I imagine more sadists work in abattoirs than work in hunt kennels.

I have seen it action first hand.

Check these numbers out. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/chart-of-the-day-this-is-how-many-animals-we-eat-each-year/

and compare that to fox hunting. If we could quantify the volume of cruelty, fox hunting does not even register, like ridculously meaningless.
But it makes you look all nice and caring and virtuous to declaim it and the people that do it, whilst ignoring the real problems in the world, and the vast amount of cruel shit that happens every day to humans and animals.

I’d happily see 90% of the deer in scotland culled because of the damage they do to the ecosystem and their numbers have grown hugely over the past decades.

Wolves is the solution!

I imagine more sadists work in abattoirs than work in hunt kennels.

More a lie from the militant veggies .

99% of the cases of cruelty shown in militant vegetarian propaganda is of slaughterhouses in countries where the rule of law doesn’t apply.

A happy cow is a tasty cow.

If you only eat veg, and have a humanitarian ideal about not eating meat, I applaud you.

@8+5
Read
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

unfortunatly Ernie wolves are not the solution in Scotland.

Yes what happened in Yellowstone shows what happens but there are hundreds of thousands of excess deer. the number of wolves needed to bring the red deer population down would be huge and then once the deer numbers are down what do all those wolves do for food?

I think Wolf proposals in scotland amount to a few 10’s of wolves. I am not sure there is enough wild space for hundreds of wolves. Gonna take a while to reduce deer numbers, plus the deer actually reproduce annually.

It will also make future prosecutions easier as well as the lie of “trail hunting” is now a useless defense

does it?

1. Magistrates courts don’t make legal precedent so ironically you’d have to hope for an appeal to do that.
2. Is all “trail hunting” a lie? (genuine question – I didn’t see anything in the article that suggested that trail hunting was fundamentally illegal – but rather that going on the internet telling people how to dodge around the law by pretending to trail hunt was illegal).

I’d liken a lot of the pro-hunt lobby to large parts of the orange order going on marches in the west of Scotland. There will be some with genuine evil intent, but many who just continue to do it because its what they’ve always done, a tradition passed on from generation to generation and those who want to stop them are interfering with their way of life.

Is all “trail hunting” a lie?

yes basically ( I think one hunt did convert =properly to drag hunting)

they claim to use fox urine ( because the hounds for the kill hunts converted to trail hunts are trained to follow foxes – drag hunts use other scents). there is no supply of fox urine in the UK – it all has to come from the US and lo and behold – no records of any ever been found of fox urine being imported ( from my information from the anti hunting side but this has never been rebutted that I know of)

the leaked webinar was a national thing broadcast to all hunts and the person prosecuted was one of the most senior people in the national organisation and there is plenty of evidence of all hunts routinely killing foxes illegally

does it?

Yes – although its not legal precedent strictly speaking every prosecution for illegal hunting that has been attempted the defense has been – we were trail hunting and accidently caught a fox. NOw the prosecution will be able to shoot that defense down. the hunt can still attempt the defense but its been shown to be a lie and thus will be much much harder for the hunts to make that case.

the critical thing however is the landowners – when that webinar came out many landowners put temporary bans in place and others were waiting for the outcome of the prosecution. Now its proven that “trail hunting” is a lie and used to cover up illegal hunting then the temporary bans should be come permanent and other landowners will join in. This then makes hunting very difficult / impossible as they do not have the ability to go on land owned by utilities and the NT and national parks. One hunt has already disbanded because they no longer had enough land they can use

Its not the end of illegal killing of foxes but its another nail in the coffin – and a big one

https://www.warwickshireworld.com/news/environment/shocking-video-shows-campaigner-confronting-huntsman-with-dead-fox-in-south-warwickshire-after-dragging-it-out-of-the-mouths-of-hounds-3418082?fbclid=IwAR2hYmp3WWsMaFtLRR5SU5o0ej59xoOP1c9YbHQVqX-3w-9KdLuDJNrhMuw

yes basically

In your opinion.

Back to TJs original point. Yes it was a great day to see that scumbag convicted. Hopefully the NPs etc will hold their bans in place for longer or even permanently and it will be significant shift to the activity dying out.

We have two hunts active where I live and both are quite open about how they use the trail hunting excuse to carry on hunting foxes.

In your opinion.

Nope – proven even before this judgement. there might be the odd one obeying the law but the vast majority are clearly evading the law at best of flouting it at worst

How can you do drag hunts using fox urine without any fox urine?

