slight movement in a fraction of a second can make a big difference to shot placement.
Fox control is essential in some circumstances (some would argue otherwise but that really is another debate) and the least cruel method of killing a fox is with a pack of hounds. Death is either quick and certain or the fox is likely to make a clean escape.
The Hunting Act does absolutely nothing for animal welfare.
I can shown you a photo of a red deer hind which limped round exmoor with it’s face blown off for a few days. It was tracked down and dispatched by the staghounds. Under Duckworth’s proposals this vital search and dispatch role would be illegal – not for any reason based on animal welfare but purely because hounds need to be used.
The CPS wouldn’t spend over 300,000 prosecuting a summary offence. If it started doing that on a regular basis the country would be even more bankrupt than it already is
It’s good that you are acknowledging that the law is flawed though Patricia because people have been arguing that since it came in and LACS have systematically refused to accept that there is anything wrong with it. I sense that this policy is changing – possibly with the arrival of Joe Duckworth.who has it seems called for much of it to be repealed.
The problem with Joe’s policy is that some of the exemptions are there to protect the public good it would be impossible to repeal half the law without discussing the rest. It should be remembered that the then Labour Government wanted some kind of test of cruelty such that if actions could be shown to be reducing cruelty they would not be illegal. Given that much o the law now appears to be opposed even by many of its supporters perhaps this will be looked at again.
What is I think beyond much doubt is that all sides should now call for this Act to be re examined by Parliament which should take the opportunity to either change, repeal or replace it.
Jason I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking am I against all deliberate cruelty to animals? If that is the question, then yes I am. I am against cruelty, Animal or human
What I meant was – do you feel that all animal cruelty should be against the law? That’s one of James Barrington’s points isn’t it?
Giles, that post of yours about the stag is just ridiculous. Are you now blaming JD because some deviant shot a stag and left it to suffer? Can you not see how shudderingly reprehensible your solution to the wounded stag was. You take a suffering and deliberately injured animal, and you chase it with a pack of dogs. You have completely lost your humanity.
Patricia the law bans many forms of hunting including the searching for wounded animals in order for them to be shot. However this can currently be done under an exemption with two houds. It is often the case with wounded deer that hounds need to be used because unlike us they are expert at scent trailing animals.
This is in fact a key role of hounds. Deer can be wounded for many reasons including stalking, poaching and road accidents.
My point is that in calling for the repeal of half of the flawed Hunting Act this would no longer be legal and such animals would not be able to be found.
If JD wants to prohibit this practice then clearly he must assume a degree of responsibility for the increased suffering that will result.
Giles, what do you mean by all sides? Please dont even hint that those against the animal abuse that is hunting, would join with those responsible for the atrocities and clamour for a change together. This will never be a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Act needs strengthening and all hunting packs should be disbanded. No compromise; they seem incapable of obeying the Law so there is no other way forward.
Both side ARE calling for Parliament to look at the law again and both sides now accept that the law is flawed. This is a major step forward. There are no grounds for calling for all hunting packs to be disbanded they are all obeying the law almost all of the time. Only about 3% or so of all prosecutions have been to do with hunt packs. Your point is deeply prejudiced you could equally well call for all travellers to be banned because some of them are criminals. The truth is that you don’t like Hunts. It makes no difference to you whether they legally trail hunt or break the law you hate this minority and you want it got rid of. Your pseudo concern for animal welfare is just a thin veil disguising your inner hatred and bigotry.
What really annoys you isn’t when hunts break the law, it’s when they don’t, because that prevents you being able to stop them.
And what annoys you even more is that hunting with hounds is still very popular and it will never stop.
Bruce Hall Can you explain, with evidence, why fox control is essential, and can you also supply evidence that the kill is quick and clean?
Patricia
It is likely that you have already read and disregarded as fabrication the evidence of the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management and the submission on the humane aspects of fox hunting submitted in February 2000 to the Committee of Inquiry chaired by Lord Burns and supported by some 400 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (who’s knowledge I feel is far superior to my own) If not it can be found at
http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk
This also covers the generally accepted need to control the rural fox population. Anyone who believes this to be unnecessary is clearly not properly informed or is irrational.
My personal experience, with no evidence other than that of my own eyes, is that a hound kill is extremely quick and keen. This seems to be supported by the opinion of the Veterinary Surgeons involved in the inquiry. I’m sure that you believe that these 400 Vets have somehow become embroiled in a conspiracy to spread disinformation to further some unknown greater cause and are actually telling lies.
As I have said before, no amount of evidence however credible is enough when someone is not prepared to accept it.
How quick generally Bruce? What in your view is the average time it takes for the fox to die.
Danny, I don’t care if two Jags Prescott danced naked round the Barbican shouting we did it because we don’t like ‘Toffs’. This is not relevant. It is not about who hates who and for what reason. It’s about sadistic cruelty to British wildlife. Please let’s just stick to the subject, for which, by the way, you have no real answers. Well you probably do have answers but they would seriously undermine your basic humanity. Just to satisfy my personal curiosity, what IS your definition of a ‘toff’, and why are toffs so important in this discussion?
Giles, JD is not responsible for trigger happy morons who like killing animals. If animals MUST be culled for the sake of habitat, illness or herd size, it must be done by a warden who actually respects the animals he is managing
Ah a ‘warden’ and who might these ‘wardens’ be? Give them a different name and suddenly it’s all ok. And pray tell me if a ‘warden’ is made aware that there is a wounded deer that needs dispatching – how is the ‘warden’ meant to locate that deer seeing as you support banning the best way of doing so?
And under what right do these currently non existent wardens gain access to people’s land with guns (but no hounds) in order to undertake the almost impossible task of finding for wounded wild deer? There is no legislation enabling people to do this and even when there was such legislation to enable people to force there way onto people’s private property with guns, they would not be able to find the deer without hounds.
Danny, you know I feel quite upset that you trivialise those of us who worked so hard and so diligently for a Law to protect wildlife against hunters. Not one true crusader against hunting cruelty gives two hoots about class, yet you keep bringing it up. Whatever Mr Skinner et al said all those years ago does not negate what we are saying today. Please don’t keep bringing ‘class’ into this. I am not looking up, so it’s a bit of a waste of time looking down.
Giles you are clutching at straws. You know absolutely nothing about me or what I think. For all you know i might be a ‘toff’ against hunting. I have absolutely no problem with people having a fun day out with their animals. I have no problems with drag hunting, why would I? Trail hunting is something else, because those deviants often lay the trail of FOX SCENT where they know the hounds are likely to pick up a real scent. Then, of course, they will claim it was an accident. Odd that drag hunters have dissociated from trail hunters because they think they are a devious bunch who are not law abiding.
Trail hunting is completely legal and both LACS and the RSPCA support hunting continuing within the law. Your position is extreme – you label an entire group of people criminal without any proof. That’s just bigotry pure and simple just as it would be for me to say all gypsies are cock fighting , hare coursing criminals. And of course trail hunts lay foxes where real scent might be picked up. Real scent might be picked up pretty much anywhere in the countryside and the point of trail hunting is to simulate as far as possible hunting a real foxes trail.
Drag hunting DOES use a fox based scent!! Ridiculous!
David what is the difference between drag and trail hunting?
Giles, the wardens would be appointed by that benevolent society of animal lovers commonly known as the Countryside Alliance, who are collectively the total embodiment of St Francis of Assisi. The warden will be called upon by the land owners when they have an ill or injured (etc) animal who needs to be dispatched to end its suffering
Maybe we should take deer management lessons from LACS who ended up with over 300 wild deer on 200 or so acres resulting in 85% of the recorded deer BTB cases on exmoor and levels of suffering for which a farmer would be imprisoned if they had been domestic livestock! I’m proud of how I manage my land and the deer on it. It may be technically illegal but I know that complying with the Hunting Act would result in more suffering.
And anyhow there;s a lot we agree on. We both recognise that the Hunting Act is flawed and we both want Parliament to re debate the law and decide on the way forward. More and more people are recognising that and even LACS are coming to that view. That’s real progress.
