She used to fox hunt?!

[Boxingdayhunts]

name change urgh

long story short - over Xmas got talking about newspiece about Boxing Day ‘trail hunts’. Got shock of my life when family member (married in not blood) revealed she had on occasion when younger joined hunts. actual fox hunts.

this is something I feel strongly about. I would never have thought this about her.

aibu to feel shocked, disappointed, and look a little differently at her now?

Gosh, these types of threads do out the overwhelming demographic of MN.

I wouldn’t trust research by Oxford university on the subject of fox hunting as the most unbiased ethical research around.

I used to fox hunt. I no longer do this and haven't for nearly 20 years. People change and personally I now find the thought of doing this repulsive. At the time it was something I did more for the social aspect and to meet new people, not because I enjoyed animals being killed and since then I have even stopped eating meat.
It sounds like your relative was really young so even more reason to cut her some slack.

@CalistoNoSolo

Exactly this - point well made.

What a lot of assumptions.

I’m vegan, and countryside born and bred.

She grew up in London and is not horsey.

Sorry your message was deleted 😘 @HowToSaveAWife

Have you always been Vegan or did you used to eat meat and then decide it wasn’t a great idea?

Hunts (usually) have permission to ride across certain farms and other private land during the hunting season, because they were/are perceived as providing a service to livestock farmers by providing pest control (and collecting fallen stock unsuitable for human consumption) so the access to the land is a quid pro quo. There is an expectation that hunt followers will understand about closing gates, not trampling crops etc, and if any damage is caused, the farmer knows to contact the hunt to negotiate recompense.

That permission is not usually granted to any random rider or group of riders, so the opportunity to ride all day, galloping for miles at a time, jumping huge hedges and ditches while not actually knowing which route you’re going to take across the country or where you’re going to end up, is only available to those who follow the hunt. Every other kind of high-speed cross-country riding involves a marked-out course, is competitive and either requires a high level of technical skill and is over in no more than 10 minutes (the cross-country phase of eventing, point-to-pointing) or doesn’t involve jumping (endurance - of which much more is usually trotting or steady cantering than galloping anyway).

Putting the animal welfare aspect aside for a moment and considering purely the riding perspective, I can understand the appeal of hunting as it offers a unique experience for riders. I imagine those hunts which have genuinely switched to trail or drag hunting, or were always drag hunts or bloodhound packs, would be very popular with riders wanting the thrill of a ride into the unknown without the risk to the fox involved.

I find the tone of your post rather patronising as I have grown up surrounded by hunts and still am! Ditto farmland surrounding us. I don’t need an explanation. What I will tell you about though, that you seem to have conveniently missed out, is the astronomical number of serious injuries, brain juries, broken backs including fatalities of riders and young children. Bonnie springs to mind among others. Our hospitals here are packed at this time of year.

The hard ride you refer to is extremely dangerous, and not serving any purpose beyond putting the hounds at fever pitch, as everyone thunders through the fields hanging on for dear life. It can be a terrifying experience for horse/pony and rider. Not to mention the terror of the fox or the stress on the hounds.

Its fucking barbaric at close quarters.

I can take a hard ride at any time here. Miles and miles to choose from, as can most competent riders. This is a lame excuse for a disgusting blood sport.

I thought you were asking a genuine question, my apologies for thinking it was in good faith when it apparently wasn’t.

I’ve already stated upthread that I’ve never hunted and never will. I’ll bow out now and you can continue to rant and rage at those who do actually hunt.

Interesting that antis on social media constantly name call and make horrible comments about how individuals look. They refuse to answer calls to prove hunt supporters are inbred. Constant trespassing around here from the sabs. Oh, and they are violent too.

Badger cull has increased hare population as well as badger population.

i am not remotely angry, just confused that you seem to imagine all country folk support hunts, and anyone calling it out for the medieval barbarism it is must be a city based woke hippy that requires educating. Bowing out and reflecting on your values around animal welfare, and base assumptions around country living is not a terrible idea.

Anyone actually seeing or participating in a hunt will tell you it is terrifying and beyond cruel. Unimaginable it still happens in 2023/2024 and barbaric doesn’t even cover it.

Anyone in any doubt should remind themselves of this poor little girl:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/nine-year-old-girl-kicked-death-horse-cotswold-hunt_uk_570267e2e4b069ef5c008eaf/

@CormorantStrikesBack Your rational for this statement? Or just sab hysteria?

@Newchapterbeckons For christ's sake, accidents happen.

No, if you deliberately put your child in harms way on a terrifying hunt can it be considered an ‘accident’? Like allowing children to play on the M25? Or on train tracks?

Hunts are fast paced, violent, some elements are always out of control. The hounds are frenzied, and the possibility of being seriously injured or killed is always present. Everyone knows that!!! Including you

But fox hunting is the most humane, because the alternatives, shooting and gassing either result in a slow and horrible death (shooting) or killing everything in the den/warren/set because rabbits, badgers and foxes share the same tunnels. Ideas, please.

You have a point there- don't people wishing to end their life always choose to be killed by tigers or coyotes as more conventional methods over something like a gunshot? It's the most quick, easy and humane to be chased til your heart is beating out of your body and ripped apart.

You’re going to have to learn to quote. I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Yup. In my experience the sabs are often the violent ones but of course that isn’t featured on their Facebook pages.

The hunt itself is extremely violent.

I am not a ‘saboteur’ of hunts, but I can see why they are exasperated at the lack of police presence, and the lack of arrests of those that are clearly breaking the law by allowing hunts with foxes to take place (instead of the drag hunt they pretend to host)

Well I'd be happy to find we had something in common and I would have a good old natter about it and times gone past. I haven't hunted for years now but spent a lot of my life working with hunt horses. After we'd eat our lovely dinner, which I had personally shot a few miles down the road, my dog had retrieved and I had plucked, dressed and cooked. Free range, local food at its finest.

It is perfectly possible to have a civil relationship with someone you don't agree with - my XH was anti hunting and we both respected each other's viewpoint. Shame he was a cheating sod, but hey ho!

There’s been a few members of the hunt prosecuted for assaulting sabs. I’m sure there’s the odd sab as well who has been violent but the prosecutions seem to support the fact it’s more hunts people who are violent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-67379775

https://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/hunting/hunt-convictions/

https://www.huntingact.org/the-hunting-act/prosecutions/

@CormorantStrikesBack You ridiculous assertion about the research

My Rationale is that I think there’s a high likelihood that people attending Oxford and undertaking such “research” will have links to people who hunt, friends in the country set, countryside alliance, etc. of course if the first person who mentioned this research had actually linked to the research it would be good to see the actual research findings and the authors. Sadly they didn’t link to it or name it so I have no way of doing so.

and it it also wasn’t an “assertion “ which would suggest I was asserting a fact. I clearly said it was my opinion, which I’m entitled to.

Even if the author themselves is unbiased where are they getting the information from? Are they asking the hunts and believing what they’re told? Or are they (illegally) hunting themselves which suggests bias.

i would certainly be interested to read the original paper.

though to be honest I do think it’s rather irrelevant whether the 17 minutes is correct or not. 17 minutes is still too long and I think anyone who argues that hunting is ok because an animal is only terrified for 17 mins needs to take a long hard look at themselves.