Bar the Bull
At the Start
You are all a shower of gobshites.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I'm ghabberflasted.
Moderators, please remove Paul's offensive personal remark above.
Shame on you, Jones.
Moderators, please remove Paul's offensive personal remark above.
Shame on you, Jones.
Find that interesting, that any horse is eligible to go hunting regardless of age, ability, experience etc. Considering many on here question the "morals" of those who would run a novice in a Gold Cup, when young horses are fecked around the countryside over any sort of "jump" ridden by different standard riders.
Aidan, I think you'd need to speak to those who've actually hunted, but my recollection of people I knew who did was that novice hunters, were treated carefully by their riders. They weren't put over all the obstacles, where there were any, and they weren't taken out for a full day's run until older, fitter, and more experienced. As for the standard of the riders - of course they'd be varied (just like jockeys are), but as they've generally bred and/or own the horses they're riding, they are hardly likely to risk them in the same way that a jockey might over-push a chaser. They want to use their valuable hunters for many, many years, and they're chasing a fox, not the hope of prize money and pots.
Additionally, the Hunt Master is there to oversee the proper protocol of the entire hunt, including how people are behaving towards their horses. If they thought that someone was likely to disrupt the hunt by having an unsuitable horse, they'd be told to stop hunting, go home, and not to come back until their animal had improved. Novice riders and horses, by the way, are always ridden to the back of the field, so that they don't get in the way of the schooled hunters and the experienced riders. It isn't some mad free-for-all!
I'm not an apologist for hunting folk, by the way, but I think you've got to know a bit about the way something actually works when comparing it to NH .
Additionally, the Hunt Master is there to oversee the proper protocol of the entire hunt, including how people are behaving towards their horses. If they thought that someone was likely to disrupt the hunt by having an unsuitable horse, they'd be told to stop hunting, go home, and not to come back until their animal had improved. Novice riders and horses, by the way, are always ridden to the back of the field, so that they don't get in the way of the schooled hunters and the experienced riders. It isn't some mad free-for-all!
I'm not an apologist for hunting folk, by the way, but I think you've got to know a bit about the way something actually works when comparing it to NH .
BrianH
At the Start
I think you'll find that the pace of the Gold Cup is just a little quicker than that of the average hunt too... :lol:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
You wouldn't say that if you'd seen the Berks & Bucks Draghounds streaming across the fields in Beenham - they're very scary!! The fences are enormous too, how they don't seem to have many casualties is beyond me.....
Can I ask any pro hunting people what the point of a hunt is?
I have seen numerous articles saying how hunts have gone out but not caught a fox, yet the argument always seems to be that a ban will cause people to lose their livelihoods. If people are financially dependant on hunting who pays them? the famers wouldn't as the success rate is shocking. Surely the people who go hunting can just as easily go riding and muzzle the dogs so that a good day out can be had anyway, without the need to rip an animal to shreds.
I have seen numerous articles saying how hunts have gone out but not caught a fox, yet the argument always seems to be that a ban will cause people to lose their livelihoods. If people are financially dependant on hunting who pays them? the famers wouldn't as the success rate is shocking. Surely the people who go hunting can just as easily go riding and muzzle the dogs so that a good day out can be had anyway, without the need to rip an animal to shreds.
A
Ardross
Guest
I think that would of course miss the point - that all the rest of it is flannel for the lust for killing
The whole point of hunting is to preserve a pastime for a section of society who follow a ritual of getting dressed up in full combat gear mounted on horses accompanied by a pack of hounds to pursue an animal that has an insatiable lust for killing.
This animal is classed as vermin whose description was probably defined by one of their own ilk and must be hunted at all costs ( apparently thousands of jobs and untold thousands of pounds in the upkeeping of 20.000 or more hounds )
To the uninitiated viewer it would defy logic to see all these mounted hunters in traditional combat gear charging about the countyside pursuing an animal not much bigger than a cat but, it is their tradition and must be upheld at all costs.
They will tell you that their aim is to control this killer animal but it has such a lust for indiscriminate killing that the hunters don't want to eliminate it.... why ?
Fact is that the fox is the chosen quarry and if there was another animal more suitable to their needs, they would pursue it and give suitable excuses why it would have to be hunted.
