Hunting culture defies the Ban

On Sunday, I was at the Blaston Hound Show at Slawston, near Market Harborough.  I am a minor sponsor.  An annual event, the show attracted entries from hunts up and down the country.

Last year, 2011, the weather had been so hot that the organisers had had to water the centre of the ring every so often to cool it.  This year, the day started gloomy and raining, but had brightened up by the time the show started, with bright sunny periods and only the odd touch of rain.

I am hugely encouraged that despite the best efforts of the animal rights brigade, the mindless malevolence and hatred of the hunt saboteurs, and the ignorance of politicians who should have known better, the Hunting Act has totally failed to kill off hunting and the cultural, social and economic activities that support it.  In this case we saw how the centuries-old practice of hound breeding continues successfully.

No doubt those who supported the Hunting Act will say that this vindicates their position that hunting could be banned without disrupting country life, equestrianism and the rural economy.  Those who know the first thing about it, on the other hand, realise that the Act has totally failed to deliver what its supporters wanted.  Its one great achievement has been to waste vast amounts of police time, chasing ephemeral and disputed evidence across the countryside.

As the slogan says on my banner (in the photograph) I am proud to support country sports.  Long may they continue to play a leading role in country life.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Hunting culture defies the Ban

  1. Catherine Livingston says:

    you murdering bastard! You sound so proud . Hope Karma bites you in the arse!

  2. auntiecon says:

    How dare you tell such montrous lies. Sabs and monitors have a non-violent policy unlike the hunt followers and so-called ‘stewards’ who wear balaclavas, carry pick-axe handles and use foul and threatening language. Do a search on YouTube and you can cleasrly see who are the violent and malevolent ones – and that includes female hunters too. You disgust me with your filthy lies.

    • Dear Auntiecon: You don’t con me, I’m afraid. Nor am I impressed by your intemperate language, which perfectly reflects the violent and intemperate behaviour of hunt saboteurs. The very word “saboteur” says it all. You sabotage nothing with peaceful protests. I don’t know what planet you’re on, but if you believe what you say, you need a reality check.

      • auntiecon says:

        You don’t fool me either Roger Helmer – have you actually witnessed multiple incidents of violent behaviour by sabs, or is it just the propaganda issued by the Countryside Alliance? Do you have any personal evidence of your statements? I personally am not a sab or a monitor but I do get extremely angry by the lies about anti-hunting people. I suggest you do a search on YouTube and you will discover film on there that clearly shows who uses violent and malevolent behaviour and filthy language. If you cannot find any yourself, I will quite happily send you some links.

  3. David says:

    Of course the sabs were violent! They did anything to, as they believed ‘save animal’s lives’. For example, in 1995, a letter bomb was sent to the master of the Cheshire Hunt, injuring his six-year-old son. You wouldn’t class that as violence? Yes, there has been hunt violence as well, which I do not condone either. Although, I can understand their frustration, violence is never the solution.

    And would you mind pointing out where Mr. Helmer was, in fact lying? He never even mentioned sab violence.

    • auntiecon says:

      David, I suggest you look up the words ‘violent’ and ‘malevolent’ in a good dictionary. Furthermore, Mr Helmer has just made the following accusatory statement – thereby confirming what he was previously implying – ‘the violent and intemperate behaviour of hunt saboteurs’. Additionally, your example of an incident which occurred 17 years ago is obviously sometime in the past and could be regarded as obsolete. At the present time, and for some years now, both bona fide sabs and monitors have a non-violent policy. The aim of a genuine sab is to prevent the hunt illegally pursuing and perpretrating cruelty on a wild animal in the name of ‘fun’. Many, many sabs have not only been verbally abused by hunters, including women, but they have been subjected to being deliberately run down by hunters on horseback, and hit with whips. There have been numerous prosecutions of the hunting fraternity for assault by the courts. Peaceful monitors, including pensioners, have been run down and pushed into ditches while other hunters have watched and laughed at their distress. One such incident resulted in a jail sentence of a whipper-in who, not for the first time was successfully prosecuted for assault. All of this – and much, much more can be proved by film (including this particular incident), and Court records. So before you accuse sabs of misbehaviour, I suggest you look first at the violent and sadistic nature of the pro-hunters. I believe I am well justified in berating Mr Helmer who should be ashamed of himself for supporting this appalling behaviour of hunters who appear to delight in being cruel.

      • David says:

        Malevolent-the state or feeling of hatred. Do the sabs not hate hunting people? That would seem pretty obvious to me. It may have happened in the past, yes, but the past was when most most of this action took place, and those people are still around now. Just admit it, for goodness sake, there was violence on BOTH SIDES.

        I am, by the way pro-hunting. But I would never, ever dream of doing anything like that to anyone, nor would I encourage it. As I said, violence is never the solution.

  4. auntiecon says:




    WATCH THESE IF YOU DARE. Who are the violent and who are the peaceful? This is the reason I got angry with you Mr Helmer. And there are dozens and dozens more of similar incidents which are still happening now.

  5. David says:

    Sorry I meant malevolence, not malevolent.

    • You can only understand the anti-hunting, “animal rights” brigade in terms of hatred of people, not love of animals. Their obsession gives them (they think) a fig-leaf of justification for their attacks on hunting folk who only want to get on with their lives and to pursue an ancient and honourable sport. If you pause to think of how foxes die, hunting is just about the most humane outcome imaginable. The hunted fox either gets clean away, unharmed, or it dies in seconds in a rush of adrenalin. It’s also natural, since all animals are either predators or prey, and have been killing each other since the dawn of time — and will continue to do so until the end of the world; The idea that we can prevent animal suffering by stopping predation is simply absurd.

      How else might a fox die? It might be trapped or snared or shot or gassed. Or it might die of accident or disease or old age and starvation. All these outcomes involve a high risk of a long and painful death — days of gangrene in a ditch, eyes pecked out by crows. There are no hospices for foxes. I say again: hunting represents the most humane end that a fox can hope for.

      • Thangbrand says:

        Ancient? As a proud ancestor of the original Britons, I find it disgusting that you refer to a practice barely 300 years old as ‘Ancient’. It’s laughable and quite worrying that people such as yourself feel you have to duty to the animals which have lived here for thousands of years, that said, your views of the treatment of animals suggest you have absolutely no understanding of how nature works at all. Secondly, I think a man who supports the slaughtering of an animal of Cernunnos for fun would know better than to open his mouth on the subject of ‘Honour’. I have no doubt that you would not face a man in combat where true ‘Honour’ comes into the equation, just chase a small mammal around on horseback. You sir are a pathetic lifeform with no place in this Earth.

  6. auntiecon says:

    I am not really prepared to continue with a debate that is apparently based on an isolated incident that occurred some years ago and would appear to have been perpetrated by an animal rights activist rather than a sab or a monitor. It is unfortunate but it appears that pro-hunters are unaware that there are several groups of people that stand up for decent treatment of animals and I can assure Mr Hemsley and yourself that sabs and monitors have a non-violent policy and it is extremely regretful that peaceful groups are being given a bad name by misinformation such as Mr Hemsley has written. I know for a fact that much of the hunting set are still extremely viscious in dealing with sabs and monitors and as said previously, there are dozens of films on YouTube clearly showing the hatred of the hunter and sadistic treatment of peaceful sabs and monitors. As for sabs and monitors feeling hatred – what normal caring person would not feel hatred towards advocates of cruelty? In all the many many films I have seen, I have not found one of sabs and monitors being other than quietly spoken except when a pro is being violent towards one of their group and even then it is only in defence and not attack.

    • auntiecon says:

      Briefly – most of the films showing violent pros on YouTube are up-to-date and filmed since the Hunting Act 2004 was implemented. Some are from this season in fact so are still very relevant. As previously said, I have yet to find one that shows malevolent sabs and monitors.

      • Robert says:

        ‘Malevolence’, by the way means a hatred of. You just said yourself that sabs hate those who support hunting. So Mr Helmer wasn’t lying was he? He didn’t say ‘all sabs were violent thugs’. He said that they are people with a hatred of hunting people, something which you admitted.

    • David says:

      I thought that sabs were animal rights activists? And I don’t really agree about the ‘advocates of cruelty’ bit. I personally do feel hatred, and disgust when I hear of cases of animal abuse e.g. people burning live cats (stories like that make me feel ill). But, I’m sorry, nothing I have ever seen out hunting can equate to that. Carried out properly, I have always seen hunting as humane, not especially cruel. But that is just my opinion.

      I would be interested to hear why you believe that hunting is cruel (not bringing in hunting people and their motivations to hunt, or their actions). Why do you think that following the scent of an animal with hounds is cruel? Why do you think that allowing hounds to kill the animal is crueler than other methods? I would always consider the argument of someone who opposes hunting,if it made logical sense. But please, don’t bring hunting people in to it, and tell me what horrible people they are.

      • auntiecon says:

        I appreciate what you’re saying about not bringing hunting people into the argument, but that is exactly what the original debate was all about. Mr Helmer deliberately set out to discredit sabs while completely ignoring the appalling and disgraceful behaviour of the hunters. That was the whole point of his article. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander isn’t it?

  7. auntiecon says:

    My apologies for calling Mr Helmer Mr Hemsley.

  8. Thangbrand says:

    it’s not a culture, it’s exclusive to those retarded and upper class enough to support the butchering of native mammals and the disturbance of wildlife in the name of tradition and ‘fun’. It’s okay though, because i laugh as your barbaric way of life slowly disappears along with the wrinkled, grey savages who support it

    • David says:

      Completely wrong in every way. Classic show of anti-hunting ignorance. Hunting is neither barbaric nor enjoyed solely by the upper classes. Go out hunting yourself and see the truth, and go and meet some hunting people. To call people ‘retarded’, may I point out is both offensive and untrue. Get your facts right please.

      • Thangbrand says:

        Going out hunting would go against everything I stand for and it would be pointless, I know what happens on a hunt and don’t need to see it first hand, What a stupid suggestion. I’ve met plenty of pro-hunters (note i said EITHER stupid or upper class)- all of whom are ignorant (and notably quite stupid) of how nature works, they insist they interfere with the animals of the land and Cernunnos and all to defend an inevitably dying culture which deserves nothing better than to reside in the dustbin of history along with slavery. My friend, stop posting rubbish on the net.

  9. auntiecon says:

    The original debate was regarding the MEP making false allegations about the malevolent behaviour of sabs and completely ignoring the disgusting behaviour and filthy language of the hunter towards the antis. Keeping to that debate, he still utters his ridiculous nonsense and untruths without any proof whatsoever – and in fact has now added to his fictitious assumptions that anti-hunters ‘attack’ the pros. Is this a deliberate play on words to persuade people to believe that antis physically attack the hunters? Why don’t you David and the MEP stick to the subject – have you seen any of the films I suggested? Have you or he found any evidence of sabs or monitors violent or malevolent behaviour to the hunter? Have either of you explored the Court records for evidence of prosecutions of antis for ‘attacking’ hunters? Some hunts and supporters carry cameras now to film sabs and monitors, but I have yet to see any films made by them of their allegations – have either of you? You and he are obviously not interested in a real debate and the truth only in justifying your support of hunting. I’ll say ONCE AGAIN (because it has ONCE AGAIN been ignored, sabs and monitors have a non-violent policy so please refrain from your false allegations and assumptions. Furthermore, animal rights activists are not all, or necessarily sabs and monitors. ONCE AGAIN – there are different groups that have different purposes. Sabs work to prevent hunters from pursuing the fox (which is now illegal in any case), legitimate IFAW and LACS trained monitors work to provide the Police and Courts with evidence. Both these anti groups HAVE A PEACEFUL AND NON-VIOLENT POLICY.
    Other groups are far more active in various fields and frequently support action that I am strictly against, such as releasing laboratory animals and digging up graves etc. Please do not confuse all these different groups.
    Regarding the other rubbish the MEP has written, I will try to be brief. Firstly, he and his hunting friends do indeed have retarded and mythical assumptions regarding fox behaviour and welfare. Modern research and scientific disproves these beliefs. The hunted animal flees in fear of its life as it is pursued by a pack of howling dogs that are specifically bred for sustained stamina to chase the hunted animal – nothing natural about humans breeding dogs to do something specific. Furthermore hounds are trained specifically to scent out a fox – nothing natural about that either. If a hound doesn’t perform according to its human master, it is ‘disposed’ of, usually shot and incinerated, and also any pup that is unsuitable for hunting as deduced from its performance when it is deliberately put out with an experienced pack to savage a litter of 5/6 months old cubs as a test for its competence. Nothing ‘natural’ about that either. Some fox hunting could last anything up to 2 or 3 hours, in the meantime the fox becomes more and more exhausted fleeing in fear of its life until it literally comes to a standstill unable to run any further. As it waits for the pack to catch up with it, terrified by its impending death, all its organs have begun to break down from sheer exhaustion and blood starts seeping through its orifices while it urinates and defecates uncontrollably with fear. When the pack catches up with it, it screams in terror and pain as the pack savage it. And no, the lead hound does not give it ‘a quick nip to the back of its neck’. Another myth. All dog species hunt in packs and go for the nearest flesh it can get hold of. Very recently a pregnant vixen was ripped to pieces and her unborn cubs were left strewn across the ground. Proved.
    If the fox is lucky enough to find somewhere it can go to ground and safety, the terriermen will send dogs down to flush out the fox which frequently results in underground fights where both fox and terriers can sustain appalling facial injuries and in some cases, the rear end of the fox is torn to shreds by the terrier and it is still alive. When the fox is alive but badly injured, it is dug out and thrown to the hounds or terriers. If the fox is dug out untouched, it is frequently ‘bagged up’ to either be released again to prolong the hunt, or taken away for release at another date for hunting. None of this is natural and deliberately subjecting any animal to this sort of treatment is unbelievably cruel and inhuman. Very recently there have been 2 prosecutions of pro hunters carrying foxes in ‘barrels’ – one of which was a pregnant vixen. Now why do you think they would they be doing this?
    The subject of hunting is complex and vast and I certainly cannot spend masses amount of time now spelling it out to the ignorant and misformed, so in conclusion at this time, I also add, that hunting down the fox with a pack of possibly 30 to 50 hounds, maybe an equal number of horses and humans, is the most uneconomic and unnecessarily prolonged form of control. Furthemore, if the hunter believes that the fox is vermin and needs controlling, why do some hunts encourage the fox into their area by building false earths and laying out carcasses and meat for them and in some cases capturing live healthy foxes to be released at a later date purely for hunters entertainment. All these statements are provable, unlike the utter rubbish that Mr Helmer tries to make us believe. In a stand-up face-to-face debate, I’m afraid he would make himself look completely ridiculous by his ignorance. It is unfortunate that I do not have the time to complete what needs to be said, but in any case, pros have no interest in truth or reality as they continue to defend their unnecessary and cruel pastime.
    One last comment to the so-called people’s representative in the European Parliament, Mr Helmer, I very much resent people like you representing people like me when you are so ignorant and misguided in your opinions. My advice to you would be to ask you to research your subject without bias or prejudice and with honesty before you try to influence others.

    • David says:

      Actually, depending on how strung out the hounds are, the lead hound often does kill itself. But I think the point is that death is instant, however nasty you make it sound.The ‘torn from limb to limb’ part is true-but only when the hounds are breaking up the fox (eating it once it has been killed). Otherwise, as you say, the hounds go for any flesh they can. The neck, back, or vital organs are bound to be broken or destroyed pretty quickly in this process. If 30 large hounds are biting you, surely this seems obvious that this would happen? I agree, its normally not nearly as simple as a quick bite to the back of the neck.

      As for hounds being killed, that all depends on each individual hunt (the pack I hunt with never kill a healthy hound). But I will say that, in the world of working animals it is completely normal to have to put to sleep those that cannot do that job. It happens with many other of our animals. Doesn’t make it a nice job though.

      “As it waits for the pack to catch up with it, terrified by its impending death, all its organs have begun to break down from sheer exhaustion and blood starts seeping through its orifices while it urinates and defecates uncontrollably with fear”

      I don’t believe this to be entirely true. The fox is not ‘run to exhaustion’. It runs until it is tired, yes, but not exhausted. With the fox in sight, hounds can easily outrun it, so it does not need to be brought to a standstill. And 2/3 hours of hunting were very rare, the average length would be, I suppose half and hour to an hour. In fact, I have heard it said that with very long hunts like these, that the fox is rarely caught. I have seen long hunts in the past (one hour and a half, never longer) and the fox is normally a very long way ahead of hounds, and by the end is lost. There is no evidence that the hunted foxes die even when lost by the hounds. It is the short hunts, where the fox is wiggling up and down, and has a high chance of running into the hounds that it gets caught.

      i have wondered if, during the most of the hunt the fox knows it is being hunted. Often, in the early stages you just see it plodding along, with the hounds miles behind. I have seen hunted hares stop and wash themselves, or have a nibble of grass, before hearing disturbance and continuing. A fox naturally runs to leave an area of disturbance. I have seen this many times myself when I have disturbed a fox while out walking. It is the same while being hunted. It runs for a little, stops, before hearing noise again and so runs for a little bit more. Later on in the hunt, in the closing stages when the hounds are close and in sight, I agree must be stressful, but this is for a fairly short period. Also, it must be noted that most hunted foxes are lost, that being the nature of hunting by scent, and that a kill has little bearing on enjoyment of the day.

      I must take issue with the claim that foxes are ‘frequently’ bagged up. Now I absolutely HATE the use of bagged foxes and the sort, I think its cruel, unnatural and not in keeping with the ‘sportingness’ of hunting ,and showing respect to your quarry. I think that the MFHA should have punished severely any hunt found to be doing this. But to claim it went (and still) goes on frequently is untrue. If you read any hunting book from, say the 19th century, where the use of bagged foxes was acceptable, you will find only the occasional reference to their use. Some hunts may have done it on the odd occasion, but certainly most have not used this terrible method.

      As for artificial earths, they have been used in the past by some of the more fashionable hunts who waned to be sure that the foxes were in known, managed places for them to be hunted. The majority of hunts have never used artificial earths (certainly not in my area, if they had been encouraging foxes, the farmers would hate them). I am very skeptical about their use, although some claim that it allows for better management of the population, if you know its location. Not sure about that.

      Those are my views, anyway. You may accuse me of lying or spewing out pro-hunting propaganda, but I’m not. I don’t think that my views are ‘retarded’ or ‘mythical’. I’m telling you what I genuinely believe about hunting, based on what I saw during pre-ban hunting, and by reading books on the subject (both anti and pro). Sometimes I do wonder whether hunting is cruel. Some aspects, and the way that has been carried out are (such as bagging foxes, or not killing a stag at bay quickly enough). Some things that I have read or seen do seem cruel. I don’t think that, if carried out properly with utmost respect to the fox, hare, stag or mink and its welfare hunting should cause an unnecessary amount of animal suffering.

      Maybe, if we ever get repeal I could take you out hunting, and you could see that what you describe above isn’t necessarily true. I have always tried to look at both sides of the argument and the evidence available, and my argument is based really on what I have seen out hunting. Yours has got some truth in it, but is partly exaggerated.

  10. auntiecon says:

    Here’s a film taken during this season Mr Helmer – watch it and give us your opinion please.

  11. auntiecon says:

    Here’s another – dare you watch?

  12. auntiecon says:

    David, neither you nor the MEP has made any comment on the original reason I disagreed with him. I would be grateful if both of you would view at least some of the film I’ve referred to and give some sort of reply. Watching and listening to the uncontrolled violent reaction and behaviour of the hunters and their followers, and the foul, indecent comments made to women is beyond sickening and extremely unbecoming to a human adult. I am more than annoyed that a so-called responsible MEP has made such false allegations against our brave sabs and monitors who have been subjected to this sort of disgusting behaviour, but are still prepared to go out in defence of the animals risking physical harm and verbal abuse. I cannot seriously believe that these hunting people that have shown such blatant disrespect for other humans would have any respect for animals either.

    As for your answer to my comments regarding hunting itself – even if my reply was even half true or exaggerated (which it’s not, because this all still happens – maybe not in your hunt but certainly still in some as recent prosecutions have shown – hunting with a pack of dogs is a completely unnecessary way of killing foxes, which in the main, do not require killing anyway. I am not an hysterical ‘bunny-hugger’, or benefit scrounger, or a townie, as the pros like to call us, but an ordinary woman brought up in the Devon countryside, now well past my ‘sell-by date’, a grandma with realistic views and my feet firmly on the ground. I, like most of the antis, have a deep respect for all living creatures and humans, and believe that deliberate exploitation of an animal – any animal or vulnerable human – or causing it unnecessary distress simply for man’s enjoyment or in the name of money is utterly wrong – it’s immoral, unethical and an outdated practice. There are ways of dealing with the odd ‘rogue’ fox other than hunting it down over a long period with a pack of howling hounds. And, of course, the same applies to the wicked practice of cubbing when the little ones are only just on the verge of adulthood, still reliant on their mother before they go off to their own territory, and the vixen is still lactating in some cases. And what excuse does the hunter have for this practice? To train the pups to smell and taste fox and test their competance. You wouldn’t do this to a lactating dog bitch or a cat, why do it to a vixen mother?

    Finally I would like to say, that the idea of me ever going on a hunt fills me with utter repugnance.

    • David says:

      I must, firstly thank you for your sensible, calm answer. It makes a great change from being called childish names, or being called a liar.

      But why not go hunting? Don’t trust everything that the LACS tells you, you should come and see for yourself and make up your own mind based on that. I often think that I would oppose hunting, if i hadn’t started going out hunting, and saw, therefore what actually goes on. Going hunting just means standing around in a field watching the hounds. It doesn’t mean you are involved in any way with killing anything. So you would simply be observing what happens. I can’t see how merely acting as an observer could fill you with repugnance.

      As for saying that ‘all this happens’, in the past such practice as bagging of foxes was never the norm and that there was no evidence that it was, and if some hunts are still doing it then it is still an uncommon occurrence. I have to say I find it truly unacceptable, unfair, cruel behaivour, and that any hunt that did it in the past should, or any doing it now must be severely punished.

      By the way, I have seen all of those films many times before! The behaivour is generally unpleasant, but not representative of all hunting people. Mind you, the behaivour of some hunting people does really wind me up at times. Some are unfriendly and rude towards other hunting people (myself included) as well, particularly if they don’t know who you are. They really don’t help their cause.

      We’re never going to agree anyway, but thank you for an interesting, calm debate!

      • auntiecon says:

        David – I’m afraid I would never in a million years have anything to do with hunting for all of the reasons I have previously stated, plus I would not wish to be associated with the hunting set for a dozen other reasons. I do not believe that you have completely understood everything I have said unfortunately. I do not glean all my knowledge from the LACS alone, but from many sources including post mortem reports on hunted foxes, wild life scientists, articles on the life, habits and behaviour of the fox, people that have studied wildlife as a career etc and even people that are ex-hunters who have given it up in disgust. I find the behaviour of many hunters extremely ugly, dishonest, violent, foul-mouthed, sneering, arrogant, and a dozen other reasons. Watching some of the treatment these awful people mete out to peaceful, caring and well-meaning antis fills me with disgust and much of what I have seen makes me feel physically sick. Verbal and physical violence towards our fellow humans and our precious wildlife is unnecessary, ignorant and cruel. I am not religious but firmly believe that we should value and respect others and sadly, I cannot find it my heart to respect the hunter or his associates. In spite of my extreme disgust of these people, I would never in a million years behave in a similar way, as most antis wouldn’t, in spite of the pros and the CA’s wicked lies about antis. Sorry – I’m going on a bit but cruelty and violence are unbearable to me. I firmly believe that many pros do not have full knowledge or are aware of everything that goes on behind the scenes and therefore can be persuaded that it is not cruel, particularly those who have never been allowed to come close to the professional hunters and the master when the kill is in progress.
        I cannot put my hand on it at the momemt, but perhaps you could do a search for the article written by the ex-hunter Pellow. You would, I am sure be enlightened by this account by a long term hunter. I also have 2 associates that are ex-hunters, and another one that worked in the hunt kennels. I also know of one farmer who had a goat farm who was hounded out of her home by the appalling local hunt who persistently taunted and sneered at her distress when the hounds ramapaged through her land causing her goats to abort. I do not know which part of the country you live in, but here in Devon, I believe there are more Hunts than anywhere in England and therefore we are more aware of the effect these people have. They behave in an extremely arrogant and ignorant fashion, block roads,and trespass on some of our farmers’ land. In spite of the pros believing that all antis are ‘townies’ many, many country folk including myself dislike hunting and want to retain the ban and have the loopholes closed. Sorry about going on but as said before, it is complex and multi-faceted subject and is not easy to discuss briefly. I will not take up any more of your time, because as you say, we are not going to agree. (I just wish people like the MEP and the pros would refrain from lying about ther antis because it makes me very angry.)

    • David says:

      Now I’m not going to say much more about this, because I think that the debate has run its course. But I am going to say that you shouldn’t believe that all hunting people are arrogant thugs, and that there are some very pleasant, peaceful, normal people who follow hunts (some of whom I am good friends with). If you met them, and didn’t know they went hunting you’d probably agree. I loathe the vilification of all of those who hunt.I myself don’t think antis, are in general horrible-some are lovely people, just people whose views on one single issue that I don’t agree with. I don’t hate them for that, I just think that many of them are a little misinformed.

      As for not knowing what goes on ‘behind the scenes’, I agree, most people have never seen the kill. The fact is that most have never seen the hounds kill, and most probably don’t have much interest in seeing it (disproving that they are all motivated by ‘blood lust’, a claim which gets me really angry). I have to admit I have never seen the actual kill, but I have had hounds kill right beside me, and though I didn’t see the mechanics of it I do know for sure that it was very quick. I have never, ever head of anyone being kept away from when hounds kill, but the truth is you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. If conducted properly, hunting should have nothing to hide.

      Anyway, hunting is illegal now in this country, so the debate doesn’t really mean much unless we are talking about it terms of where it is legal. But can I ask, do you still think hunting people are violent, arrogant thugs even if they are just hunting a smelly sock? Surely, you still think that their behaivour is unacceptable?

      Sorry, by the way, to be going on so much!!!

  13. auntiecon says:

    Robert – a quote from the MEP ‘‘the violent and intemperate behaviour of hunt saboteurs’’. I haven’t seen any such behaviour from sabs or monitors but seen large numbers of incidents of extremes of behaviour, foul-mouthed peurile name calling and threats of violent behaviour by pros. The MEP has no right to make such accusations against sabs or anti-hunt protesters when in fact it’s the pros that are the guilty ones. I have no intention of starting any further debate with you as there is little point in doing so when selective and pedantic distortions are the lines of argument..

  14. auntiecon says:

    David – sorry, I forgot to say, that bagging up foxes is now ‘barrelling up’ foxes and only a few days ago there were 2 prosecutions for just this. I’m afraid it still goes on, as does breeding foxes for hunting. Simon Hart, the last CEO of the CA wrote an email regarding the diminishing number of foxes and advocated increasing their numbers. He was very quick to get the email withdrawn because he didn’t want it to go public. That occurred when he was in office with the CA.These facts are quite easy to find with a bit of research.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s