Giles I have just seen your post about using two dogs to search for wounded animals, and I agree with you. In fact I think it is essential that animals are not left to suffer and die of their wounds. This work must be carried out as part of a job description for a warden, or whatever else you care to call the employee. It is not to ever be carried out by people on horseback who derive pleasure from chasing an animal with a pack of dogs. This is part of the hunting Law which needs to be sorted out, but the part which forbids hunting foxes with dogs is sound and must be upheld. Do you honestly think that the CA would be yapping the way they are about a flawed piece of legislation if that same legislation didn’t have a clause forbidding them to rip foxes to shreds?
So you’re against Joe’s wish to get rid of all the exemptions then?
I’d also be curious if you support the requirement for deer to be shot when they are flushed from woodland to protect it?
I choose to manage my property without killing any wildlife on it (unless it is wounded &c) so I very much disagree with the requirement to shoot deer.
I’ve looked into it quite a lot and IMO when deer are being flushed and therefore moving is the very worst time to shoot them because there is a higher risk of wounding.
The justification of the requirement to shoot them is that they it is to prevent the possibility of a chase however it is also best to wait till they are standing still before taking a shot in which case they wont be being chased so it seems even more pointless.
I’d be curious to know your thoughts on that. Surely it’s better for me to break the law and refuse to shoot them?
Again Giles, I agree in part with what you say in your earlier post about Parliament looking again at the legislation. But….. the pros and the antis have totally opposing agendas. The pros don’t care about the flaws, they just want to be able to slaughter foxes with dogs while they mill around on horseback. Why can’t you see that? You are an enigma, I get the feeling at times that you would like to see a few rights for animals, then on other occasions you are totally bashing the only people who could eventually make a change for the benefit of wildlife in Britain. We share this country with the animals, Giles, we are not really their keepers or their masters, we use them and abuse them because we can, but the countryside alliance types don’t bother to wonder if we should.
I’m passionate about conservation and animal welfare and campaign for non lethal dispersal to be used where practical. I am very against LACS and the RSPCA’s position as adopted in court that I should have to kill wildlife in circumstances where don’t think it is necessary. This may seem like a minor thing but it means a lot to me. I am very insulted by being criminalised for what I consider to be no good reason.
However I also feel that some wildlife does need to be managed especially deer and that the consequences of not doing so would be dire. Red deer on Exmoor have an iconic status here and our herd is actually very special because it is truly wild. Such a herd does not exist elsewhere in the UK except for mountainous areas. In my opinion IF stag hunting was to go then there would have to be an effective system of landscape scale red deer management involving the co operation of many of the landowners here. I don’t think one can just click one’s fingers and make that happen.
Moreover I accept that not all hunting is perfect – far from it however nor are the practical alternatives which generally involve lone men with guns.
Moreover the idea that hunts should themseves be banned is very wrong? Which hunts? All of them or just the ones you don’t like even though they have not been found guilty of any offence.? And who can shoot deer? Anyone or should some people not be allowed to because you don;t like them?
Proscribing organisations and minorities is very dubious. In a civilised society we have laws which proscribe actions these apply to every one.
Giles it would seem you and I are the only contestants here, but you are mainly arguing with yourself because I am telling you I agree with you in part. You must break yourself of the habit of blaming JD and LACS for all that is wrong with the Act. I cannot speak for JD, I can only tell you that I liked him on sight. He looks kind and he cares about stopping cruelty. If you cast your mind back to the dark days around just before the Bill was made an Act, you will remember the bully boy tactics of the pros. They threatened politicians with death and destruction literally. Tony Blair was a spin master; he could talk a glass eye to sleep. I happen to personally think he was just in it all for his own kudos and the power. He agreed to the legislation then apparently said to Jack Straw it was the thing he most regretted in his term of office. Weird that the Bill against foxhunting was more regrettable than the war in Iraq. I suspect he was just all about keeping in with those ‘toffs’ other commentators keep mentioning. Again I would ask you to just look outside of the political box. It’s not about us as people, it’s about stopping cruelty to animals. We all get it wrong, even LACS I’m sure, but those of us who care about animals keep working to get them a better deal. We are on a tiny island, they have nowhere to hide from our cruelties.
Patricia, may I ask-what is your actual experience of hunting? Or is it all based on LACS videos?
I’ve tried to persuade Joe Duckworth of the utility and sense behind me not killing deer and all he did was publicly vilify and insult me. You have to realise that there is a tense situation around hunting and allegations of animal cruelty are serious. I genuinely believe that I am not being cruel by not killing animals. If Joe genuinely cared about cruelty to animals then in my view he would at least have some sympathy for my feeling that in my circumstances not killing them is the right thing to do.
There are some principled people in the CA HSA LACS and the RSPCA who I believe do agree with me.
I am not a cruel or particularly unpleasant man (or at least I don’t think so).
Patricia, whether or not you agree, foxes are classed as vermin and therefore need controlling as do rats, rabbits and grey squirrels. What is the most humane method of controlling foxes? In my opinion the foxhound, which was bred to hunt the fox and replaced the Wolf which hunted the fox in a natural way. Foxes have to be controlled and poisening, snaring and the “new fox hunter” roaming the countryside with his high powered rifle and dressed like a terrorist in his “camo” outfit isn’t the way forward, that isn’t to say that professional marksmen i.e. gamekeepers don’t do a good and humane job. The hunting act has spawned a new sport with amateur trigger happy fox exterminators roaming the countryside at night with thier lamps taking potshots at foxes resulting in the inevitable wounding and a slow painful death— the Labour party and thier paymasters should hang thier heads in shame.
Guys I am holding this corner alone, so you must be patient if cannot answer all your points. It isnt because I dont have answers, its because I am ony one person and I dont type qiuckly
No problem, Patricia. I take my time and so should you !
Send for three and four pence!
Danny, the word vermin is not usually applied to mammals. It is usually applied to insect vectors that carry disease. Foxes are not vermin, they are not even pests. They have been vilified and demonised as a defence against the human conscience. After all it is very difficult to chase and rip something you admire. We don’t have wolves in Britain, at least not running freely over the countryside, so foxes are not used to being chased by packs. Foxes are not prey species, they are omnivores, and as such have predator instincts. What I am telling you can be easily verified so you don’t need to take my word for it. Research it for yourself. Foxes do not have to be controlled. I am exhausted having to keep on saying that. They do not take enough lambs or hens to be termed pests. The amount of livestock killed in proportion to foxes is miniscule, and the majority of farmers don’t regard them as pests. Fox numbers have remained almost the same since record keeping began. They breed when conditions are favourable and not all foxes breed. More are killed on the roads than by hunting and shooting put together, and anyone who puts poison down for any animal I would cheerfully shoot myself. That is a heinous and disgusting thing to do. I have seen an animal in terrific pain from poisoning and dogs and other animals die from poison bait too. Poisoning an animals is cowardly and despicable, but then so is disembowelling a fox you have chased, terrified and cornered. Hounds do not kill foxes quickly, who on earth told you that? Have you no empathy or compassion in you for a small animal that has done you no harm? Hunters don’t chase animals for any good reasons, they do it because they want that animal to die. What is wrong with you people? I would add that foxes keep don the rabbit population. They also kill and eat rats and mice. They eat insects and earthworms, even slugs and snails, and in winter when meat is scarce, they are almost vegetarian eating berries, nuts, fallen fruit. They are beautiful and harmless.
Dear Patricia,
It simply isn’t true that foxes are not a prey species. Foxes are naturally meso predators which means they are both predated and predator. Throughout their natural range they have predators. It’s relation in the trophic chain to predators above it can actually be quite complex. For example where it is predated by both coyotes and wolves an increase in wolf numbers can actually increase fox numbers because it reduces coyote numbers. This is a classic three level trophic cascade where the abundance of a species in one layer leads to abundance in two levels down. Another example would be more wolves leading to more vegetation because they limit deer numbers.
As meso predators Foxes have most definitely evolved both to cope with predators and also as predators.
The only reason that they do not have natural predtors in the UK is that those predators have been removed.
I can dig out some links to research if you want to find out more about how foxes are predated.
There is also lots of interesting reading abut what happens when the effect of apex predation is removed and the meso predators themselves become apex predators. Basically what tends to occur is an overall loss of biodiversity. You can think it like a pyramid. If you lose the top then the base gets smaller too. You should have a look at the ground breaking studies that were done on islands created as a result of hydroelectric projects. These islands were too small to support apex predators and the ecosystem on them was found to be massively poorer as a result due to the consequent high level of meso predators – become apex predators.