This animal is classed as vermin whose description was probably defined by one of their own ilk and must be hunted at all costs ( apparently thousands of jobs and untold thousands of pounds in the upkeeping of 20.000 or more hounds )
To the uninitiated viewer it would defy logic to see all these mounted hunters in traditional combat gear charging about the countyside pursuing an animal not much bigger than a cat but, it is their tradition and must be upheld at all costs.
They will tell you that their aim is to control this killer animal but it has such a lust for indiscriminate killing that the hunters don't want to eliminate it.... why ?
Fact is that the fox is the chosen quarry and if there was another animal more suitable to their needs, they would pursue it and give suitable excuses why it would have to be hunted.
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
I should imagine the costs are really high for clothing, equine gear and the said main-tenance of it all... as well as the dogs and their keepers who also get paid and normally are housed in a free linked house(TIED COTTAGE) but someone needs to pay for it...... so its more a thing for the GENTRY than Bill Bloggs........ 
So in summary a sport for the rich ................ to participate in......
So in summary a sport for the rich ................
to participate in......Ovverbruv,
hunts' finances come from membership fees, and from various fund-raising events like raffles, hunt balls, point-to-points etc. Obviously, a mounted pack like the Quorn will cost more to maintain than a foot pack like the Blencathra.
Forgetting about the social side of things, farmers gain a benefit because the service is free, and any damage will be made good by the hunt (a good reason why most farmers prefer to have the local hunt over he land rather than anonymous ramblers or riders).
Fallen stock is picked up at a nominal cost, something which no other body, either private or state, has volunteered to do for the same money!
They may also on occasion perform conservation work which also benefits the farmer (and the environment).
221bar,
you write "the hunters don't want to eliminate it....why" - well, just because an animal is regarded as a pest doesn't mean it ought to be eliminated.
There are obvious exceptions - alien imported "pest species" like the coypu (now eliminated from the UK) and the mink (now not allowed to be hunted, but itself doing an efficient job of eliminating the native water vole). But as a general rule, I believe that responsible management of "pest" populations is preferable to annihilation.
hunts' finances come from membership fees, and from various fund-raising events like raffles, hunt balls, point-to-points etc. Obviously, a mounted pack like the Quorn will cost more to maintain than a foot pack like the Blencathra.
Forgetting about the social side of things, farmers gain a benefit because the service is free, and any damage will be made good by the hunt (a good reason why most farmers prefer to have the local hunt over he land rather than anonymous ramblers or riders).
Fallen stock is picked up at a nominal cost, something which no other body, either private or state, has volunteered to do for the same money!
They may also on occasion perform conservation work which also benefits the farmer (and the environment).
221bar,
you write "the hunters don't want to eliminate it....why" - well, just because an animal is regarded as a pest doesn't mean it ought to be eliminated.
There are obvious exceptions - alien imported "pest species" like the coypu (now eliminated from the UK) and the mink (now not allowed to be hunted, but itself doing an efficient job of eliminating the native water vole). But as a general rule, I believe that responsible management of "pest" populations is preferable to annihilation.
Venusian, you fail to answer the question i raised. Does it matter if a fox is caught or not as to the amount of money spent on a hunt and if it doesnt matter then why not muzzle the dogs and just go riding instead of tearing an outnumbered and terrified animal to pieces
"Does it matter if a fox is caught or not as to the amount of money spent on a hunt?".
Ovver, I'm not sure what you mean by this question - are you asking whether a hunt is "paid by results"? Well, I've already outlined hunts' main sources of income. Of course, if a hunt kills virtually no foxes at all a farmer/landowner might well reconsider whether to allow the hunt across his land!
The other main service carried out is the collection of fallen stock. Clearly they get paid by results in this instance, although the sums are pretty nominal I believe.
"There must be a kill if possible otherwise the hunt would be deemed a failure."
221, well I suppose so, but no more than if an angler fails to catch a fish, for example. It's what happens over a period of time that counts. You're never going to get a 100% success rate. At least with hunting-with-dogs, the quarry is either 100% dead or 100% alive - you don't get the wounded animal situation where the creature, injured by bullets or poison, crawls off to a slow death.
