Hunting ban

especially for horse owners to ask advice, from farriers or from other owners, all welcome, also please post details of lost or stolen horses here
Jenny A Macintosh

Hunting ban

Postby Jenny A Macintosh » Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:47 am

I have been following the discussions about the hunting ban and would like to make an observation. I rode to hounds for many years so I feel that my views are at least fairly well informed about what goes on - unlike many who express opinions both for and against. I also see that there would be an impact to a greater or lesser degree on those people directly affected financially by the ban - albeit some of the arguments put forward are spurious. However, if the 'pro' camp hope to enlist the support of the public - especially the horse owning public - I think they should consider the behaviour of the demonstrators that I witnessed on the evening news yesterday. Those for whom the horse is either a means of earning a living or a means of enabling enjoyment of a sport they feel very strongly about, should know better than to try to drive off horses of the mounted police by waving arms and coats at their heads - identical to the threats I was subjected to BY THE ANTIs when they started their protests in the 60s. To behave like louts is the best way I know of losing support - however passionate the feelings. So, if the pro sector want support, mine included, I would like to see more intelligent and reasoned argument and demonstration. I agree that the government has shafted hunting and I suspects the timing fits nicely with drawing attention from Iraq but the fundamental arguments to reverse are sound and valid, without resorting to hooliganism.

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:13 pm

Jenny, whilst I agree that it does no favours to the country sports supporters to bring emotion into thier protests I cannot agree with the comparison with those who for many years have directly targeted hunting with their actions. Such people have largely used state benefits to support themselves and have had very little responsibility in the way they have behaved as a result, let alone been subject to the full force of law. There have been instances of darts thrown at hunt supporters and their horses, trip wires being set, holes being dug to set traps for hunt riders, vehicles and property being damaged or destroyed and many, many more terrible and terrifying actions being perpetrated by antis in the past, I would not compare what I have seen so far from hunt supporters with any of this.
The reason I can sympathise with country sports supporters in becoming more militant is quite simple - whilst antis will not lose any of thier financial support through their actions, the hunt employees and a great many of those who make their livelihoods from hunting stand to lose everything they have, their homes and the livelihoods of their families and in some cases their communities. When this point is brought into stark contrast, I am not surprised that tempers become frayed amongst those who will suffer at the introduction of this ban.

Jenny

Postby Jenny » Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:10 pm

I understand your feelings but I still don't think that sinking to the level of the antis will do the cause any good. If the general public and the horse owning public who are not sure about their feelings, see this becoming an unseemly brawl, they will not support you - no matter how high emotions run.

malcolm tribe

hunting ban

Postby malcolm tribe » Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:51 pm

jenny i understand where your coming from but dont agree with all you say perhaps you could explain how you would like the cause to proceed as well as criticising those who are doing something

Jenny

Postby Jenny » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:10 pm

Malcolm - I have never seen harm in constructive criticism and certainly don't want to seem negative. I think that there are many problems with how hunting (stag, fox etc) is percieved. I cringe every time I hear what I would call a Hooray Henry stating the pro's cause - and I am well aware that the media plays on this. I also cringe when I see the whole tradition / sport, call it what you will, portrayed as an upper class pastime. But, like it or not, the people who are captured for these sound bites are a lot of the reason that there is no groundswell of support. I saw 'Mummy' putting forward a tearful but frightfully 'yaa' Arabella to tell the microphone that it was all just beastly and not fair that the nasty government wanted to stop her doing what she wants - and I just know what the average 'Jo' sitting in their semi would think. Before you jump up and down I KNOW that this is stereotypical and not representative of hunting folk but thats because I have hunted. The average Jo hasn't and you can put up as many posters as you like - the image is firmly established. And you have to admit that SOME hunts are exclusive.

I wish I could think of something constructive - as I said you have been well and truly shafted by the government - but if this government has its way we'll all have barcodes on our foreheads by the end of 2005!! Scary isn't it? I would like to think that all those farriers who carry a 'pro' sticker on their van have written to their MP, MEP, local councillor, FRC representative declaring their objection - sadly I have no doubt this is not the case. Farriers as we know are often so engrossed in earning a crust that they don't even bother to vote either natiionally or even in the FRC election - look at the turnout for the last lot. Perhaps if the campaign was truly broadened to warn of what seems like an end to any sport involving living things (fishing, shooting and who knows greyhound and pigeon racing have their downsides) Jo would begin to engage with you. I'm scared by what I see but can't believe the apathy and almost bovine compliance that is rife in this country.
PS I vote for anything I'm entitled to!! And haven't missed a general election since I was old enough to vote