The other important thing about predation – in my opinion is that where predators are present there is often a fairly finely tuned balance between a predators ability to catch prey and preys ability to evade capture. This means that in a healthy ecosystem you do not get weakened animals hanging around for two long because they are caught and eaten. Indeed in many cases being caught and eaten is the most common and natural way for an animal to die. It also has important advantages for disease control.
Whether the action of one species hunting and killing another is good or bad for overall animal welfare is also imo not a black and white issue. One could argue that wolves killing foxes and deer would actually improve overall animal welfare because even though it is on itself obviously a grizzly process it alleviates suffering that would happen as a result of that animal dieing slowly through disease &c &c
The effects of predation are in my opinion key to how healthy bio diverse ecosystems function. and the current of natural apex predators in this country die to their removal by humans is an important reason why wildlife management can act to improve bio diversity.
Predator ecology is a fascinating topic!
Patricia, I do admire people that stand up for what they believe even if I don’t agree with them–you are one of those people. I also stand up for what I believe in, so let’s just admit you won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours. All the very best Danny.
Danny, the word vermin is not usually applied to mammals. It is usually applied to insect vectors that carry disease. Foxes are not vermin, they are not even pests. They have been vilified and demonised as a defence against the human conscience. After all it is very difficult to chase and rip something you admire. We don’t have wolves in Britain, at least not running freely over the countryside, so foxes are not used to being chased by packs. Foxes are not prey species, they are omnivores, and as such have predator instincts. What I am telling you can be easily verified so you don’t need to take my word for it. Research it for yourself. Foxes do not have to be controlled. I am exhausted having to keep on saying that. They do not take enough lambs or hens to be termed pests. The amount of livestock killed in proportion to foxes is miniscule, and the majority of farmers don’t regard them as pests. Fox numbers have remained almost the same since record keeping began. They breed when conditions are favourable and not all foxes breed. More are killed on the roads than by hunting and shooting put together, and anyone who puts poison down for any animal I would cheerfully shoot myself. That is a heinous and disgusting thing to do. I have seen an animal in terrific pain from poisoning and dogs and other animals die from poison bait too. Poisoning an animals is cowardly and despicable, but then so is disembowelling a fox you have chased, terrified and cornered. Hounds do not kill foxes quickly, who on earth told you that? Have you no empathy or compassion in you for a small animal that has done you no harm? Hunters don’t chase animals for any good reasons, they do it because they want that animal to die. What is wrong with you people? I would add that foxes keep don the rabbit population. They also kill and eat rats and mice. They eat insects and earthworms, even slugs and snails, and in winter when meat is scarce, they are almost vegetarian eating berries, nuts, fallen fruit. They are beautiful and for the most part harmless.
“anyone who puts poison down for any animal I would cheerfully shoot myself. That is a heinous and disgusting thing to do.” – including for rats? Rat poison does indeed have a grim effect yet we poison them by there millions and not only on rats – also on other animals such as barn owls.
We have very few rats I suspect partly because we have five cats and two free range collies.
There’s an interesting moral question – would it be better to use a terrier if it killed the rats quicker but you enjoyed it and lets be honest some people do love ratting.
To my mind if the job needs doing and you can do it in a fun way that also causes less suffering then better animal welfare will always outweigh considerations of ‘killing for sport’.
James,
I did not liken hunting to the holocaust. I was making the point that you dont have to witness something first hand to know it is wrong, and i think you knew perfectly well what i meant. However, now you have raised the issue, you may be interested to know that Alex Hershaft who survived the holocaust with his mother,( his father was killed in a concentration camp) did compare the holocaust to the way we treat animals. He actually started an animal rights movement for farm animals after the war and he compared the cattle cars used to transport people to the camps, to the transport used for cattle being taken to slaughter. He said the horrors that he witnessed stayed with him as an adult, and eventually led him into a career as an animal rights activist.
“I saw a lot of analogies between what the Nazis did to us and what we’re doing to farm animals,”
“I had always felt that there was something ethically or aesthetically wrong with taking a beautiful, feeling animal, hitting him over the head, and cutting him up into pieces and stuffing the pieces in my face,” Hershaft words not mine.
You may also be interested in reading ETERNAL TREBLINKA: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson, Ph.D The book describes disturbing parallels between how the Nazis treated their victims and how modern society treats animals. The title is taken from the Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself a vegetarian: who sad “In relation to animals, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.”
I wonder what those men would think of disembowelling foxes as a fun day out
Dear Patricia
Your Holocaust example was a very bad choice, but the fact is one cannot make the judgements you and Joe Duckworth have unless you know more about the issue. Film – and edited film at that – alone just won’t do that. You should also witness the alternative methods of control in order that a sensible comparison can be made.
By the way, I’m still waiting for those answers that Joe ducked !!
Giles, do you know how rat poison works? The very slow agonizing, painful death that rats suffer while dying from poison in not humane at all. The poison causes rats to bleed internally, it makes them want to drink more often and as they grow weaker due to the loss of blood they just can’t get to water. The stress that they must suffer during those last days of life must be horrific.
I have seen a cat in the final throws of death due to poison, it was the most ugly gruesome thing I have seen. Any one who puts down poison bait for an animal is despicable.
Yes I do Patricia hence my argument that if rat control is needed and practical using dogs and/or cats then it is preferable and also more fun which is an added bonus.
I did buy some rat poison a while ago when Mrs B complained of one in the bathroom (although i wonder if it was a mouse combined with over active imagination) however I’ve hardly used it. We live in a very old house which we’ve been doing up which has meant the cats have been able to get upstairs and they now seem to have killed all the rodents up there.
Thanks Danny, I know I won’t change the minds of any on this thread, but it won’t matter in the long run, because the Hunting Act won’t be repealed; it will be strengthened, and this disgraceful treatment of wild animals will be relegated to the history books like other cruel pastimes. It’s just a shame so many beautiful animals will suffer and die before that can happen.
Gilels, in Britain foxes have no natural enemies, humans killed them all off some time ago, and of course as JD pointed out, the fox is now the only thing left you can hunt on horseback. Foxes are built for speed over short distances. Hounds are bred for stamina so that hunters get a longer chase. The poor exhausted, terrified victim isnt even allowed to go to ground to be safe. The more I read and reply to these comments the worse you all appear. You are just a bunch of animal bullies. Its not so long ago hunters were claiming that they rarely caught the fox and so what was all the fuss about. Now you are claiming the opposite, that if you weren’t there controlling this huge population of rabid animals we would be overrun and our children eaten in their prams. You may live in the countryside but you dont own Britain We all live here and the majority dont want you slaughtering wildlife. This is not about minority rights, no one is arguing that you aren’t entitled to the same human rights as others, but don’t forget the Court of Human Rights said you did not have a right to kill. Finally, because i am exhausted with all this, animal welfare is not usually for the benfit of the animal. It is usually so people can exploit that animal for their own benefit.
“and the majority don’t want you slaughtering wildlife” I can’t believe you’ve just said that! I’ve been campaigning for the last eight years for the right to use an entirely non lethal humane means of dispersing and deterring wild deer. I don;t want to kill them, it seems you don’t and now you are suggesting that the majority of the British Public don;t want me to ether!
I wonder if JD does?
It seems to me that the Hunting Act is a law tailor made for breaking and I have no compunction whatsoever about continuing to openly flout the law.
“don’t forget the Court of Human Rights said you did not have a right to kill.”
This is absolute complete and utter nonsense! I was a party to the human rights case and it decided the complete opposite in my case. I was demanding the right not to kill the deer I flush and the court concluded on the basis of arguments put forward by the Government, LACS and the RSPCA that I did not have the right NOT to kill the deer I flush out.
I am a passionate supporter of my right not to kill wildlife and I am fully prepared and do openly break the law by not killing wildlife.
Please please tell me one good reason why I should HAVE to kill wildlife in my circumstances? You’ve said a lot about not killing wildlife but do you actually support the decision in the Human rights case that I should have to?
I cannot understand how you can be both against killing wildlife and a supporter of people having to. That seems totally illogical.
