Nice One David Cameron

[davey 310]

Cheers mate put that straight on fb

[whitefeet4190 1,724]

Didn't even realise there was a ban

[Bo Duke 420]

This is quite an interesting article I read.

 

Clifford Pellows nice try no cigar

 

Posted on July 13, 2015 by thealdenham

 

It would appear the opposition to hunting are promoting Clifford Pellows the one time huntsmen as a potential saviour to the hunting act if the Daily Mirror is anything to go by. Aside from the fact Clifford Pellows has twice failed in court against the man who claims to represent those for whom are targets of Vexatious litigious, the man I refer to of course is the great Jamie Foster.

 

Naturally the Daily Mirror also fails to point out at least eight prominent members including Chief executives and Chairmen of the League against cruel sports have left the organization after realising a ban would only increase suffering. This was no simple change of heart, this was a change of mind after years of actually witnessing hunts and fox control at first hand and not from some cosy office in London. The now departed Richard Courses experience was very revealing, he obtained a ban in 1988 on land owned by the Co-Operative, the nations biggest farmer only to find foxes were shot instead with shotguns and caught in snares, in his own words ‘by trying to reduce suffering I had contributed to increasing it’.

 

He actually went further and felt compelled enough to write to the Burns inquiry on fox control and the various methods used. The full text on traditional mounted hunting can be found below and dispels much of the myths propagated by charities and organizations using folk with pronounced personality disorders to make money from campaigns in what is nothing more than one big giant scam.

 

Richard Course on Fox hunting to the Burns inquiry (2000)

 

The common misconception of fox hunting is that, from the outset, a small terrified fox is hounded and ruthlessly pursued for several hours until it is exhausted then torn apart by a vicious pack of dogs whilst a semi – drunken pack of toffs look on laughing and smearing each other with blood in some kind of ritual.

 

I know that because, to my eternal shame, I portrayed fox hunting as just that from 1975 to 1988 whilst leading the campaign to abolish fox hunting.

 

The truth is very different. I still find it objectionable that people will kill another living creature simply for recreation, including fishing and shooting. However my concern for animal welfare eventually forced me to study the subject of fox hunting very closely and eventually objectively.

 

To examine a fox hunt properly it must be looked at in three very separate parts

 

Tracking down the quarry

Chasing the quarry

Killing the quarry

A fox hunt starts at what is termed a “draw”. This is where a fox is known or believed to sleep up or reside. Usually the fox earth is blocked up whilst the fox is out and about. The hounds using their powerful scenting abilities usually pick up a fox scent in the immediate area. If the fox lives alone as they usually do, and has its own marked out territory, as it usually does, it is a safe bet that the hounds pick up the scent of the intended quarry. At this point the fox could be miles away.

 

No one, not even the dogs know where the fox is when the scent is picked up

 

The important question at this point is “DOES THE FOX KNOW THAT THE DOGS ARE PICKING UP ITS SCENT?” the answer is probably not!

 

The dogs follow the scent and the staff of the hunt, known as whips and huntsman, try to keep up with the dogs. The mounted followers are obliged to stay behind the officials. The mounted followers are known as the field.

 

At this point it is helpful to understand just why these mounted followers are there at all.

 

ARE THEY REALLY THERE TO GET DRUNK AND SEE A FOX TORN APART?

 

The hunt staff do not often see the dogs actually catch and kill the fox and the “field” are obliged to keep behind the officials.

 

It is highly unlikely that these mounted followers will in fact see the kill or even what remains of the very dead fox.

 

It is untruthful and deceptive to describe these people as bloodthirsty savages.

 

The truth is that they enjoy riding a horse.

 

They prefer to ride across the countryside, through woods and fields rather than stick to some bridle path where it is dangerous to gallop.

 

Some of them will admit that it is a rare opportunity to gallop and jump hedges on otherwise restricted land, on a route randomly determined by a fox. If a person likes riding horses it is a perfectly understandable thing to do.

 

The other important reason that the mounted followers are there is to socialise with their peers and to get to know other people in their peer group. That is a very common thing for all peer groups to do. The opportunities for that are very limited in the countryside unlike the clubs etc., in towns and cities.

 

In any event, that is why they are there, they are not a bunch of drunken perverts. For the most part these people do not even understand exactly what is going on.

 

They talk about the “thrill of the chase”. The actual chase is over in a minute or two, so they are quite wrong in that regard. Some of them talk about a “four or five hour hunt” which is also totally ignorant of the facts.

 

A fox cannot run for four or five hours It has evolved naturally for a very short high speed spurt – rather like a cheetah.