CHICKEN GEORGE

Postby CHICKEN GEORGE » Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:16 pm

This lady is spot on. I remember seeing the news report with the 'posh kid'. Most of the people I speak to regarding hunting couldn't give two f***s for foxes but when presented by a privelliged young girl crying 'cos she can't kill foxes then they automatically come down against it. Trying to convince an anti is like trying to get a veggie to eat a burger dripping in delicious fat!! The public think this is a fox protection bill and ' basil ' and his ginger chums are all going to live happy ever after and are most surprised to learn that they can still be gassed, snared, poisoned and shot, mouths drop when told that I allow 3 fox earths to exist as long as the hunt thins them out a bit but after the law stops hunting then all 3 earths will cease to exist along with the inhabitants. ' You can't do that ' said one irate neighbour ' I love to see the foxes ' . I asked if she was against hunting with hounds and she said 'most definitely it's barbaric'. She tells me that a young fox visits her garden every night for a few treats so I told her to enjoy it while she can because the hunt allows enough to survive so that her and her friends can enjoy their nocturnal visitors after the ban she'll never see another fox as long as she lives near me! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :wink:

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:03 pm

"Such people (antis) have largely used state benefits to support themselves"

So who else is guilty of stereotyping? I don't think that the anti campaign would have come so far if led by the great unwashed. There is a huge following from middle Britain who have been brainwashed into believing in the stereotypical hunting person and who are in some cases jealous that, no matter how much money they earn, they will never be accepted - and to them the ban just shatters what they see as another bastion of the 'upper classes'. And that is the crux - it is a class thing and no-one is going to get this government (especially Blunkett) to lose votes on an issue like this. (I bet 2 Jags John isn't averse to a bit of blood sports though!!) So a few people lose their jobs - that isn't going to help with support in the former mining and steel producing communities who have had their industry decimated. We need a change of government and we need to start understanding what is happening to all of us. We also need to stop these restrictions on how we live our lives and continue traditions that have lasted for centuries. So the office worker from Newcastle and the shop worker from Taunton and the postie from Swansea have to help. Its just a case of reaching them ..............

malco

hunting ban

Postby malco » Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:18 pm

jenny
sorry not to get back to you before now but if you check the farriers side you will see we have been very busy with sorting a new attack on blair by way of a compensation claim this should tie up part of his civil service for quite some time.
I will assume that you are a landowner or keep your horse at livery somewhere have you or your livery owner any utility services going over or under your land because if you have a suggestion might be to inform the companies involved that any future visits they must comply to DEFRA's bio security guide lines [available on the defra website]. Also yes i have written and e-mail and phoned so often i couldnt count also press and tv interviews. as you are so good at putting your feelings into words if you havent written to the press you should as you put across the points so much better then those that make you cringe [and make the majority of us cringe as well] hope this gives you food for thought

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:50 pm

Malcome, you may be interested to know of the very deep concern felt by 2400 farriers on the register, over the banning of hunting. When 40 farriers turned up to a special meeting at NAFB&AE headquarters the other day. I think when it comes down to compensation for self/employed farriers, you will have better luck dreaming for a white Christmas.

Perry

Postby Perry » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:03 am

Where were you on Sunday can we assume you are no longer a member of NAFBAE, or you will not personally or fiancially be affected by the ban, or simple you couldn't give a dam about other craftsmen!

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:13 pm

The truth is the hunting ban will only effect a small percentage of the farriery industry. It was dieing anyway, this just pushed it along.

Jenny A Macintosh

Postby Jenny A Macintosh » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:32 pm

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Quite a lot of industries, crafts, (call them what you will) rely to a greater or lesser extent on revenue from hunting but only a minority of these will be financially crippled as a result. That doesn't mean that it is right or that it is any less tragic - it just means that some of those affected won't be bothered to protest, they'll just get into the collar and work twice as hard in another area - the competition for other work will be greater and there is always the opinion that it'll be the early bird ......etc. What a shame that the trade organisations couldn't muster more support - and I mean that sincerely. It looks as though the only solution will be a change of government but would a new administration have the balls to drop the ban - I'm not sure.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:02 pm

Perry, the answer to your question as to why I was not at the NAFB&AE special meeting is very simple. I didn't feel that the association could do anything to reverse the present situation. They have done their bit along with many others, which the government of the day has taken no notice what so ever. As Jenny has just said, we all have to put our necks in the collar and make the best for our own personal well being. What goes around, comes around in the end, just remember how many farriers were put out of work when the tractor was invented. Horse's will always need a farrier to shoe them, fewer apprentices will be trained with this hunting ban, so in the end the 1950/60s will return with more horses than farriers. I know it may be tough for the young farriers, just starting up, but thats life.