Jim Barrington
You have witnessed hunting before, but nevertheless this site may be of interest.
http://www.realca.co.uk/
Jason I have already told Giles I agree with him on this point. I have told him more than once that I agree he should not have to kill the deer. I have also said that I think the Law is flawed, at least the same number of times. Let me please try to explain in a way that leaves no margin for any more misunderstanding. I am not a politician, I dont make the laws, so I cannot be held accountable for the parts of the hunting Act which are unworkable. The part that is working well is the part that you dont want in the legislation. Be honest, even if its only in a tiny whisper to yourself, you dont care about the rest of it really, you just want to be able to hunt foxes on horseback, and because that part is clear and flawless, in that if you are caught breaking it you will be punished. So you focus on the parts that arent working so well, and you set up such a clamour that I am sure you could be heard on the moon. The thing is though, nobody is fooled by it, you know, and we know what it is you really want.
Patricia, I’m glad you think I should not have to kill deer but I am confused as to why you then bring up the Human rights case against the Hunting Act in which LACS/RSPCA argued against my right not to kill deer.
I feel I have to point out that if you agree with me that I should not have to kill deer you disagree with the stated aim of the Hunting Act backed up by LACS and the RSPCA that I should have to senselessly slaughter them?
And seeing that I lost this case and those in favour of killing wildlife won – what then?
There seems to be a stand off here, I’ve just stuck two fingers up to the lot of them and not killed a single deer with my dogs ever since.
In all honesty do you really think there is anything wrong with refusing to obey the hunting act?
It appears to me that the author of Patricia’s first long-winded reply to Mr. Barrington was Joe Duckworth.
James Barrington
Let me be clear, because I don’t intend to be misquoted and let it lie. For the second time, let me tell you I did not compare the holocaust to animal abuse. That comparison was made by holocaust survivors whom I think have earned the right to speak as they find. You are wasting your time trying to spin what I said, which was in reply to your comment that JD had not witnessed a hunt first hand. I said one does not need to witness an atrocity to know an atrocity has been committed, and i gave the holocaust as an example of an atrocity that could be taken as read without actually being present in the horror of it all.As for your other question, I am doing what you do, I am taking my time to formulate my reply because I want to be sure there are no further misunderstandings. Catch you later.
“One does not need to witness an atrocity to know that an atrocity has been committed…”
Well that depends on where you gained your information about the atrocity in question, who provided it, were their motives disinterested or were they trying to make a point to further what they believe; and how willing are you to believe what you wish to be true because it supports your own predelictions?
You are of course perfectly at liberty to believe what you wish and act as you believe necessary, provided (in my view) what you think and do does not impinge upon the freedoms of others acting within the law.
But then we come to the question of the law and your intent to change it because it does not support your own beliefs and moral stance. Do you own the right to force others to be subject to a law supported by you, based on prejudice rather than on empirical evidence?
As to the claims of those of your persuasion that you are supported by whatever percentage of those canvassed in opinion polls that you choose to offer, remember how he who frames the question can almost always dictate the answer.
I dispute your right to dictate to me on the question of the moral need to manage wildlife in this country and to do so in the most humane and effective manner.
Patricia has exhibited a classic example of Godwin’s law.
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
John – you must surely admit that being killed by a dog will inevitably result in considerable pain?
Why must I admit that this is so? It has never happened to me so I cannot say. However if you believe it to be the case, can you not appreciate that it applies throughout nature wherever one animal preys upon another. If hounds kill a fox, is this any more reprehensible than a fox killing whatever it decides to despatch? I cannot follow the logic of your argument.
Of course the Law is based on empirical evidence. Do you think those in Parliament make laws on hearsay or old wives tales and word of mouth? The evidence of observation and sound reasoning went into the Burns report together with eye witness testimonies from pro hunting sources as well as anti. (Did you read Clifford Pellows comments in the Burns report, he was an ex terrier man who was disgusted by the insane cruelty visited upon innocent animals in the name of sport?) Over 700 hours went into the drafting of that Bill, and many years of evidence gathering before the proposal ever reached Parliament. The loopholes that exist, which you all now so gleefully exploit, actually exist because of the hunting fraternity carping and insisting this and that be included. You think by attempting to rubbish your opposition by making out we all read too much Beatrix Potter makes for a sound defence? You accuse me of wanting laws based on prejudice and suggest I have no right to lobby for humane legislation to protect wild animals from abuse? You are deluded if you think those comments form any basis for a repeal. Many laws are made that minorities would like repealed. How about we abolish punishments for stealing murder and rape. How about we give paedophiles a free rein to abuse children. You are not making sense. Laws are made to protect society against deviants who exploit others. I have the right to live my life free from torment and abuse because of laws made to protect me. Now wildlife in Britain has been given the right to live free from animal bullies and self styled welfarists who attempt to sanitise their brutality by calling what they do ‘wildlife management’.
Giles you have now shown your true character and I am grateful because I now no longer have to wonder about your contradictions. Of course I cannot stop you and therefore I won’t waste my time discussing with you personally any further. My last comment to you is this. You are deluded if you think you are a predator. You are nothing without dogs and the technology you bought. You couldn’t hunt a squirrel without help. A true apex predator uses its own skills., its wits, it’s courage, it’s teeth and claws. Please get over yourself, you are just a stupid man who wastes the time of others. You are a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and now that I have taken a bit of time to look at your witterings about the Act, you are wrong about that too, and so was I in believing your rubbish. You are not required by law to shoot the deer you flush. All that was just blustering nonsense and time wasting. I am glad you are on the side of the pros because you make a mockery of the pro hunting arguments much better than I ever could. You also don’t understand that rights are only a concept, all rights are man made and in a democracy those rights are given after considered debate. In the case of animal abuse by hunters, you have no rights. The rights were given to the animals when the Bill became Law. The natural Law of nature is really the only fundamental Law and were you left in your natural state to fend for yourself without your guns and dogs and supermarkets you wouldn’t last a week.
Interesting how you resort to insults when I have been completely civil with you.
“You are not required by law to shoot the deer you flush.”
I very much hope so because if this is true then I can continue chasing whatever wildlife I want with my dogs without complying with any exemption.
“without your guns” you clearly have not understood a word I am saying Patricia. I have no guns.
TAKEN FROM THE EXETER ECHO 4th Nov 2009
It would appear that a certain commentator has been posting inaccurate information about the Law.
“GILES Bradshaw is either trying deliberately to mislead Echo readers or is completely ignorant of the law, ‘Pre-beating’ tactic is just hypocritical, Letters, October 31.
The Hunting Act does not stipulate that a flushed-out animal must be killed.
It merely says that, if the animal is deliberately flushed with no more than two dogs in order to prevent serious damage to crops or livestock, it must not be chased or killed by dogs.
If, on the other hand, the intention is to use dogs to have a jolly good chase of a wild animal and then to let them tear it apart for a bit of fun, that would be illegal and barbaric. Simples!”
George Dixon
Wirral, Merseyside
However in the Human rights case to which you referred above the Government backed by LACS and the RSPCA argued that it is illegal to flush out and chase wild mammals with dogs under the hunting act unless the exemptions in the law are complied with.
The purpose of the shooting requirement is to prevent the deer being chased and/or killed.
I don’t flush the deer out in order to shoot them I flush the deer out in order to chase them with my dogs which is something I enjoy doing and which also serves to help protect my woodland from unnacceptable damage.
IF what I do is legal then that’s brilliant! But the Government LACS RSPCA and the police as well as my own legal advice is that it isn’t. However seeing as the police will not take any action I will carry on never the less.
Best wishes Patricia I’ve enjoyed the debate.
I wont declare victory like the juvenille Duckworth. However the important thing is that I can continue deliberately setting as many dogs as I see fit in pursuit of wild mammals on and around my property. That is the right I have been fighting for and have maintained.
Giles you do need to understand that what you do is completely illegal. You have not found some clever loophole in the law that lets you continue. The reason it is illegal is that it is cruel. In the run up to the Hunting Act detailed scientific evidence was examined concerning the use of dogs to chase deer and it was found to cause them huge suffering and irreparable damage. There is simply no comparison between your cruel activities and shooting which done properly leads to an instant humane death. There is nothing wrong with the logic behind the Hunting Act and your objections to killing the deer are irrelevant because the Hunting Act is not against killing deer. Deer do have to be actively managed. The point of the law is to substitute a horribly cruel vicious and outdated activity using dogs with a humane one using guns.
It’s about time the law was fully enforced there is no ‘flaw’ in the law and you should not be allowed to continue with your barbarism.