The kind of ridiculous thing about this story is that it’s news at all. It has been abundantly clear ever since the ban on hunting that it has still been going on regardless. On a local level I’m not sure they even try to pretend any different.
Unfortunately the police don’t have the resources to do anything about it. I suppose the existence of this evidence at least makes public what everyone already knew.

True, but the smokescreen meant that large public facing landowners could plead ignorance to what was really happening. Now they can’t.

Yes – although its not legal precedent strictly speaking every prosecution for illegal hunting that has been attempted the defense has been – we were trail hunting and accidently caught a fox. NOw the prosecution will be able to shoot that defense down. the hunt can still attempt the defense but its been shown to be a lie and thus will be much much harder for the hunts to make that case.

The evidence from a completely different trial won’t be admissable, so the prosecution would still have to show for each case that this was not a “legitimate” trail hunt that caught a fox by mistake. As I understand it this case wasn’t saying “tail hunts are a scam” but rather “telling people how to pretend to trail hunt when you are not is a crime”. Ironically he could have almost certainly done a slightly different version of those presentations which would not only have been legal, but could have been argued to be showing best practice. His “mistake” was being far too blatant that this was how to use a scent trail as a cover for legitimate hunting, rather than how to lay a good trail.

If the only thing stopping a hunt from being a legitimate trail hunt, is being able to prove they have a source of scent to chase – presumably there will be people who will either legitimately import the scent (you can buy it to keep rats etc out your garden) or at least issue invoices for something claiming to be it or source the active ingredient? or will start keeping records of how they came to have the required material.

I’m not in any way an advocate for fox hunting – I’m just suggesting that in terms of individual hunts being stopped from using trailed scents, you may be over-optimistic! It may mean some are less cavalier in preparation or in sharing “tactics” with others on how to get around the rules. Whilst I’m generally enthused that landowners are questioning the activities that go on in their land, it does lead me to some “if its OK to suspend getting dogs to chase a smell and riding horses around in crazy attire, does it open the potential for is it ok to ban groups of mountain bikers?”. I’m a bit surprised that they’ve linked suspension to this case – it almost seems to be an admission that some ‘public’ landowners were aware that this type of hunt was always just a smoke screen? I think its more likely that some landowners will reinstate hunts with extra safeguards to make sure the landowner is seen to be only enabling legal hunts.

In your opinion.

Surely you have to admit the hunting office really didnt help themselves with those seminars?
Do you truly believe that its not being used as an excuse to continue fox hunting?

does it open the potential for is it ok to ban groups of mountain bikers?”.

What potential? Very few of those large landowners are overly keen on mountain bikers riding around in packs roaming about as they see fit outside of public rights of way.

I’m a bit surprised that they’ve linked suspension to this case – it almost seems to be an admission that some ‘public’ landowners were aware that this type of hunt was always just a smoke screen?

Possibly a mix of that or people simply not bothering to look at them in detail. Remember it wasnt just some hunt deciding to do this but instead a seminar from the central committee for the hunts.

I think its more likely that some landowners will reinstate hunts with extra safeguards to make sure the landowner is seen to be only enabling legal hunts.

Which is possible but then I am not sure the trail nee fox hunts would want to change to being drag hunts as that option has always been available to them if they so desire.

If the only thing stopping a hunt from being a legitimate trail hunt, is being able to prove they have a source of scent to chase – presumably there will be people who will either legitimately import the scent (you can buy it to keep rats etc out your garden) or at least issue invoices for something claiming to be it or source the active ingredient? or will start keeping records of how they came to have the required material.

As far as I am aware the claim from the trail hunts is they use fox urine – and there is none available in the UK and no record of any being imported and there is something about imports needing special paperwork because of what it is. the reason they claim to use fox urine is to keep up the pretense of trail hunting while continuing to kill foxes

Drag hunts use things like aniseed IIRC – so the hounds will not chase foxes as they are trained to a different scent

the kill hunts masquerading as trail hunts claim to use fox urine – but there is no supply of this

Next time a Hunt is facing investigation or trial for killing foxes the defense of ” we were trail hunting but accidentally caught a fox” will be much harder to make because of this judgement

Maybe I am over optimistic but the bans on using land are looking like being made permanent off this judgement as the smokescreen has been blown away