C.S.CRAIG

HUNTING

Postby C.S.CRAIG » Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:10 pm

YESTERDAY AT THE U.K.H.S.U. MEETING IT WAS REVIELD THAT M.W.N KNEW AND DID A DOCUMENT FOR THE GOVENMENT IN 2000 REGARDING FARRIERY AND HUNTING INTERESTING !!!

malcolm tribe

hunting ban

Postby malcolm tribe » Wed Dec 08, 2004 5:16 pm

john
yes the turnout was small on sunday but the replys to the questionaire was large [have you returned yours] as to over turning the act this is not the object of the meeting but to try and get some justice for the craft. If the trade manages to get any compensation will you take yours. On the 19th feb where will you be :?: watching and waiting and then moaning after as usual or will you be using your mouth to add support to those of us who are trying our utmost to find the loop holes in this bigotted act to keep hunting going. With the amount of talking you do criticising what others do after the events surely you could sort this problem out alone :!:

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:15 pm

Malcolm, stop being personal, it doesn't help anything. I am as sick as you are about the banning of hunting. I have marched and will continue to campaing for it's return. The miners couldn't overturn the ruleing of closeing mines in the eighties, but as they were employed they received compensation. Farriers are self/employed and in my opinion have no chance of such a deal. I take it you lost everything in the foot and mouth a few years back when there was no hunting, did you apply then for compensation for loss of earnings. No, you found other work to get by, like we all had to do. And I wouldn't dream of applying for compensation even if it was offered, as I have enjoyed the profits of my labour over the good years, to save for the lean times if or when they come. Thats the risk of being self/employed mate.

malcolm tribe

hunting ban

Postby malcolm tribe » Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:22 pm

john you say in your opinion no chance if you dont try how do you know? where will you be on the 19th feb?
if the ban is not enforceable will you show it to be or will you wait for others?
come on get off the fence and be proactive

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:53 pm

Malcom, on the 19th Feb, I will probably be shoeing horse's trying to make a living. Leaving the wealthy people who don't have to, to fight the ban on our behalf. This was the case in the early 20th centry with the suffragette movement. The wealthy women could afford to go to prison and cause mayhem, but the lesser ones couldn't. I will expect the likes of HRH the Prince of Wales and his lady, plus many of their friends to be the first to come off the fence, in order to cause complete embarrassment to this government. This will have far more impact to reverseing the law, than me and 500 farriers.

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:13 pm

I wonder if anybody here can help me with something - farriers especially.
I have been arguing the case for foxhunting on another forum, and a lady has pointed out an article to me which I would like to find more about.
I stress I am a hunt supporter, although I have not been a follower for some time. The article the lady refers to is from the the Mirror, and refers to an alleged email sent by the Chairman of the MFHA Lord Daresbury, to Simon Hart, Chief exec of the Countryside Alliance. In it he says, and I quote the Mirror,

"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."


The full article can be read on this link http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_o ... _page.html

As you can see it is quite damning, and I am wondering whether the Countryside Alliance or the MFHA have commented on the story or denied the email came from them. I cannot find such a reply anywhere on the net, and it is difficult to fight the cause for foxhunting when such stories are used by its opponents without being answered.
If you know anything as regards this Id be grateful if you could post it here.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:46 pm

This alleged letter and email is quite obviously a hoax

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:57 am

Well, I thought that as well, but if that is the case why hasnt the Countryside Alliance or the MFHA sued the mirror for printing it? Or at least released a statement denying involvement? These are the points the lady concerned who supports the ban has made to me, and this is why I cannot answer them.

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:17 am

This dates from the beginning of October last year. Ask the CA. Perhaps they are busy fighting the ban and can't be distracted. The Sunday Mirror is hardly a serious paper, and this story has not come up anywhere else.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:34 am

I have emailed the CA and havent had a response as yet.

According to the other lady concerned, reports of the email were present in the Times as well, and other press.