People like you need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Don’t get too excited Giles you should read Mr Dixon’s letter more carefully. What he’s saying is that it is legal to flush deer out of woods and then shoot them and illegal to flush them out and kill them with dogs. You should not draw any conclusions from it about the legality of what you do.
The point of the Hunting Act was to stop the stag hunts tearing wild deer to pieces. No civilised person would think that using a pack of hounds to rip a stag to bits is humane! Just because that is how wolves kill deer is no argument that we should get dogs to do the same.
Have staghounds ever `torn a deer to pieces`? I have never been staghunting but it is my understanding that at the conclusion of a hunt the quarry deer is brought to bay, encircled by the hounds, and it is then shot; and I believe this has always been the case
Dear Harrison – thanks for your comment. The Bateson report did not look into the process of flushng deer with collies so it is not relevant.
Patricia, I’d be interested to know if in your view Giles is breaking the Hunting Act, do you think what he does should be illegal and do you think it should be legal for people do flush deer out to be shot. These seem to be the three questions that arise from the points he is making.
Many thanks
Jason
People are so ignorant! The deer is shot, not ‘torn to pieces’ Afterwards, the meat is distributed among farmers who’s land the hunted deer crossed. I agree, letting the hounds kill the deer would be inhumane. But that wasn’t how it happened.
Please do some research before coming out with statements that are so categorically wrong!
Isn’t this precisely the problem with getting all your information from films alone?
Dear Patricia
Regarding you quote from George Dixon and condemnation of Giles Bradshaw’s activities, please note exactly what the relevant sections of the Hunting Act say:
Schedule 1, Exempt Hunting,
Stalking and flushing out
1 (1) Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
(5) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
(7) The fifth condition is that – (a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person
Sorry, but both you and George Dixon are wrong.
I’m not sure who George Dixon is?
I’ve just been out with the dogs and found some sheep in the woods. Collies are of course ideal to use on sheep and I managed to get this slightly blurry photo of my dog Magic with them.
The process of flushing sheep out of woods is remarkably similar to flushing wild deer out of woods and it’s also actually quite fun although of course because sheep are domestic animals there is no need to shoot all the sheep to prevent the dog chasing them.
Of course Magic does flush the sheep by chasing them although obviously I supervise the process. I certainly wouldn’t want her tearing the sheep apart however she lives outside next to a field of sheep and she never has yet.
When I want to control how or stop her chasing the sheep I use the word ‘Magic!’ with subtely different intonations so she can understand what I want her to do.
The courts have rued that where deer are flushed enough guns must be used to kill the entire herd.
What I am saying is that there are alternative ways of stopping and/or controlling the pursuit of animals by dogs which can in some circumstances be preferable to shooting the pursued animal.
The sheep are now back in the field chewing on some hay and in my opinion in this specific case this is preferable outcome to them all lying dead in a bloody heap by the margins of the woodland.
From my own personal point of view shooting all those sheep would not have been an enjoyable process.
I really cannot see what is so controversial about that view.
Mr Barrington,
As someone who worked at the League, you may know to what extent (pre-ban) footage by League ‘investigators’ was edited before being presented to the press. You were in charge of the League at the time of the Quorn incident-do you have any idea how much the footage was edited before being made public? Or was there little editing at all? Is it true that footage from non-hunting related, (badly carried out) terrier work was claimed to be filmed from hunting terrier work? What about the case with the Sinnington (I know that it was after your time, but I imagine that the general culture inside the organisation remained the same)? Do you think there is any chance that it could have been a set up, or not?
Basically, I’m asking-how much do you think has the LACS lied to the general public? You may of course, not have been aware of such goings on. It’s something I’m quite curious about.
Dear David
Interesting questions you have raised. Without going back through some files and films (which I will do), I think the best thing to say at this point is that the LACS then, as now, always sought to portray this debate in simplistic ‘black and white’ terms. It is that situation that usually places most of the public in the ‘anti’ category. Of course, that is precisely what LACS want and anything that shows hunting in anything like a good light or indeed makes it a three way option (ban, regulate or status quo) had to be curbed. Will come back on this matter.
Patricia, it is of little consequence to me if Joe Duckworth has to hide behind a woman’s apron. But one word of advice on “liking him on sightt”. Some years ago I left my first wife for going out with someone called the Royal Marines…………. you might have heard of him ?
I suppose if foxes were called Iraqis the Labour party would have sanctioned their eradication by whatever means necessary ?
I don’t understand either of your comments. Are you suggesting JD was a marine who had an affair with your wife and therefore not to be trusted? The remark about Joe hiding behind my apron is as insulting as it is inaccurate. I am a modern well educated woman, I don’t wear aprons, and I am perfectly capable of holding my own in an argument without needing male approval. What you have just said is sexist and I resent it. As for your comment about the Labour Party and Iraqis, what have either of those things got to do with me? I did not support the war in Iraq.
Human beings are possibly unique in having the capacity to think it is ok to kill thousands of civillians with bombs and yet not kill foxes.
I wish to reply to Patricia Betty`s latest post of 20 January, taking the paragraphs as numbered by her.
para 1. “In 2013 it is recognised….” By whom is it recognised? By the general public or just by the organisations whose part you take here. If it is by the general public, what is the evidence to support what you say? If it is in response to polling, who commissioned the polls, who drafted the questions and what was the methodology used in each case? You accuse supporters of hunting of `turns of phrase` and `spin`. Having read your diatribe here, it is clear that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You speak of `death threats to MPs and their families`. Is there evidence of these in verified Police reports or are they merely accusations by those alleged to have received such threats. If the former, where is the evidence?
As for the `dedicated people trying to bring forward banning legislation`, did these include the MPs who have admitted subsequently that this was nothing to do with animal welfare but only an opportunity to `bash the toffs` and `payback for the miners`.
Your perceived loopholes in the legislation were included in the Bill based on verifiable evidence produced for those drafting it.
As for your anecdote about people wounding a stag and then letting it move up hill etc, where did you read of it; was it in a LACS/RSPCA reported allegation?
para 2. You reiterate that video footage is `better than witnessing..` an example of `cruelty`. You then dismiss in a casual way the possibility that video footage might have been doctored and say it is a matter for Duckworth. Well this is not good enough and if you are prepared to discount this possibility, you must provide evidence to support your view that the footage is genuine and unedited. Otherwise your case that such footage offers its own justification for its veracity is full of holes.
para 4. The inflammatory language you use such as `psychopathic lust for killing` does nothing to support your attempts at factual argument.
para 5. I believe, in common with many others, that the reason the Hunting Act fails is that it is inconsistent, lacks clarity and as the Police have found, is largely impossible to apply. As to your own fears of attending a Hunt to see at first hand what you are so quick to condemn, they might perhaps be sparked by reports of the past behaviour of Hunt Saboteurs attacking Hunt Supporters with iron bars and pick helves while the latter were following a lawful pursuit and the saboteurs were prosecuted and sentenced for doing so.
para 7. You try to justify the inordinate amount of money spent by a registered charity (RSPCA) in mounting a civil prosecution on political grounds (why otherwise would it have been in the Prime Minister`s constituency?) and that charity`s intention to pursue further cases `which the CPS is too afraid to touch`; perhaps insufficient evidence that could lead to a prosecution and waste public funds as a result might be the real reason for the latter being disinclined to act..
para 8. I believe mention here of the criminal prosecution of a LACS official is both relevant and points to the character of those making allegations against hunting people; and see no reason why it should be swept under the carpet.
para 9. The rationale for killing foxes is a case for wildlife management, which even those bringing forward banning legislation were obliged to admit is necessary.
All in all madam, I find your argument unconvincing and offered in language that reminds me of the debater`s note to himself which read `case weak here; shout louder`.
Well put, John.
