Husband is insistent on joining trail hunt tomorrow

[FairViewRosie25]

Not happy. I know they trail hunt but they still take dogs and have their fair share of the sabs.

A bloodhound, for example, is different to a foxhound.

No, it isn't 61 kills over a two year period. The fox hunting season is 1st November to late April. On what planet can that conceivably be two years? To assess two years' statistics you have to take, say, 1/11/23 to 30/4/25.

Moreover, as has been pointed out, this is only the relatively few hunts that have actually been monitored, Thousands more take place without monitoring.

Killing by pet dogs isn't comparable as it isn't a legally sanctioned sport. Over 80% of halal meat in the UK involves animals that were stunned before slaughter. No, I don't condone slaughter without stunning.

Yes the ones in that link are foxhounds and they have been known to chase foxes if they're that way inclined.

Question is, would you see people on horseback and presume they're out to kill foxes or would you consider they're hunting a scent with bloodhounds which are not a threat to foxes?

Many on this thread are very confused about what legal trail hunting is and have made up a total mischaracterisation and are happy to demonise a whole group of people based on assumptions and prejudice

I've addressed this point several times too. It's becoming very wearisome addressing the same, often irrelevant or illogical, arguments put forward repeatedly by hunt supporters.

You talk about "extreme" reactions but frankly it's the hunt supporters who are coming across overly emotional and unable to let go of emotional responses or irrational points.

People who walk their dogs on farmland, particularly if they are off the lead and in the vicinity of farm animals, are taking the risk that farmers may shoot their dogs secure in the knowledge that they have an absolute defence that they reasonably believed the dog was about to attack animals. That is not a risk that people operating trail hunts have to take into account (unless, of course, they hunt across farmland with livestock in it - that could be interesting).

For myself I wouldn't presume anything but by all means keep inferring supporters of the ban jump to erroeneous conclusions, it's really moving the debate along.

Hunting red deer on Exmoor is 100% legal and is normal, regular practice.

There are three deer hunting packs that operate around Exmoor.

They go out several times a week between August and April.

Hinds are also killed the same way, often in the presence of their young who are orphaned and starve.

It is not ethical and it is not humane. I agree neither is factory farming.

It would be much better for the environment and animal welfare if we all ate less meat produced more ethically.

There would be no problem whatsoever with trail hunts if they were all run legally. The problem is that too many are sloppy about eliminating the risk of killing wild animals, and with some there is good cause to believe that those running the hunts actually aim to increase that risk. Perhaps the solution is for the hunting community to police itself more effectively?

The fact that some hunts manage to operate trail hunts without killing any wild animals demonstrates that it is perfectly possible. So why are they not all operating that way? Why do MoHs which have, say, more than one "accident" involving an animal being killed by the hunt (including wild, farmed and pet animals) stay in office? Why do people continue to support such hunts?

Who said anything about having a muted reaction to the killing of livestock by dogs? Not me. I’ve explicitly said that this is wrong. The thread is about trail hunting.

You keep going off on tangential, distracting monologues about rentokil and pet cats because you’ve run out of rope with justifying trail hunting. You’ve also ignored the evidence I’ve posted on this thread.

Nobody that disagrees with you is confused. I am very well informed and have lived in the countryside for most of my life.Just because people disagree with a cruel sport does not mean that they are confused.

She's pointing out that the League Against Cruel Sports derives its statistics only from the limited number of hunts it is able to monitor, and that many more take place that they can't monitor. As you very well know.

Perhaps the solution is for the hunting community to police itself more effectively?

From what I see out and about on horses on Exmoor, the hunting community is arrogant, often has a drink in them and is completely without compassion for the animal they seek.

They use a thin veil of manners to ride roughshod over legislation, stray onto roads and land where they should not be and treat the prey with cold hearted blood thirstiness. The poster up thread who said how interesting it would be if a hunt went through livestock can see the answer to that by Googling. It happens and sheep are killed.

It's a common belief that the hunting community is all fine, upstanding folk, often a bit well bred. The reality is something very different. There is a 'terrier men' tradition of real brutality. Animal lairs blocked, foxes dug out, fox cubs thrown to hounds.

These people want stopping, not self policing.

Oh my god people who think they are hem-actually-logical when they’re not. I’m vegetarian and don’t own pets for ethical reasons - I would have no qualms about squashing a mosquito but would never go to a dog fight or a bear baiting. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite. Even though sometimes I do get vindictive pleasure from my mosquito hunts when they’ve been stopping me sleeping.

Squashing a mosquito and raising a dog for pit fights are the extreme ends of a spectrum but it’s obvious that there are many points in between and many dimensions of difference: fun vs function; accidental or on purpose; quick or protracted death; how smart or not the animal is; whether you break the law and beat up humans while you’re at it; whether you take your kids along.

