Hunting Act Amendment…

So, to get this right – the proposed amendment to the hunting act, permitting more than two hounds to flush to guns, isn’t a whole scale repeal of the hunting act, and in fact effectively brings the England and Wales law into line with the Scottish hunting act.

Can anyone tell me why the law being the same on both sides of the Scottish border is a bad thing?

Now, you could say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but there doesn’t seem to have been ang great clamour from the animal rights groups to have the Scottish law brought inline with the English one over the past decade – so it’s a bit late now to suddenly say there is something inherently “wrong” about the Scottish legislation.

I can think of other sports where we all think that Scottish approach is pragmatic and forward looking.

‘other sports’

interesting use of language 😕

They should limit the number of wealthy **** who’re just buying into some crap dream of how “country life” (as depicted in the magazine of the same name) used to be.

Leave it to professionals, employed to do it and ban amateurs from following. Then we’d see how cost-efficient and necessary hunting with dogs actually is.

I don’t care about it either way, but was a waste of parliamentary time to bring it in, even more of a waste to look at it again.

ninfan – Member
Can anyone tell me why the law being the same on both sides of the Scottish border is a bad thing?

If it’s not a bad thing that doesn’t make it a good thing – what kind of ****ed up logic would that be?

There are other factors also [/sarcasm]

Flushing with dogs to a line of guns is VERY effective method of fox control especially in large wooded areas.

We used to kill more in one day than a week (or even a month) out with a lamp and high powered rifle.

BUT it was only the VERY best guys holding the guns no country toffs, but hardcore shooting folk and professionals (gamekeepers, ex forces). Even in my first year as a full time trainee gamekeeper I was not allowed in the line. It is properly the most dangerous gun line you can be in and you had to be 100% confident withe guys either side of you.
Very dangerous.
You basically shooting at ground vermin with a pack of dogs close behind ,on the ground with guys around you also on the ground. We also had a back up beyond the guys with the shot guns in the line of 2 – 3 guys with high powered rifles in deer towers.
The days we did this “fox driving” was taken VERY SERIOUSLY by all involved there was no room for error by anyone.

It was never seen as sport but a method of getting a job done very effectively.

so, with the country and is economy is the toilet, the NHS going to pot
they think toys is the best of their time.
good of a whopping pay rise !

Badllama – you make excellent points, and having done it back in the day I agree entirely

It’s also notable that the original Burns Enquiry report that was used to justify the ban stated

6.60 Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting, including digging-out. However, in areas where lamping is not feasible or safe, there would be a greater use of other methods. We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective. We consider that the use of snaring is a particular cause for concern.

6.61 In practice, it is likely that some mixture of all of these methods would be used. In the event of a ban on hunting, it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover.

I don’t care about the actual hunting aspect – I know the evidence of the cruelty, I also know there is some evidence that alternative methods of fox control haven’t worked very well. I don’t know enough to make a rational decision.

But if Bliar had not wasted so much parliamentary time on the original ban then maybe parliament might have had more time to do stuff like look into Iraq’s WMDs, keep an eye on the banks etc etc

I don’t think you can blame the Hunting Act 2004 for the Iraq War or the global banking crises.

[tinfoil hat] both the original act and the partial repeal have wasted a lot of parliamentary time but more importantly (edit:important to my conspiracy theory, that is!) also wasted/diverted popular media interest whilst we should have been worrying about what else the respective governments were up to at the time. It wasn’t Iraq invasion and wmd’s last time but i do recall changes to domestic terrorism legislation going on quietly at the same time as the original act. [/tinfoil hat]

Also, somewhere in a hunting/outdoorsy forum elswhere in the internet, ninfan will be arguing just the oppsite purely for his own amusement.

But it is not the same as that in Scotland

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-ministers-misleading-public-over-proposed-changes-to-hunt-ban-say-campaigners-10381768.html

It is trying to bring in through the back door more far reaching changes than they are suggesting. I have written to my MP to ask him to vote against the proposals. He will, of course, ignore me as he is pro hunting, voted against the Act in the first place and the Countryside Alliance gave him an award in 2003 but I felt I should register my point of view.

The law in Scotland is likely to undergo a review as it is currently being flouted.

I saw today Labour were asking the SNP do help them out and to vote down the amendments. This would traditionally be legislation that they’d leave well alone as it pretty clearly England/Wales only. It’s amazing that Theresa May can one on hand say they won’t vote against the welfare reforms as they don’t want to go against the public (WTF are you in opposition for then?) and at the same time have someone else in the party asking the SNP to break form their usual abstinence and help them out.

Personally I think this whole this is a massive distraction from the real issues the Tories are causing, but I’ve no real feelings one way or the other.

You basically shooting at ground verminwild or probably reared canines with a pack of dogsdomestic canines close behind,on the ground with guysother people that like killing and shooting stuff around you also on the ground

ftfy

when humans start caring about the horrors inflicted upon their own species, the children, the elderly, the infirm and the impoverished. Only then will I give two shits about what is to be considered “humane”.

I have enough brain capacity to consider both

whatnobeer – Member
I saw today Labour were asking the SNP do help them out and to vote down the amendments. This would traditionally be legislation that they’d leave well alone as it pretty clearly England/Wales only. It’s amazing that Theresa May can one on hand say they won’t vote against the welfare reforms as they don’t want to go against the public (WTF are you in opposition for then?) and at the same time have someone else in the party asking the SNP to break form their usual abstinence and help them out.