To those advocating terriering for foxes, you say you gain zero pleasure from it. Why would you do it then? Is this some kind of paid arrangement between you and a landowner? You must have gone out of your way to gain their permission to dig on their land, or have I got this completely wrong. Digging is a lot of effort for an unpaid venture with zero benefits to be gained from it?
I had an acquaintance who would lamp for foxes with dogs, usually some type of greyhound or deerhound mix with almost always a bit of bull or staff terrier thrown in, for the killer instinct he told me. Kept about 16 dogs all in, terriers as well
. Again, claimed zero enjoyment from the kill. Thats a lot of mouths to feed, lots of vets bills and a lot of turds to shovel for no monetary gain and no enjoyment. Can you , with much more insight than me,explain this to me at all?
Shooting for food I have zero problem with, abbatoir killing I do which is why I wont eat farmed mammals. Shooting for pest control is a necessary evil sometimes, and is always preferrable to poisoning as that is just indiscriminate and cruel. I just cant for the life of me imagine what is to be gained from terriering.

Also, how do you view the fox, both before you kill it and after youve killed it? Do you get any pleasure at all from seeing a beautiful red fox going about its business, or do you just see vermin? Genuinely curious.

MY guess with the digging of foxes that Brads was talking about is ( as he is a gamekeeper / landsman of some sort) is he was killing the foxes to stop them taking pheasant or other bird chicks which would be vaguely legitimate ie vermin control

Why not just shoot them then? Even a baited stand ? Targetted, clean kill, remote kill so no need to be up close and personal to the dying animal? Seems unnecessary to go the lengths of taking the dogs out, digging, etc. To pretend that fox doesnt feel terror when its getting dug out,even if the dogs dont get at it before its shot, is dishonest.
Not gonna lie, im not a gamekeeper, dont eat meat, though i do eat fish, so am at a different end of the spectrum to those here that hunt.
However, whenever they try to justify their actions, it always seems that there is a cleaner, less barbaric, or more efficient way to carry out the activity they claim to get zero pleasure from. Seems like either hiding the truth or hiding from the truth, to me at least.

I have butted heads with Brads on here a lot but believe he is a decent bloke with a viewpoint far from mine

Same as farmers see animals very differently to those of us that don’t farm. You cannot be sentimental when killing animals is part of your job

Despite being very anti hunting I do recognise meat is animals and that land needs to have folk employed and some of this stuff is really nuanced – for example pheasant shoots require tree cover – without the pheasant shoots would the trees go to create more grazing land?

If theres a cleaner better way, that generally becomes the default method in the rest of the world, but hunting clings on to traditional ways constantly. Now I cant see any benefit to digging out foxes over shooting them, which is why I ask the question to the initiated before condemning them outright.

hunting with dogs is indefensible – killing foxes that are killing your farmed animals may be

What Brads was describing ( I recognised with hindsight) is not the same as terriermen digging up fox dens to get cubs to use to train hounds. It appears he was killing foxes as vermin. I doubt yo and I know enough to know the most humane way of killing those foxes. snares are cruel, poisons are indiscriminate, lamping you need to be a very good shot not to leave maimed animals

Its not all fluffyness in the countryside. Nature red in tooth and claw and there are places and times where foxes could be vermin and need to be killed. this might have been the most practical way

Jeepers – I cannot believe I ended up defending Brads! 😉

Digging was and is mainly used for foxes that can’t be shot ( location) or are proving difficult to shoot. Also for cubs. Thermal imaging has cut digging drastically.
As for how I view them , they are stunning and many times I have not pulled a trigger cause there was no need, and have simply watched.
People also have to learn to separate the enjoyment of a successful hunt to the act of killing.
My enjoyment in killing extended to the animal knowing as little about it as possible.
I enjoy hunting. The death of an animal is a result of that, but if there is a reason for it and it’s done efficiently and as humanly as possible then that’s where my pleasure extends to.
Not one shooting person I know gets his kicks from the killing part.
Shooting is also so remote as to be removed from the killing part.
If that makes sense, kind of hard to verbalise I suppose.

The method is the same, as far as I can tell. Using dogs to terrify an animal whilst the 12 bore cavalry arrive is almost the same as chasing them for miles. Barbaric and unnecessary, vermin or not they still deserve a quick pain free death, its not their fault they were born ‘vermin’.
You make an interesting point though, and that is a badly taken shot maiming an animal. The animal would need to be finished off ,I think the majority on here would agree that. Would digging a fox out and dispatching it be any more cruel than having to use dogs to hound an injured one down and then dispatch it? I dont know the answer here.
The answer is to only take a guaranteed shot, but I know enough about firearms and moving targets to know that this is never a given.
As an aside, if anyone following this thread wants to have their opinions swayed back and fore , listen to the Radiolab podcast on Rhino hunting. Very interesting I thought.