Mr Barrington
What a patronising fellow you are. Boring you am I? Oh well, that is a small victory I can celebrate, and you know we all have our crosses to bear. I must concede defeat, as it is impossible to educate those who are entrenched so fervently in a wrong view. I won’t post again, or check this thread so you can all knock yourselves out having the last word. You may bleat and yap and discuss with each other and pat yourselves on the back at what stout good fellows you are, but it won’t change a single thing. Hunting is still cruel, animal abuse and those who partake and defend it are still cruel animal abusers as I think you already know. You cannot change a truth into something it is not, and if even just one person is speaking the truth it is still no less true. So the war goes on, and I am just so grateful I am on the side of the good guys. JD is a good man, I believe he is an honest man and when I heard him speak I warmed to his sincerity and passion. It is a pity that your strategy cannot be one of informative honest debate, it does your cause no good to insult Mr Duckworth or the LACS. You won’t win you know, and it would be much easier for all if you just get used to that. By the way, I congratulate you and your cause on having Mr Bradshaw in the team. Have you seen some of his videos etc. and the police response. I’m sure with him on side your future campaigns will be totally underwhelming.
Well, I can’t add anything to that !
I’m not a member of any team! I bat for myself thank you Patricia.
I think the police response has been absolutely correct; advising that what I do is an aggravated breach of the Hunting Act while at the same time doing nothing to prevent me gaining pleasure from pursuing wild mammals with dogs. They have a hard job to do and in general deserve our support.
The police are well aware of the situation as we have discussed it in a lot of detail. There are considerable public safety reasons why I should not have to obey the law and I can assure you they take those into account as well.
Ps some of my videos are meant to be funny.Maybe you don’t see the funny side of breaking the Hunting Act – but I do. Half the point is fun! I think you could maybe lighten up a bit?
Dear All,
I’ve just read through all the comments and I think there’s been quite a good debate on here.
Bruce Hall’s comments about the speed of death were interesting but I can’t help but think it is a pretty gruesome business although I can see that other methods are too. Maybe the real question is – do foxes actually need to be killed?
I do think that Patricia is basically right that fox hunting is inherently cruel although as Giles points out the law seems to affect more than just fox hunting so you have to look at everything.
Also Patricia you seem to get a bit personal which rather spoils your argument and I think there are areas where you agree with people that should be acknowledged. However I think also people have rather been taunting you and saying things that they know you will agree with but can’t.
Giles – did you really go out and kill a rabbit today? Maybe not the best way to win people over??
Harrison – I am going to look more into the biological effects of the chase on deer. I think you have a good point.
John Parkes I didn’t know that about stag hunting and thanks for putting me right I am by no means an expert in these matters.
James Barrington has an interesting perspective on Hunting and the Hunting Act which is somewhat different to a cruel hunter just wanting to defend his right to torture animals.
One thing I did do a bit of research on was whether wolves kill foxes and they definitely do so I think we can all agree that Joe Duckworth is wrong on that matter.
I am now going to have a good read of the Hunting Act and have a think about all the exemptions and if and why they are needed.
I hope other people read this conversation as I think there have been some important points raised on all sides and it’s always good to talk. Maybe next time Joe Duckworth could come on and back Patricia up a bit!
Dear All,
I’ve just read through all the comments and I think there’s been quite a good debate on here.
Bruce Hall’s comments about the speed of death were interesting but I can’t help but think it is a pretty gruesome business although I can see that other methods are too. Maybe the real question is – do foxes actually need to be killed?
I do think that Patricia is basically right that fox hunting is inherently cruel although as Giles points out the law seems to affect more than just fox hunting so you have to look at everything.
Also Patricia you seem to get a bit personal which rather spoils your argument and I think there are areas where you agree with people that should be acknowledged. However I think also people have rather been taunting you and saying things that they know you will agree with but can’t.
Giles – did you really go out and kill a rabbit today? Maybe not the best way to win people over??
Harrison – I am going to look more into the biological effects of the chase on deer. I think you have a good point.
John Parkes I didn’t know that about stag hunting and thanks for putting me right I am by no means an expert in these matters.
James Barrington has an interesting perspective on Hunting and the Hunting Act which is somewhat different to a cruel hunter just wanting to defend his right to torture animals.
One thing I did do a bit of research on was whether wolves kill foxes and they definitely do so I think we can all agree that Joe Duckworth is wrong on that matter.
I am now going to have a good read of the Hunting Act and have a think about all the exemptions and if and why they are needed.
I hope other people read this conversation as I think there have been some important points raised on all sides and it’s always good to talk. Maybe next time Joe Duckworth could come on and back Patricia up a bit..
Dear Jason
Thank you very much for your comments too. You have come to this discussion with an open mind and for that no one could ask more.
Try to get hold of a book called Rural Rites: Hunting and the Politics of Hunting by Charlie Pye-Smith (let me know if you can’t get hold of a copy). I’m sure you would find it interesting.
You have to be something of a trainspotter to read the Burns Report, (2000). It is worded in such a way that those who have argued furiously over many years about the issues raised in relation to hunting can often find material that tends both to support and undermine their position.
For example, Harrison and Jason, so far as red deer hunting is concerned, the following four propositions are supported by findings of the independent committee. Patricia, I suspect that secretly you are still reading this thread. Well done for having the courage to take on Jim and Giles.
1. Red deer hunting made a significant contribution to the management of the species in the areas where it occurred.
“Over the last five years the packs have killed about 160 deer each season in total. They also deal with about 80 “casualty” deer each year. The latter are deer which have been injured, for example in road accidents, and which the hunts are called out to dispatch. The total number of deer killed by the packs, excluding casualties, is thought to represent about 15% of the number which it is estimated [47] need to be killed to prevent the population increasing in the area.” 2.37
“There are estimated to be some 12,500 wild red deer in England and Wales, some 10,000 of which are found in the south west of England, with 4,000-6,000 within the staghunting countries, mainly on Exmoor, the Quantocks and in mid-Devon.[249][250] It is estimated that about 1,000 deer need to be killed each year in the areas covered by the three hunts in order to maintain a stable population.” 5.45
“5.75 It is generally accepted that red deer numbers in Devon and Somerset need to be controlled. Hunting with dogs presently accounts for about 15% of the annual cull needed to maintain the population at its present level. However, because of the widespread support which it enjoys, and consequent tolerance by farmers of deer, hunting at present makes a significant contribution to management of the deer population in this area. In the event of a ban, some overall reduction in total deer numbers might occur unless an effective deer management strategy was implemented, which was capable of promoting the present collective interest in the management of deer and harnessing such interest into sound conservation management.”
2. In determining the overall welfare of the herd, on an individual animal basis, it was not shown that stalking would be preferable from an animal welfare point of view. There are a number of facts in relation to deer hunting that are not well understood.
“The modal speed is 5 kilometres an hour, confirming that, for much of a hunt, the deer is not moving. [377] 6.21”
“The nature of the chase, including its speed and duration, will vary considerably depending, in particular, on the terrain, the fitness of the animal concerned and the ability of the hounds to follow the scent”. 6.22
“There is a lack of firm information about what happens to deer which escape, although the available research suggests that they are likely to recover”. 6.33
“Bateson and Harris conclude that, if the total number of animals that suffer per number culled is taken as the index, the balance of the argument comes down on the side of stalking rather than hunting as the most humane method of culling. They add, however, that the picture is less clear if one takes into account the length and nature of the suffering involved, together with the hunts’ role in locating and dispatching “casualty” deer.” 6.37
3. Indeed, it was found that there was a risk that a greater number of deer would be wounded following a ban.
“In the event of a ban on hunting, there is a risk that a greater number of deer than at present would be shot by less skilful shooters, in which case wounding rates would increase.” 6.40
4 It was also found that a ban on deer hunting would probably result in a decline in red deer numbers in the hunted areas.
5.72 It seems probable that, in the event of a ban, the overall numbers of deer in the hunted area might decline somewhat but whether this would be to the extent that would lead to calls for action, such as a ban on shooting, cannot easily be foreseen.[310]
In relation to animal welfare, Lord Burns said the following during debate in the House of Lords on 12th March, 2001.
“The animal welfare argument is the most difficult to evaluate and the area where I had the most to learn. I realise that I might not easily escape the phrase “seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.” I suspect that it will pursue me for some time to come. It is incumbent on me to explain why we used that phrase although I shall limit my remarks to deer and foxes in view of the time pressure. Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data to reach conclusions about cruelty. It is a complex area.”
“Although we would have liked more evidence…we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromises the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing.”
“The problem – it has been referred to by other noble Lords – is that cannot be the end of the matter.”
The Burns Committee was as thorough as it could be in the time its members were given to inquire into the facts about hunting; six months. Many of those who read the Burns Report focused on the effectiveness of hunting as a reducer of mammals deemed to be “pests”.