I think that its important to their argument that the CA and/or the MFHA deny this, or at least put it into context, as it completely negates the animal welfare argument in relation to foxhunting.

I have invited the lady concerned to put her case on these boards, as I will invite anyone here to go to and/or join Digital Spy forums and see the thread regarding foxhunting on this link :-

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/sho ... ge=1&pp=25

Please if you have opinions on what she may say be courteous - she has a very good argument in my opinion, puts it well and is willing to listen too.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:46 am

admin wrote:This alleged letter and email is quite obviously a hoax


Hi,

I'm the one who posted the article on the DS forum and to the best of my knowledge it is not a hoax.

Jean Corston (MP for Bristol East) referred to the letter in this article: http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/J ... c4fef3.htm , as did Paul Flynn (MP for Newport West ) in parliament:

"The letter came to light when a newspaper obtained a copy of an email sent by Simon Hart, chief executive of the pro-hunt Countryside Alliance in response to a letter sent to hunt masters.

In the email to Lord Daresbury, chairman of the MFHA, Hart 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 calls the letter - which he says, "advocates the artificial enhancement of a pest species for purely sporting benefit" - "politically naive"."

The quote comes from this page: http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=946

I believe the email was also printed in The Times, however I'm not an on-line subscriber and can't, therefore, provide a link.

If this is not a hoax, what are your views?

P N B

Foxes galore

Postby P N B » Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:48 pm

Madam,

Politically naive it maybe, the information that foxes are few is is false, every estate in my area of Wiltshire kills double figures of fox by lamping each year. There are still too many for the game birds health and plenty for the hunt to chase.

Shooting fox knows no season, the hunt clean up the old and the suffering and keep the wiley old hen killers at bay, those old fox too infirm to hunt their food numbers down, a very good service I feel.

There are two elements to the hunt the hunt staff who's job it is to control fox numbers, and those that follow to watch, those that follow do not actually hunt anything they just ride to observe the hunt servants undertake fox control!

PNB.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:04 pm

Hi PNB - you say the information that fox numbers are few is false, yet Lord Daresbury clearly disagrees or else why would he go to the trouble of complaining of a fox shortage in a letter to 800 hunt masters?

And while I accept that protecting livestock from foxes is very important for farmers, logic suggests that getting rid of the fittest foxes - ones that can do the most damage - would produce the most effective results.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:48 pm

Madam,

Lord Daresbury is wrong or misquoted, Mr Hart was correct as you well demonstrate by your pursuit of this argument, the uninformed or the biased, as well as those within the house would have made great capital out of the Daresbury misinformation.

You are way off the pace as well about fit foxes causing the most trouble, the fit uns keep well away from stock unless it is fallen, they don't need to scavenge for a living, it is the old wiley devils that need to kill lambs, visit the pheasant pen and the hen coup.

I suggest you go away and visit the countryside speak to the keepers and learn the way of the countryside for yourself.

PNB.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:39 am

Thank you for your advice, but my family have hunted for generations (though they no longer do) and I am well aware of countryside issues and its ways. Holding opinions different to yours doesn't automatically make me wrong and you right.

As far as Lord Daresbury being wrong - this is a curious accusation to aim at the chairman of the MFHA. I think someone in his position should be better informed about the truth of the situation than you or I. And if he had been misquoted, I'm pretty sure he would've sued, given the seriousness of the matter.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:29 am

Peter,
Do you not think that if Lord Daresbury was misquoted, that either he or the CA should give a statement to that effect - this is quite an important issue on which the hunting debate turns. I hear what you say regarding there being no lack of foxes in your area, as there is no lack of them in mine - which is why I could not understand why the email was sent, or what it was getting at. If Jean Corston MP believes that the email was genuine, then the matter can be, and is likely to be, raised in Parliament should there be a challenge or change to the bill. If you know anyone from the CA or MFHA, then they can post a response here.

P N B

Postby P N B » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:16 pm

Madam,

" This is quite an important issue on which the hunting debate turns".

If the strength of the anti hunting lobby hangs on a mis directed e/mail which for what ever reason is factually incorrect, then the hunting fraternity have little to be worried about!!!

PNB.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm

I think you're quoting the wrong Guest. Clue - I'm not the one calling you Peter. :wink:

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:42 am

It would be helpful if you had a name.

I still think it's a hoax. Just because it fooled a couple of MP's - that's not hard to do!