Ovver, I'm not sure what you mean by this question - are you asking whether a hunt is "paid by results"? Well, I've already outlined hunts' main sources of income. Of course, if a hunt kills virtually no foxes at all a farmer/landowner might well reconsider whether to allow the hunt across his land!
The other main service carried out is the collection of fallen stock. Clearly they get paid by results in this instance, although the sums are pretty nominal I believe.
"There must be a kill if possible otherwise the hunt would be deemed a failure."
221, well I suppose so, but no more than if an angler fails to catch a fish, for example. It's what happens over a period of time that counts. You're never going to get a 100% success rate. At least with hunting-with-dogs, the quarry is either 100% dead or 100% alive - you don't get the wounded animal situation where the creature, injured by bullets or poison, crawls off to a slow death.
I think the definition, strictly speaking, between 'vermin' and 'pest' is laid down by DEFRA, certainly not the hunts. Vermin are considered to be vectors (carriers) of diseases, and pests are just annoying, but not likely to carry disease. A pest, for example, is the aphid. It can be killed by ladybirds, who are not pests, or it can be killed by an insecticide (not a good idea, since you then kill the ladybirds and other beetles and bugs).
Vermin include many rodents, but not all, and in some cities pigeons have been culled because they're considered such on account of the mites in their feathers and their copious amounts of poo. If DEFRA ever decides once and for all that TB is spread to cattle by badgers, then you'll see much, much bigger badger culls than they've been doing already, as they'll be branded as 'vermin'. Cue badger cull sabbers...
And a hearty 'well done' to the ALF for releasing mink into the defenceless countryside, where they continue, as Ven says, their brutal decimation of the helpless, native water vole, as well as toads, newts, lizards, and and as many dormice and other small creatures that they can shred in a day. But, as mink hounds are now off the hunting menu, they can continue to wreak havoc in their non-native environment. Just as long as they don't get made into coats, that's all right, then.
Vermin include many rodents, but not all, and in some cities pigeons have been culled because they're considered such on account of the mites in their feathers and their copious amounts of poo. If DEFRA ever decides once and for all that TB is spread to cattle by badgers, then you'll see much, much bigger badger culls than they've been doing already, as they'll be branded as 'vermin'. Cue badger cull sabbers...
And a hearty 'well done' to the ALF for releasing mink into the defenceless countryside, where they continue, as Ven says, their brutal decimation of the helpless, native water vole, as well as toads, newts, lizards, and and as many dormice and other small creatures that they can shred in a day. But, as mink hounds are now off the hunting menu, they can continue to wreak havoc in their non-native environment. Just as long as they don't get made into coats, that's all right, then.
A
Ardross
Guest
Idiotic as any release of mink was ( fur farming is now banned in the UK I think ) to blame animal rights activists ignores the fact that the vast majority of mink in the wild have bred from escaped mink and had they not been brought into this country to be brutally bred and killed solely so that people with too much money and sense could wear a fur coat , when the only place for animal fur is on an animal , we would not have this problem .
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
That should be "an outnumbered, terrified and dead animal to pieces"......
The object of the exercise when hunting is to cull foxes; they are vermin & their numbers need to be controlled as they wreak havoc with their killing sprees. I'm not sure whether you're questioning hunting or the killing of foxes altogether, Ovverbruv - believe me, the fox population does need controlling as they have no natural predator in the wild.
I'm not really sure why the anti-hunting set are claiming a victory in this instance - hunting will, and is, carrying on nearly as normal with the only difference being that the fox is flushed out by a pair of hounds, shot, then thrown to the hounds. If it is the kill & the supposed cruelty of the fox being "torn to pieces" then this is happening as it always has done - the dead fox is still being thrown to the hounds. Also, in shooting the fox rather than the hounds breaking the animal's neck it is far from certain that the kill will be a clean one, in fact it was well documented on 19th February that two out of three foxes that were killed by meets with a Sky News reporter in attendance had to be shot twice as the first shots only wounded the animals. If it is the culling of the fox in general then again, foxes are still being, & will continue to be, killed.
Maybe they should work on their shooting then
The fact remains that it is an outdated method of killing foxes, and an outdated tradition completely. There are many other "traditions" in this country that have been abolished, all to further to greater good of society. Women voting springs to mind as one that seems to have a similar path. Why do hunters persist in the bloodlust that murdering animals gives them, why not just ride for fun?