Many people draw a line between functional, ideally quick, lawful, business-like killing of animals for food, and ‘fun’, deliberately protracted, illegal killing of animals as a spectacle. Does anyone really struggle to understand that, or are they just being contrarian because of the same personality traits that lead them to enjoy the second so much?

They don’t struggle to understand anything, it’s just the desperate argument of somebody who can’t properly justify their position. The same kind of desperate strategy as claiming that people that disagree with fox hunting/trail hunting (same thing) are “confused” or “don’t understand the countryside”.

I have posed several straightforward questions on here as well as evidence about trail hunting being a smokescreen, which has all been ignored.

It was over 2 seasons so 2 calendar years. It’s not relevant to pro rata it as they don’t operate out of season whereas people walk dogs all year round.

Killing by pet dogs isn't comparable as it isn't a legally sanctioned sport.

No it’s a legally sanctioned leisure activity practised by many.

Over 80% of halal meat in the UK involves animals that were stunned before slaughter.

That still equates to 30 million animals per year killed without stunning. Not a peep from the government and anti trail hunt lobby on that. It’s just prejudice and hypocrisy.

No, I don't condone slaughter without stunning. At least we can agree on that.

How do you know?! How do you know that people who are anti trail hunting aren’t also anti halal butchery ?! Because it’s not mentioned in anti-hunt campaigns/comms? It’s a separate issue, why would it be mentioned in the same campaigns?!

yet another desperate straw man argument from @BundleBoogie

*Killing by pet dogs *

Lol, this is not a legally sanctioned leisure activity practised by anyone

Dear me

This is an interesting thread. I remember the original fox hunting ban - Tony Blair ended up saying that it was one of his regrets from his time as PM. It took up more parliamentary debate time than the invasion of Iraq.

I am a bit weirded out that, of all the problems in the UK, the Labour government have chosen to focus on trail hunting. It’s a strange thing to prioritise. Particularly now, when stories about the proposed change result in photos of people in red coats in the newspapers. Presumably the purpose is to distract the general population from something else.

My own opinion? Banning trail hunting is like banning shopping because a few people shoplift.

The hunting community has had over 20 years the clean its act up, to ensure that the spirit of hunting can continue whilst the bloodthirsty side of it ceases. Given how frequent 'accidents' are in monitored hunts (where participants are more likely to be careful), the lack of evidence of actual trail laying, It's clear that a large number of hands, if not the majority of hunts, are exploiting illegal loophole to create a smoke screen.

Remember even in monitored hunts, in 98% to 99% of them, no trail is seen being laid!

If over the last 20 years efforts had been made to change this, or they'd moved to clean boot hunting, then we wouldn't have this issue. The fact that so many refuse to move away from a fox scent kind of says it all. If you're not actually wanting them to hunt a fox, then why would you train them to hunt that scent?

The concern over the dogs also feels very disgenous given many are shot when they get old, or if they're unsuitable as puppies. Also, they've had 20 years to switch to other breeds which are less aggressive to the fox, and have chosen not to do so.

The idea of pursuing a trail runner, with genuinely no intention of bloodshed, could be really good fun, and could inspire a new generation to have fun on horseback.

The activity is walking pet dogs which is as lawful as a trail hunt.

I do love animals. I'm also not vegan. If I'm eating meat, I'd far rather a happy little pheasant that's pottering around then shot a battery farmed chicken .

I absolutely respect people's opinions on trail hunting and game shooting. If it's not part of your culture, I expect people not to understand. However, I would be sad to lose an English countryside tradition based on misinformation and reverse snobbery.

Except that it’s not a straw man argument, it’s a direct competition that exposes extremely selective nature of people’s attitudes to animal cruelty.

As sad as I can see that among all the vehement anti hunt people on this thread, saying terrible things about trail hunt participants, only one has gone so far as to even say they don’t condone non stun slaughter, they can’t even bring themselves to condemn the people who do it. Ditto our government. Huge time and resources expended on eradicating a currently legal activity through demonisation of a whole group and prejudice, while not even mildly criticising the vastly increasing use of non stun slaughter. Hypocrisy.

Trail hunting is just a smokescreen for illegal hunting in my experience.

Animal cruelty is a red flag for me, I couldn't be in a relationship with someone who enjoyed that.

I’ve asked you several direct questions in the comment that you replied to, and you haven’t answered any of them. Why is that?

If we want to spend some parliamentary time debating animal cruelty, then may I propose focusing on being able to buy eggs from caged hens and low welfare chicken for £4? It affects far more animals and involves a lifetime of cruelty... But people like buying cheep meat ...