There has also been a tendency to focus on the welfare of the individual mammal at the time it was hunted and killed, rather than careful consideration of the welfare benefits that hunting provided to the quarry species generally.
My own, admittedly biased, view is that properly conducted, recreational hunting was complementary rather than detrimental to the management of the quarry species. The special respect the ethical, sporting hunter has for the quarry species can contribute to its survival, the survival of its habitat and that of other wildlife. The sooner properly conducted hunting is restored in an accountable, transparent, way the better.
Let’s face it, we that are pro fox-hunting have been debating/ arguing the toss with a group of people that have a hidden agenda for years. This is where I’m from—I will continue to hunt with hound,rod and gun, to stop doing so would be to let down my grandfather who fought for his freedom and his grandson’s right to go hunting, shooting and fishing—and there is not one person on this earth that will stop me.
In terms of psychiatry Joe Jobsworth? would be regarded as ineffectual in response to emotional, social, intellectual and physical demands in the absence of any obvious mental stimulus. In laymans language he’s a waste of space ?
I know I know, I said I wouldn’t visit this blog again, but what I want to say seems most appropriate for the title ‘Debatable Tactics’. (Don’t get your under-things in a gleeful twist though guys, because I am not reading up on the backlog of callow insights of your perception of my character) I read a couple of very interesting articles recently, about the integrity of your own little band of brothers, and it would seem that quite a bit of ‘debatable tactics’ was afoot on both occasions. First of all I read this,
Sunday 18th July, 1999
‘ITV HAS dropped a national opinion poll on fox-hunting after hunt supporters tried to rig the vote.
The television company suddenly stopped this month’s national poll on hunting after it discovered an organised multiple-voting campaign by those opposed to a ban.
Executives at ITV Teletext, which carries regular polls on current affairs issues, decided to scrap the poll after it found hundreds of “no” votes being dialled from the same numbers.’
Now I know it was over ten years ago, but you chaps are for ever dredging up the past, even as far back as 1824, so I felt you might be interested in seeing a bit of your own history which may give you a bit of an idea as to why people don’t believe you when you say you have the ‘welfare’ of British wildlife at heart.
The second thing I read which does nothing for your claims as countryside wardens was this, and I have copied it in its entirety for your perusal,
The Spectator magazine shares the same journalists as the Telegraph, Mail and London Evening Standard, so could be deemed to be another one of the Countryside Alliances sychophantic, media ‘poodles’. Whenever this organization is involved in anything, you know that a scam, hypocrisy, dishonesty or rigging will be included somewhere along the line.
Here MP Paul Flynn exposes yet another of the bloodsport pressure groups dirty deeds:
CHEATED !!!!
The Channel 4 Political awards have been hijacked. The prize for the most inspiring political figure of the decade went to the Countryside Alliance. The Spectator describes the scene:
“I was at the Channel Four political awards last night, where the strangest thing happened. Their main award – (most inspiring political figure of the last decade) – was given to the Countryside Alliance, introduced by Jeremy Irons. As he spoke, boos came from the crowd. At first, I thought it was a joke. Then when the award was accepted (by Ann Mallalieu, president of the Alliance) the booing grew louder and cries of “get off” could be heard as she delivered her acceptance speech. In front of an invited Channel Four audience. Incredible”.
The incredulity of the audience was because CA had won only because the vote was rigged.
An un-named, unknown panel short-listed the hunting fanatics of the Countryside Alliance for the award. The full shortlist was; Tony Blair: Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness: Ken Livingstone: Alex Salmond: The Countryside Alliance and Anti-Iraq war protesters.
There was campaign for mass voting for the animal abusers and – surprise, surprise – the CA won. It’s hard to believe that the non-achievements of the CA could compete among reasonable people with any of the other nominees. What have they done? Lost a campaign against the Hunting Act and lost a fortune in appeals to courts against the Act ? All the other nominees have changed the course of history. The CA will not merit a footnote to a footnote when the history of the decade is written.
There is no check on multiple voting. This even after the string of recent scandals on rigged telephone ballots. The result is meaningless and the audience should be congratulated for greeting it with contempt.
The awards and Channel Four are demeaned.
Paul Flynn MP
OMG dont you just LOVE that man
It seems that for some reason you do not have much faith in opinion polls; if they produce an answer that is favourable to hunting of course. I invite you to apply the same rigour in examining all the polls commissioned by LACS, PAL, RSPCA and IFAW where they set the question (invariably a leading one) and published the answers to support their case. Please tell me that they were all above board and there was never any hint that there might have been sharp practice; and when you do I shall look out of the window to see if there are any pink porcine creatures flying by.
Mr Flynn is of course a Labour activist MP who was one of those driving the Hunting Ban legislation. His motives appear to show little concern for animal welfare but a great deal of the `knock the Tories and their supporters` approach. I discount any judgement he makes on this subject and almost any
other.
All I can say from your revelations is that you are easily pleased.
There are some very nice Tories I especially like the blue fox group in Parliament. You talk about that nice Mr Flynn being an activist MP lol what would you call Simon Hart who apparently only entered politics to get the hunting ban repealed. Compassionate people don’t rig polls, John. They usually play fair,and because they have to be scrupulous to keep their credibility, LACS et al only commission polls from respected organisations like MORI, where the final result can be trusted. Accusing them of poll rigging does not make it so, you have no evidence to support that, it is pure bile because you have no valid answer to the dirty tricks brigade from your side of the fence. I have every faith in opinion polls, john, after all ITV were thorough enough to check the origin of the votes and when it was discovered that a handful of CA types had tried to rig the result, the poll was dropped
He who commisions the poll sets the question and he who sets the question controls the result. Look at the questions set and ask yourself if this is not the case.
John Parks. I quote “He who commisions the poll sets the question and he who sets the question controls the result. Look at the questions set and ask yourself if this is not the case.” The question was a simple one and I would think it would be difficult to control the result, unless of course you are a member of the CA and you vote many more times than once in an attempt to persude us that most of Britain voted to keep hunting with dogs. The question required a YES or NO answer, and the public were invited to ring a certain number if the answer was yes and a different number if the answer was no.
“An e-mail, sent throughout the pro-hunting network, from Henny Goddard, who worked at the Countryside Alliance’s headquarters, reads: “Please phone the following number … Teletext vote following Prime Minister’s latest statement on hunting last night. Please distribute far and wide. Please start phoning now for ITV Teletext poll on page 326: Should hunting be banned.”
He should have added vote only once because it is cheating and un democratic to vote multiple times.
…but he didn`t so if there were multiple votes no one disobeyed the rules. If you are concerned however, there was nothing to stop the anti faction from doing the same. Perhaps you were too complacent. That said, there is no absolute evidence to say multiple voting took place as you allege.
Hi Patricia – I am still waiting for you to produce evidence that the channel four vote was rigged – do you actually have any? It strikes me that your refusal to point to any suggests that you do not. Is this correct?
…and I’m still waiting, Patricia, for those answers you said Joe Duckworth gave to my questions…
I am beginning to wonder if I have stumbled into a kind of parallel universe, where wrong is right and lies are truth. Reading back over the comments I missed leaves me feeling quite surreal. Let me begin with Mr Parkes.
Who indeed would have faith in an opinion poll, when the answer produced was shown to be rigged as in the case of the ITV phone in? The question was simple enough and there were only two possible answers. That pro hunting types registered the same vote many more times than once, isn’t on really if they wants to be taken for upstanding pillars of society who can be trusted with the care of British wildlife. You went on to suggest that others opposed to hunting, should have been quicker on the uptake and rigged the vote the other way. You have forgotten a couple of important things here. First, people who are compassionate and empathic don’t like to cheat, and second we are bright enough to know that phone numbers will be checked.
As for the recent polls commissioned in 2012 by the LACS et al, they can be relied upon because they were produced scientifically. If you know anything about using polls to determine the way a view is slanting, then you will know there is a science involved which makes the poll as accurate an indicator of popular feeling as it is possible to get. The most important factor in creating an accurate poll is to come up with a sample that represents the diversity of the entire population. It must be chosen carefully so as not to over-represent any one group. (And certainly those being polled for their opinion are not allowed to express that opinion more times than once) A properly conducted poll result gives the percentage of the population supporting each view, not the percentage of the sample. That’s the whole point of the poll, after all—to figure out what the entire population is thinking. The YouGOV poll and Ipsos MORI poll used by the League asked the following questions,
“To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Where there is evidence of people illegally hunting with dogs, they should be prosecuted.