You might just have meant Harriet Harman not Theresa May – sadly, Theresa May is still Home Secretary…

As for the hunting ban, I distinctly remember seeing signs up in woodland around here warning of snares just after the ban came into force. Two days to die in a snare? Nice…

You might just have meant Harriet Harman not Theresa May – sadly, Theresa May is still Home Secretary…

Aah, yes, indeed who I meant. Getting confused in my rush to post angry comments and politicians idiocy.

Hunting for food? Yes.

Hunting for the sheer pleasure of killing another creature, i.e. fox hunting? No. Anyone who seeks enjoyment through the suffering of another creature needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

I think coyote may have a vested interest here, from his username?

ernie_lynch – Member
“I don’t think you can blame the Hunting Act 2004 for the Iraq War or the global banking crises.”

Agreed but it sure helped that certain of Labours class warriors had a victory in the war on toffs. It made the vote to kill thousands in Iraq easier on the conscience.

You might just have meant Harriet Harman not Theresa May – sadly, Theresa May is still Home Secretary…

I knew who you meant, but based on HH statements over the weekend on credits/benefits it’d be easy to get them mixed up…

It is properly the most dangerous gun line you can be in and you had to be 100% confident withe guys either side of you.

Wow it’s like ‘Nam, man.

Timely, this popped up on Facebook earlier.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-fox-hunter-exposes-full-6054986

Agreed but it sure helped that certain of Labours class warriors had a victory in the war on toffs. It made the vote to kill thousands in Iraq easier on the conscience.

Aren’t you embarrassed by that nonsense ?

Support for the Iraq War was far greater among the Conservative MPs than it was among Labour MPs. The odds are that a Tory MP who voted to retain fox hunting probably also vote to go to war in Iraq – there was no “vote to kill thousands in Iraq”. And while the Tories like to fight a good class war, as exemplified by this shower of Eton-educated tossers, I doubt that they were particularly motivated by class warrior instincts in the Iraq vote.

It’s probably worth remembering that a fierce critic of the latest moves by supporters of blood sports is the Tory sports minister, who obviously doesn’t consider fox hunting to be a sport, how does that tie in with your voting to clear her conscience over the Iraq War/class warrior bollocks ?

when humans start caring about the horrors inflicted upon their own species, the children, the elderly, the infirm and the impoverished. Only then will I give two shits about what is to be considered “humane”.

^ so much wrong with this (ironically self-defeating) excuse, I don’t know where to begin 🙁

Arguing will probably prove fruitless so will just counter-quote and run.

Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is–whether its victim is human or animal–we cannot expect things to be much better in this world…
— Rachel Carson

let’s be honest, the kind of fox-hunting that’s at the core of all this has nothing at all to do with ‘controlling vermin’.

it’s about money, and entertainment.

People pay to ride with a hunt. it’s part of the hunt-master’s job to make sure that there will be a good hunt (ie, make sure there are enough foxes).

toffs hunt foxes because:

a) foxes will eat grouse and pheasants, which toffs like to shoot.

but mostly

b) they enjoy it. Foxes are an entertaining target. we don’t get all this hoo-ha about rabbits do we? that’s because you can’t hunt rabbits on horseback.

And now we’re getting somewhere. Toffs like to charge about the place, on their horses, for a couple of hours, and then watch something get killed. That’s what they like, that’s why we have fox hunting.

yes, i know it got ‘banned’ – but you’d be wrong to think that stopped it.

A Tory govt making “technical” changes to a Law that bans hunting with dogs to enable “more” dogs to be used for flushing.

Nothing at all suspicious there…

It is properly the most dangerous gun line you can be in and you had to be 100% confident withe guys either side of you.

Wow it’s like ‘Nam, man.
Chelt’Nam?

Fully agree ahwiles. It’s entertainment pure and simple. Although what’s entertaining about chasing an animal to exhaustion then watching as it’s ripped to shreds is beyond me.

I would love one of the STW “hunters” to try and justify it.

“there was no “vote to kill thousands in Iraq”.

Was there no vote in the commons to support the government on military action in Iraq? Does support for military action not include the prospect of killing thousands? Did we kill thousands?

How about you answer my question before asking me one. Here it is again : a fierce critic of the latest moves by supporters of blood sports is the Tory sports minister, who obviously doesn’t consider fox hunting to be a sport, how does that tie in with your voting to clear her conscience over the Iraq War/class warrior bollocks ?

Sorry Ernie I really don’t understand your question.

As I understand it an MP can vote whichever way they want on this issue. I would presume this includes a sports minister, is there an issue with that? Would you prefer it if the government had made it a vote on party lines?

This sports minister you mention, did they vote to support the governments action in Iraq.

I really don’t understand your question

I think you do.

We both know you do.

You just can’t justify your absurd and ridiculous claim.

wow ernie you really are wasted you can read minds over the interweb. You know my mind.
I’d really like to be more helpful (you know this already I’m sure).
Are you talking about the present sports minister being able to go back in time and vote on supporting the Blair/Labour governments action in Iraq? You are undoubtabley special but I suspect for others that not possible.

I’m talking about this idiotic comment by you : “It made the vote to kill thousands in Iraq easier on the conscience”.

No mind reading required, just reading the embarrassing nonsense that you post 🙂

Well Ernie unfortunately for you that’s my view of what happened at the time.
You may not like it but there it is. Can you tell what I’m thinking now?…yep it’s time for a post lunch coffee.

Well Ernie unfortunately for you that’s my view …..

You can imagine how much I’m suffering. Still, the day is still young – perhaps something will come along to cheer me up 🙂

Can I recommend a good coffee? Perhaps a Peruvian bean freshly ground, organic of course. Mmmmm.