@brads, thank you for replying, glad to be educated here.
So you would ONLY dig foxes or cubs as the very last resort, for foxes who were proving uncontrollable in any other way?
Would you prefer to drop a fox cleanly at distance, or do you prefer the up close and personal approach to be sure that the problem is eradicated?
I take it you do it in your line of work, as in not much different to Rentokill etc? This is a different proposition to someone who does it unpaid in my eyes, not the profession for me though.
I have heard fox hunters in my locale killing foxes with dogs, its a terrible sound. Does it bother you if the dogs actually get hold of a fox? Obviously you cant shoot because you run the risk of hitting your dog, do you just let the dog carry on? How does this make you feel? Would you take that specific dog out again if he behaved like that?
I get the rest of it, it might be similar to the feeling i get whilst out fishing. The goal is to target and close with a wild, crafty creature who has reached the stage of its life it has through guile, without the need necessarily to destroy it in my case.
I dont live in an area where commercial /estate hunting is really a thing,it seems you might work on a shooting estate. The only hunting I see here is bloodthirsty bellends with bull cross lurchers, idiots badger baiting and the tally ho brigade. My concept of what you do is therefore tainted . Its the element of fear and trepidation by a doomed animal i cant gel with, not the shooting outright of problem animals.
My tendency is live and let live, I could never do your job with animals, I guess were just wired differently.

As far as I am aware the claim from the trail hunts is they use fox urine – and there is none available in the UK and no record of any being imported and there is something about imports needing special paperwork because of what it is.

Well there’s plenty of foxes so I’m sure an enterprising hunt could probably find a way to get hold of some! I can imagine that there should be paperwork for import (although pre-brexit probably not needed from EU?) – although just because they don’t have the paperwork doesn’t mean I can’t go to amazon and buy some.

the reason they claim to use fox urine is to keep up the pretense of trail hunting while continuing to kill foxes

I get the logic – and I’m not disputing that they use the “oops did we end up chasing a real fox, that’s just nature” excuse too often – I’m a bit staggered though that they have faced the risk of “where did you get the urine” question and not closed that risk off – by ordering some and doing the paperwork? Or by getting some synthetic stuff made (there will be one or two particular molecules that the dogs smell which would save the import paperwork for animal byproducts).

Drag hunts use things like aniseed IIRC – so the hounds will not chase foxes as they are trained to a different scent

OK I hadn’t realised that the legit hunts had retrained on a different scent. Glad I know – I love aniseed, if I smelled it in the woods I’d probably end up on a trail and getting trampled by dogs and horses! I can see it could be a difficult argument (at least over time as new dogs are trained) to explain why you are using the scent that’s easily mistaken for live fox (and stinks!) rather than a pleasant smelling alternative with much lower risk of catching real foxes by mistake.

Next time a Hunt is facing investigation or trial for killing foxes the defense of ” we were trail hunting but accidentally caught a fox” will be much harder to make because of this judgement

That was actually where I joined the discussion. It won’t. The magistrates in that trial cannot consider anything from this one in the future case. The crown will need to call witnesses to prove the points in question. It might mean the CPS have more confidence to bring prosecutions but it won’t make those cases easier in themselves.

Maybe I am over optimistic but the bans on using land are looking like being made permanent off this judgement as the smokescreen has been blown away

Well if there’s a legitimate alternative (aniseed) then I can see landowners agreeing only if that is used (and the bigger ones requiring a degree of oversight on the arrangements). The puzzling (well not really!) thing is that the Master of Foxhounds Assoc said they might appeal rather than immediately distancing themselves from Mark Hankinson. That seems to undermine their words that they would set up a review to reassure landowners they were working within the law.

The drag hunts have been going for a long time using other scents hence the distinction between drag hunts – legitimate and trail hunts – smokescreen for killing foxes

I think all that stuff is true about the different scents

The magistrates in that trial cannot consider anything from this one in the future case

No – but when the hunts try the “trail hunting” excuse the prosecution have a ready made line of attack to discredit that defense. this decision makes it much easier to discredit that defense.

Well there’s plenty of foxes so I’m sure an enterprising hunt could probably find a way to get hold of some!