If there is evidence of people illegally hunting with dogs and the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, for whatever reason, do not proceed, would you support or oppose animal welfare charities bringing private prosecutions in the courts against those they believe were illegally hunting?”
The results revealed over three quarters (80 per cent) of people in Great Britain felt that where there is evidence of people illegally hunting with dogs they should be prosecuted. And, the majority of the public surveyed, (70 per cent of adults aged 18 years or older) were also in support of animal welfare charities, where there is evidence, bringing private prosecutions against those they believe to have been illegally hunting if the police or Crown Prosecution Service for whatever reason do not proceed.
So you see John, there were no leading questions and both polls, independently of each other, showed that the majority of people in the UK don’t want a return to the days of old when red-coated barbarians set dogs on innocent animals.
BTW where did you find your definition of ‘animal welfare’? I ask because your interpretation of the phrase bears no resemblance to any of the definitions in dictionaries of the English language. Finally, as to your statement I must be easily pleased, I am not easily pleased, but right now I am well pleased. Hunting with dogs is against the Law, the RSPCA has won an important test case, and I am hopeful for a better future for foxes in Britain. Yes, with out a doubt I am well pleased.
Hi Pattie B!
Maybe we could have a little one woman opinion poll on this forum featuring you!
Given that I wrote to the ACPO chief inspector and informed him that I was using my dogs to flush and chase wild deer in my woods and given that he wrote back to me informing me that unless i comply with the conditions for exempt hunting what I am doing is an aggravated form of hunt crime and given that I have informed him that in my opinion the law is an ass and he can shove it up his jacksie and given further more that I have informed him that if he so much as dares even consider prosecuting me I may consider complying with the conditions clearly stated in the law for the exemption of flushing wild deer out of cover do you feel that :
a) I should be prosecuted
or
b) I should not be prosecuted
I realise that this is not a statistically perfect sample but it would be most interesting to have your answer.
with very best wishes
Hi Patricia – does Paul Flynn MP have any actual evidence for his claims about the awards?
Where I would agree with you is that it is a feature of any voting system that people are tempted to try and influence the result by casting their vote for the option they want to win and where more people do this for one option than others that can cause consternation amongst supporters of the other options.
Whether one would call a campaign of mass voting ‘rigging’ or ‘democracy’ is an interesting issue.
It’s not the mass voting Giles, I don’t mind the masses voting at all, it’s the mass of votes that appeared from a handful of enthusiasts to which object. One man one vote, not one man voting every ten minutes. Democracy is not about cheating.
Supposing your description is correct and this is what happened, are you suggesting `your side` have never and would never indulge in such tactics but on this occasion were too slow to do so?
Hi Patricia I appreciate what you are saying however not even Paul Flynn MP has suggested that there was any evidence of double voting at the channel four awards has he? He said the vote was rigged by a campaign for mass voting. I can’t see any evidence provided that people voted more than once in an organised way nor even a claim.
ps I am not aware that you have been discussed at all after your previous leaving post (maybe I shouldn’t say that as you seem to want to believe you have been), nor do I suspect that you have had any effect on any of the other posters underwear; generally those kind of comments threads don’t appear on James’ blogs. Maybe you think your exit would have made some kind of ‘splash’ which is why you felt you had to announce it?
Perhaps I wasn’t discussed, I don’t mind either way. I just assumed that as you were all out for blood, someone may have attempted a coup de gras after my departure. Although Jim did say I was boring,so it’s likely you all just forgot about me and went back to telling each other what rattling good chaps you all are
Patricia, please try to avoid what you accuse others of doing. I did not say YOU were boring, I said “I suspect that this dialogue is getting a little boring for readers.” Read my comment properly ! You said that Joe Duckworth did not avoid any of the questions I put to him. So what were the answers?
Patricia, John has hit the nail on the head.
It would seem that you just see anything said or done in the cause of opposing hunting or attacking the Countryside Alliance as being right. Everything said or done by the LACS, RSPCA or IFAW is automatically justified, because they are saying it. I suppose the fabricated “non-debate” at ITV a year or so ago – fabricated by the LACS – was fine…because it was LACS behind the deception. Such blind faith is never a good thing and it might be a better idea for you to take a step back and try to be a little more objective.
“Paul Flynn MP OMG dont you just LOVE that man”?
A man who knows nothing about hunting, apart from the fact that he doesn’t like it? A man who insults people who hold a different view? No, love is not exactly the feeling I have for him.
I see I’m being moderated again. Lol
James of course it’s right to attack cruel sports, because they are cruel. How could it not be right to speak out against cruelty? The CA has one agenda and that is to bring back hunting legally so they must be shown up for what they are at every opportunity. If you don’t like what I am saying,just block me from commenting. You cannot sanitise what you support because the bottom line is, a minority group set dogs on small British mammals and watch while they are torn to shreds. You can’t argue with that.
The logic of your argument is fragile here. You talk about what you describe as the inherent cruelty of `slaughter for fun` as being abhorrent. Why, however, do you limit your strictures to people who choose hunting as a tool of wildlife management; which it seems to me is a reasonable justification for hunting even if pleasure is a byproduct of it? What is your view of the fox that enters a henhouse and wantonly kills its inhabitants, even though it appears to have no intention of devouring all those that die; or the cat that plays with a mouse or bird before eventually killing it, unless it escapes. Why is there no moral equivalence here? Or are you perhaps concerned only with the morals of any human participants in the equation, in which case your argument takes on a completely different context and we are now in the realms of you dictating to me as to the way I should live my life. Dangerous ground, I think.
What was the ‘fabricated non debate’?
“Everything said or done by the LACS, RSPCA or IFAW is automatically justified, because they are saying it. ”
Very true! LACS IFAW and the RSPCA are decent honourable people fighting to end all wildlife suffering.
The Countryside Alliance and all who support them and ‘blood sports’ are fighting to maximise wildlife suffering.
How could it be more clear cut?
Exactly, Harrison. My point in a nutshell
And your response here fulfils my view of what is a bigot
I think you’ve just proved my point.
….truth being in the eye of the believer….
Had I not read your previous comments I would have taken this as a sarcastic post from a pro hunting contributor. Unbelievable.
Hello Patrica. My BlackBerry kept sounding on Saturday and Sunday as emails landed enthusiastically in my inbox. There is little to add to what others have said. But here goes. BTW I was right to suspect in my other post that you had not sounded the retreat for good. Well done for coming back. Your style is charming and your highly intelligent comments are a pleasure to read.
Anoraks may recall that 18th July, 1999 was about ten days after Tony Blair, accidentally (according to Jack Straw – and I believe him) said on BBC Question Time that hunting would be banned as soon as possible. As this was something of a surprise for hunt devotees, it is understandable that sincere disappointment with a then popular prime minister was communicated feverishly to anyone who would listen. So far as I am aware, telephone polls and online polls have since been organised to reduce the likelihood of one person using the same device/email address repeatedly.
Rural people are usually far too busy trying to earn a living and trying to run their rural affairs to spend much time campaigning about hunting, but when they do show an interest they do so in overwhelming numbers. Over 400,000 marched at the request of the Countryside Alliance for Liberty and Livelihood in 2002. What is the largest number of abolitionists to take to the streets?
It is not only a few journalists in Tory papers who from time to time write intelligently about the subject. See for example, Catherine Bennett in The Observer, Sunday 21 February 2010 and Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, Thursday 18 March 2010.
But as for Channel 4, even if you are right, and hunt devotes were encouraged to vote in numbers by the Countryside Alliance, it demonstrates good, effective political campaigning. Whatever you may think of the CA, it is undoubtedly the most inspiring political figure since 1997, even on your own analysis.
PS Rhetoric aside, on the subject of “animal abusers” neither you nor Harrison has responded to my post of 20.1.13. D
Dominic, you turned out to be correct when you said I would be back. My original intention was to just post the vote rigging stories, but then I couldn’t help myself having a quick peek at what you had all been saying in my absence. Some of your comments cannot remain unanswered so give me a little time and I will tell you what I think about your post of the 20th and others.
James It has been so long now that I have forgotten the questions. Would it be a bother for you to remind me?