Graeme Burt
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:25 am
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent

Postby Graeme Burt » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:52 am

P N B wrote:Madam,

" This is quite an important issue on which the hunting debate turns".

If the strength of the anti hunting lobby hangs on a mis directed e/mail which for what ever reason is factually incorrect, then the hunting fraternity have little to be worried about!!!

PNB.


Well, I was the poster of the original message, and am the one who is giving the case for hunting on the Digital Spy forum. I am also a farrier, by the way, so am affected by the ban.
I fight the case based on the argument that farmers lose livestock because of large fox numbers which live close to areas of agriculture and therefore foxes need to be culled in these areas, and that hunting is the most humane method of doing so.
I have been in contact with the CA, and have had a response, but under confidentiality rules I am not allowed to put it here. Suffice to say that it was not a denial and I was not satisfied that I can continue to argue my case based on what was said. If hunt supporters are to argue the case for, as I have, this issue will be guaranteed not to be forgotten by those who are against. It wont just go away.
Like Peter and Martin I have seen no evidence of a shortage of foxes, so it does surprise me that such a claim as that mentioned in the email allegedly from Lord Daresbury can be made, and also published by the press and on the web, without any kind of response forthcoming either from the Countryside Alliance or the MFHA with respect to this.
Whilst I accept that it is not difficult to hoax an email, this allegation still stands and is still being published on the net without any response either legal, to sue for libel, or any kind of denial whatsoever by the powers that be. I can only assume from that that there may be some truth to the story that fox populations may be being encouraged for the sole purpose of hunting with hounds. The lack of action means that the general public will also draw these conclusions. If one of hunting's supporters can ask these types of difficult questions at this time, think of what the public will make of it, and imagine what hunting's opponents could do using this information to sabotage any attempt to change or reverse the hunting bill, which is what will be needed if hunting is to survive in its previous form long term. Unless we are to accept the terms of the present bill permanently, which will inevitably lead to farmers using trackers and marksmen to cull local foxes, or shooting, lamping and trapping instead of allowing the hunt to cross their land for fear of being criminalised as accessories. Hunts may be able to survive for the present acting as they do now but there is a limit to how long they will be able to do so, and once they have gone so will many livelihoods.

P N B

Something is not right regarding this email.

Postby P N B » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:57 am

Graeme,

Why don't you ask Lord Daresbury for the source of his information that led to the email being constructed or fabricated and unearthed.

I will take it up with my contacts on MFHA, UKHSU could look into it on a members behalf.

PNB.

Guest

Re: Something is not right regarding this email.

Postby Guest » Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:58 pm

Thank you Peter,
I have done that today.
Meantime the CA seem to be being particularly unhelpful.

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:44 pm

have spoken to nicky driver this is an old letter and e=mail and seems to be an internal spat between mfha and ca the labour press are smarting cos the ban hasnt kept hunts in kennels so dont give them the pleasure of letting this shit stirring get to you she says she will reply on this forum take it from me if any one is short of charlies we in devon have far too many hope you all went out on saturday 'drag hunting' without too many little accidents
KEEP ON HUNTING AND F..K OFF BLAIR :D

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:14 pm

So Lord Daresbury complaining about the shortage of foxes is a) old news and b) 'an internal spat'. Well, that explains it. Thanks. :wink:

BG

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:43 pm

Hi Graeme,

I have ascertained from the CA, to which UKHSU is affiliated, that the letter was not a hoax, it was genuine. It seems to have been a bizarre composition which is not representative of the views of the hunting community. What the CA have told me is as follows:

Hunting contributes to the management of wildlife populations. It is not simply about reducing the numbers of foxes and there are regional differences - i.e. in Wales hunting is very much about pest control but in Gloucestershire or East Anglia it isn't, it is about management of the fox population.

There is apparently a shortage of foxes in a few areas, mainly on heavily keepered estates - this is best dealt with by closer and better liasion between hunts and shoots.

Where foxes are scarce then hunting people would wish to see more of them, not just for the purposes of their sport but because they care about the countryside and the conservation of wildlife.

I hope that this helps,

Martin.

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:27 pm

have had response from ca this is below please read and follow connection

Ok - response. This article appeared back in October 2004. Basically what happened was that the MFHA wrote to hunts in March mentioning a "shortage of foxes" Simon then emailed Lord Daresbury saying that he thought using such language was not useful becuase if it ever got out in the public domain, it could undermine our case for hunting. There was nothing in the MFHA letter (which went out ages ago) about breeding foxes - they were talking about managing the fox population but just didn't word it very well. Typical of the MFHA, they still live in the 19th Century. Simon's intention with his email was to change the vocabulary surrounding hunting. Many people do not understand that we are talking about managing the fox population, not extermination.