You can only get it from fox farms for fur and the only exporter is the US I believe and it needs specific licenses to import or something similar.

this is where they are caught in their own lies – they cannot lay a scent tail using anniseed as the hounds will not follow it also then if they were trail laying with aniseed then the hounds would not chase foxes – which is what they actually want to do hence this fiction about fox urine so they can claim trail laying but still hunt foxes using the “hound got confused” fiction

Many landowners put bans in place after the webinars came out – I hardly think they will retract those bans now if another fiction appears indeed some landowners were awaiting the outcome of that trial to decide if a ban was appropriate

Genuine question.
Foxhounds are bred to hound foxes, obviously. Yes you can train them to follow aniseed, but hundreds of years of breeding have turned non-fox obsessed dogs into fox -obsessed dogs.
Can you ever turn off this instinct ? Is aniseed really more of an attraction than foxpiss?
Also, if theyre serious about NOT killing foxes, can they not devise some kind of muzzle just in case they happen to encounter a fox whilst on their aniseed chase? We can muzzle Police dogs well enough so that they can do their job properly, slightly different kettle of fish with hounds I know, but surely it must have been tried, IF they were serious about NOT killing foxes (or cats, or small dogs, or hedgehogs,etc) accidentally.

For the vast majority, hunting is a leisure activity that they pay handsomely to do. Anybody who does this knows full well that their enjoyment requires the death of animals, and chooses to do so anyway. If shooting is your thing there are plenty other ways to do it without killing things. If horse riding is your thing there are plenty other ways to do it without killing things.
A small minority need to kill animals as part of their livelihood, and hopefully do so in the most humane way they can. This does not compare with the hunting shooting fishing brigade who do it for fun.
Pheasant shooting is particularly pathetic as far as I can see. I spent some time talking to someone who was rearing them, and he explained how he feeds them each day about half a mile away from the main rearing area, so that they become completely accustomed to walking the same route each morning. Then when the time comes, they set up benches on the hillside so that the pheasants can trundle by on their daily walk, then the idiots with guns can sit there whist they beat them into the air to be shot.
People pay anywhere from £500 to £3000 to attend a pheasant shoot. Most of the pheasants are wasted, only a small proportion end up being eaten. Please tell me why these people are spending that much money to stand there and shoot things if they don’t enjoy it.
I’m sure they spend some time chatting about how big a manor they inherited from daddy, and what proportion of the county they collectively own, but mostly that are there to gain enjoyment from killing stuff.

I’m sure they spend some time chatting about how big a manor they inherited from daddy

Most I know spend time chatting about what painting and decorating job they are working on just now , or what timber merchant is best for supplies etc.
Not a silver spoon in sight.

I imagine more sadists work in abattoirs than work in hunt kennels.

Sadly for society the huts are a largely unregulated or at best self-regulated environment, so bad practicea thrive.

And @brads you are massively understimating the persistence of the feudal hierarchy in the hunt system. Certainly the southern/shire hunts. Sure there are a few new money wannabees who are tolerated but the masters are still entitled and the paid staff cap doffing subservients.

Not that it is directly relevant to the discussion but there are loads of reports of horrific practices when it comes to the Foxhounds themselves. We used to have a gamekeeper on our (vet) books with Foxhounds, and we never saw them. You can guarantee that plenty got ill, were injured or just plain didn’t make the grade, and beyond a certain age they are no use – and they certainly don’t end their days as pets. You can guess what happened to them. Fox hunting is cruel to more than just the fox.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-healthy-foxhounds—including-6061265

Not exactly the most reliable publication ever but you get the point.

jonnymarone – they want to kill foxes – thats the whole point. Its about the thrill of the chase and the kill.

Brads – how can they afford horses then? I’m puzzled.

@tjagain, who are ? A bit of context would be nice here if you mention my name?
Are we talking about drag hunters here, which is my last post? Plus i was asking which is stronger, training or instinct?
Apart from that ,yes, I agree with you. I believe , based on the evidence which nobody has disputed or proven otherwise, that drag hunters are out to chase and kill foxes for the vast majority of cases. They take no precautions not too as far as I can see.

Drag hunts – legitimate activity of following a laid scent around. they do not kill foxes so no further measures needed. IIRC a non animal scent the hounds are trained to follow

trail hunts – smokescreen to disguise the fact they still are fox hunting. they pretend to be following a laid scent but are actually still killing foxes deliberately. they will not take any measures to avoid “accidental” kills as they are not accidents – they are deliberate. claim they are using fox urine to lay a trail. Its a lie

the trail hunts are not interested in taking measures to avoid killing foxes as that is what they want to do