 

They pay quite a lot of money for their cross country horse riding and for their socialising. Most of that money is used to create employment for hunt and stable staff and related trades.

 

Most of them would achieve the same result by drag hunting – but would the land owners allow access without the pest control element that is present in fox hunting?

 

BACK TO THE HUNT

 

Following the scent the hounds are often able to get through undergrowth and thickets whilst the hunt officials and followers have to gallop around such obstacles. This causes galloping and jumping hedges and gates.

 

THIS ACTIVITY IS THOUGHT TO BE THE “THRILL OF THE CHASE”. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE FOX IS BLISSFULLY UNAWARE THAT THESE DOGS ARE TRACKING ITS SCENT.

 

Meanwhile the dogs have probably picked up the scent of another fox, no one can be sure of that, but after a kill its rather odd that the intended quarry is seen at the earth where the hunt started.

 

The hounds could, and almost certainly do, follow different fox scents in the course of the day. So much for the four or five hour chasing and hunting. At some point during the day there is a fifty-fifty chance that these dogs catch sight of a fox and vice-versa. A fifty per cent kill rate is deemed a very good score for an average hunt.

 

This is the point that animal welfare considerations are relevant and the matter becomes serious.

 

The long tracking down or scent hunting is over. The real relatively short chase begins.

 

Fox hounds, although bred for stamina run much faster than a fox which has a fast, short burst ability and very little stamina. It soon tires and if it does not find a hole on the ground or a drain, or very thick undergrowth, it is doomed.

 

THE DOGS EASILY OUTPACE IT WITHIN A MINUTE OR TWO AND KILL IT WITHIN A SECOND OR TWO.

 

Fox hounds are not as fast as lurchers or greyhounds but the actual chase and kill is very similar to the lamping or bolting with long dogs described under a previous chapter.

 

If fox hunting is to be banned then these other relatively humane methods i.e. long dogs which are so similar in effect would also be banned, leaving shot gun shooting and snaring as the common fate of foxes.

 

THE SCENT HUNTING OR THE TRACKING DOWN ASPECTS OF FOXHUNTING CAUSE NO STRESS OR NO TRAUMA TO THE FOX who must be totally unaware of this major part of the hunt. How the fox is located is totally irrelevant to animal welfare considerations.

 

It took me ten years to realize that irrefutable fact – others will never realize it because bigotry, prejudice, narrow mindedness, class animosity and ignorance blind people to the truth.

 

It seems to me to be wrong to allow these highly undesirable features of human nature to influence legislation.

 

IT IS EVEN MORE PERVERSE TO REMOVE THE MOST HUMANE METHOD OF KILLING FOXES WHILST LEAVING IN PLACE METHODS THAT SO OBVIOUSLY CAUSE MUCH GREATER AND TOTALLY UNNATURAL SUFFERING

 

As previously stated I find it repugnant that some people will kill another living creature for recreational purposes. However it is not at all important to the animal why those humans want to kill it. What is important to both the people who kill, and the animal that is killed, is HOW not WHY. It must be done in the most humane way possible.

 

That is the clear difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Unfortunately the old animal welfare organisations are slowly tending to veer towards the animal rightist philosophy and oppose hunting with dogs because of its recreational aspects and ignore any necessary pest control element of hunting.

 

CONCLUSION

 

To reiterate, if the motivation for opposing blood sports is an objection to “killing for fun” or for “recreational purposes” then of course fishing and pheasant shooting, which have absolutely no associated pest control justification attached to them, must inevitably achieve the top place on such a moral fundamentalist agenda.

 

The government has recently assured shooting interests and fishermen that their “sport” is safe – therefore moral fundamentalism does not feature in the current political debate.

 

That leaves just the degree of suffering caused to the quarry – and not the motive.

 

As shot gun shooting and snaring cause a great deal more suffering to the quarry it is against the interests of animal welfare to remove a relatively more humane method.

[trenchfoot 4,243]

That , is the finest summation I have ever read. How come in the last couple of decades I have never read/seen it before?

[desertbred 5,490]

Cameron now should strike while the iron is hot and bulldoze through legislation to stop SNP voting on matters that relate only to England ans Wales using the same Act to bypass the house of Lords that labour used to introduce the hunting Ban This would considerably lessen the time for the legislation to go through .They made the rules now Cameron should exploit them.

[Bo Duke 420]

That , is the finest summation I have ever read. How come in the last couple of decades I have never read/seen it before?

I've no idea, it's all in the Burns inquiry

 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nobanner/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

Edited July 15, 2015 by Bo Duke

[shaaark 10,190]

That , is the finest summation I have ever read. How come in the last couple of decades I have never read/seen it before?

Same here, top post