Anyway what then happened was someone stole or got hold of this email and there was then a security investigation as to how it was released, I believe they discovered how and when and have since tightened our IT security yet again to make sure our server cannot be accessed.

Of course the Mirror being the Mirror put their own slant on it and went on about breeding foxes which was never mentioned in the original correspondence. Not very helpful I know but there is not a lot we can do about it now and I don't believe Simon was in the wrong giving the MFHA a kick up the backside. If he can't do it then no one can.

It also appeared in the western Daily Press. Look at this link it explains it more fully

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode. ... K=11067294

Alison Hawes
South West Regional Director
Countryside Alliance

Fight Prejudice, Fight the Ban.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:16 pm

Precisely the kind of explanation I'd expect I'm afraid - some noise, a bit of twisting and a failure to address the core issues.

The fact remains that the letter went out to 800 hunt masters and indicated that Lord Daresbury was talking about a nationwide shortage. In his response, Simon Hart told Lord Daresbury his letter "advocates the artificial enhancement of a pest species for purely sporting benefit".

Just because Simon Hart recognised the damage such a letter would do if discovered by the press, it doesn't follow that Lord Daresbury was wrong in his assessment of the situation, simply that he was, indeed, "politically naive." I'm not disputing for a moment that a smarter man would've chosen his words more carefully. What is quite clear, however, is that Lord Daresbury was expressing himself freely – after all, he was preaching to the converted.

BG

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

Postby admin » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:53 pm

BG,

You are twisting the facts to suit your views I'm afraid, and adding 2 and 2 to make 5. There is no nationwide shortage of foxes.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:01 pm

Okay, but it wasn't me who said that there was.

BG

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:53 am

The world is full of wooden tops.

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:56 pm

what will it take to put your mind at rest a national survey of fox numbers
as you are driving around keep your open in the countryside to see how many there are also look for road kills another good indication

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:16 pm

another thought hunting has moved away from the plum in mouth idiots that were saying 10 years ago they wouldnt dare to ban us. well they have and idiotic letters like the lords just go to prove how right we were to employ 'real' people to put the case not dinosaurs from a bygone age hunting grew into the 21st century alot slower than our opponents but we are there now and for a farrier who works in the country to belive there is a shortage of foxes beggers believe and to the lady concerned perhaps if you went out 'legal' hunting and kept a eye or two open you will see the numbers out there why are we pulling ourselves to peices or does the lady have another motive :?: if we all used names instead of hiding or identities we could be more certain of posters motives. for gods sake the next 12 months will be difficult enough with out this petty rubbish so get sorted and show a united front else hunting will go

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:04 pm

If my grammer is a prob, perhaps you should do something else with your time instead of destroying that which has been put together over the centuries. Long may the fox population be controlled by hunts and hounds and may the antis get a real pastime and also a job instead of dole monies.
Have you the balls to give a name :?:
Yes im angry the great ignorant unwashed not only are trying to take our living away but also destroy the way my family live in the country. They are such caring people they attack my 14 daughter and damage the work van used for the welfare of the horse so my friend 'guest' get your priorities sorted.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:21 pm

malcolm tribe wrote:If my grammer is a prob, perhaps you should do something else with your time instead of destroying that which has been put together over the centuries. Long may the fox population be controlled by hunts and hounds and may the antis get a real pastime and also a job instead of dole monies.
Have you the balls to give a name :?:
Yes im angry the great ignorant unwashed not only are trying to take our living away but also destroy the way my family live in the country. They are such caring people they attack my 14 daughter and damage the work van used for the welfare of the horse so my friend 'guest' get your priorities sorted.

malcolm tribe
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Postby malcolm tribe » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:09 pm

True colours, you are an anti, why not admit this at the start instead of stirring the shit?
Grammer and spelling checked by wife{ a hunter}.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:02 pm

Guest,

No place for you here, 25% of my peers are about to lose their livings due to likes of like yourself, take a hike.

Press office.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:08 pm

No point in posting if my posts are going to be removed. Shame you guys are incapable of a proper discussion.

BG


Return to “horseowners discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest