... to feel disgusted at fox-chasing toff-twits!

[counterpoint]

On my way to a local town for lunch today, we had to slow down and stop as a horse came galloping up towards us in the middle of the road. On his back sat a dandified twit who was looking for his hounds. In the nearby field some 100 (I kid you not) other starched twits sat on brainwashed horses with hungry hounds running amok. Traffic swayed and stopped as these twits had clearly lost the little sense they had and were dispersing all over the highway, horses looking dazed at being led among cars at great speed on slippery tarmac. Hounds confusedly sniffing all over the road and verges. How much had these twit-toffs drunk? It was not yet noon!

My friends in our car tried to calm me down saying it must be a drag when all of a sudden a poor defenseless fox jumped on the dry-stone wall looking wild-eyed as it tried to determine whether he was safer making a run for it across a busy road or turn back into a field of crazed, uncontrolled hounds and drunken (British?) twits. The fox froze and the driver of my car sped on as I screamed with panic for the predictable fate of the fox.

Why the f*ck is a supposedly civilized country allowing this kind of savagery to continue?

mustbe

we'll agree to disagree then. Again, I have never seen anyones pet dog or cat etc is harmed- clearly there instances where it has happened. But then there are plenty of other things that could potentially harm pets that we allow.

Actually, hyped up hounds can usually be controlled by a skilled hunt master/houndsman. The issue is when those in charge aren't skilled. Again, I am aware that some hunts are much better on this point than others.

Some hunts can control their dogs though. Why should they be discriminated against just because some hunts lack skill?

Jacks - I agree wholeheartedly with you.

This argument is as old a shunting itself. At the present time the 2004 hunting act is woolly, unclear and open to interpretation, which hunts therefore interpret accordingly.

This thread is funny

I've never heard/read so much ill informed anti hunt rubbish

So perhaps we need more control over who can lead a hunt? And those in control should be held to account if they can't manage.

I struggle to understand how hunts are held to different rules to the rest of us. It's well documented that hounds have damaged property & terrorised/killed cats & dogs - the recent issue with CHAT is one that I will watch with interest - but very little seems to happen to those in charge. In my mind, the only way to ensure that a hunt is working within the law is to hold them accountable to the same laws as the rest of us

It’s not often a lack of skill, there are some people who drive around transmitting audio recordings of hounds baying in order to disrupt the trail hunt. Then they film themselves ‘rescuing’ the hounds from the confusion they created on purpose

Why not muzzle the hounds?
Surely if you have a dog that could potentially rip another animal to pieces you would, to protect yourself and your animal?

So actually this whole situation could easily be solved by eradicating sabs? I find that exceptionally tricky to believe i'm afraid!

No it wouldn’t solve the whole entire situation, and personally I don’t want to live in a society where people can’t protest. I’m only telling you what I’ve observed in Suffolk in the past few weeks, how some hounds get scattered and lost.

against killing animals for fun

Are you also against killing animals for meat/handbags/shoes/jackets?
There's no need to eat or animal products, wear leather shoes or buy leather bags. You don't see the killing part, the terrified animals in the abattoirs so it's easy to pretend there's no cruelty, blood or death involved. But you enjoy eating the meat, wearing the shoes, using the handbag?

I've absolutely no time for anyone who deliberately interferes as you have mentioned. And if anything happened to the hounds because of their actions they should most definitely be held accountable for it.

It just appears that hunts are rarely held to account for their actions even when other people are directly affected by them

So actually this whole situation could easily be solved by eradicating sabs?

No, I wouldn't agree that removing sabs would solve everything. That would be naive and silly to suggest. But it may be helped if sabs did not do the things that whydid outlines to deliberately confuse the hounds. Which does happen. There are also some hunts who don't have as much skill as others. Both are an issue. Both should be dealt with- if you in favour of "hold to account" the master and houndsmen if they don't control the dogs, then you must also be favour of holding the sabs to account if they cause problems too.

You want hunts to be held to account if they don't follow the law- I'm in agreement. The issue is in part that the legislation is so poorly drafted it is difficult to police and get successful prosecutions. It's not simply a case of them being allowed to break the law with impunity, it's that the law is so wooly the police can't always press charges or the CPS don't always think there is a realistic change of conviction. Personally, I would support changes in the legislation to make things clearer.

Absolutely, and i'm fully behind the push for clearer legislation so that anyone who breaks it can be dealt with. And yes, as above, sabs who interfere & cause harm to hounds or horses in any way should be dealt with too!

Incidentally, I am not totally against sabs. There are quite a few locally who just peacefully monitor hunt activity. I have no issue being monitored as I am sure I am not taking part in illegal hunting. I have no issue with legitimate protest.

I have an issue with the significant minority of sabs who are abusive and aggressive. And those that interfere with the hounds- we had one instance of the sabs laying an "alternative trail" to confuse the hounds. That trail was trying to draw the hounds towards land that they knew we did not have permission to cross. The master knew it was the wrong trail and diverted the hounds, so it wasn't effective. Things like this help nobody.

This thread is funny
I've never heard/read so much ill informed anti hunt rubbish

So are you going to educate us then?

I think you're hilarious OP. You and your "hurt heart" make fabulous (and difficult) reading.

Jaks that is disgusting. Anyone who does that to make a point or whatever the f**k they think they're doing is just as bad as those who deliberately set out to hunt

I'm quite surprised that the pro-hunt brigade posting here are so touchy about the use of terms such as "toff" and "twit" when a quick perusal at some of their hunting terminology offers up 'lovely' phrases such as "broken up" - meaning to tear the live fox to pieces.

There’s no need to be unkind to the op though is there?

Some people are more sentimental about these things than others, I’m aware of animals being killed (poisoned or shot, often suffering and lingering deaths) all the time every day and that’s just in the production of crops, in a country with an obesity epidemic.

What's the obesity epidemic got to do with fox hunting? ?

Wow chunky, what a sheltered little life you must lead then

It's how the vast majority of the country feels. HTH.

Nothing! Sorry. I was just rambling on. Think it followed from not taking the piss out of the op for finding animal suffering/death upsetting - if you are surrounded by it on a large scale you do become desensitised. Oh yeah then it occurred to me how many animals we kill Just for growing grain etc for a human population suffering from overeating. I dunno, something like that.

I’ll get on with something else!

I cba to rft, (boring, ignorant, classist and the same old comments I expect) but I am intrigued by your writing style op. Is this how you talk in rl or have just joined a creative writing group or something?

I've been invited to hunts (since the ban) and know people who hunt. Haven't ever gone though. To me, the lure is the idea of riding across the countryside, getting a gallop in when I never normally have anywhere to do that, maybe jumping a hedge or fence if I'm brave enough. I'd never have considered it before the ban but since the ban, I did consider it, because the hunting of animals was banned, so surely it was just about the riding! Obviously from threads like this, I see that not all hunts stick to the rules, so I won't go until I know I'm going on one that definitely, 100% isn't killing any animals. A pp mentioned above that some hunts are going without hounds - I'd go to that, for example. Or another pp suggested muzzles for the dogs - also a good idea, I think? Until I can be sure no laws will be broken though, I don't intend to go, but for me (not a toff by the way, don't even have a horse, just like horse riding) it's about the riding and I know that's why my friends go.

Not defending the hunts who kill by the way, I'm totally against that, but just giving another point of view so maybe you can see why people might go along (under the illusion that no animals would be harmed, which it seems is the case in some places, at least).

Funny that, my opening post was criticized for not being well written enough for me to 'give up the day job', then many times charged for being 'boring' which I suppose would not sell many books, equally generously told off for derogatory language choice, then for being overly emotive in my presentation (fair enough) and now a denunciation that I may have joined a 'creative writing group'.

Wow!

I certainly didn't predict my writing style (or lack of) would be the main take-home message of a thread on the loony antics of what, I believed, was a minuscule minority in this land. The hunting loonies certainly have the support of a lot of self-righteous, language police....