Campaigning To Ban Trail Hunting

[3175darren 1,101]

Well I find it disgusting, that some townie turns up on a morning with six of his mates, on his 3 grand push bikes, landrover sport paid for by a bonus they made, after making a banking loss, riding all over the spot disturbing everything in the bloody area, shouting at people who don't jump for there lives into bramble bushes, to give them there god given right of way, and have no connection to the use of the countryside, but do I try and ban them no, I do not, neither do I like the flip flop wearing twats who tramp all over the mountain / hill tops in this area, putting nothing but strain on our mountain rescue teams, sent up for a fool, ill prepared, expecting the people who live and hunt here, to drop everything to save their selfish lives, do I campaign to Ban them no, it seems like the national parks is just a play ground for towney country file addicts,

[Born Hunter 17,830]

The whole hunting debate definitely invokes thought and arguments of liberty. Just because a group don't like something does that mean they should be able to ban it? Should they be able to ban it even if they represent the majority? Don't we value rights and freedoms to protect against mob rule in democracy? There's a lot to discuss there and indeed much was raised when the ban was on the table. I was only a teenager at the time, in case anyone should think I know what I'm talking about, but it's all documented and available in this information age.

 

As a mate often tells me "most people don't give hunting a second of thought, it just doesn't matter to them" which is true but it's also true that when you present them with the issue it stirs enough emotion in them to make a political storm quite easily.

 

Other things like being disgusted at folks climbing the fells in flipflops just doesn't have that same effect and so doesn't have the potential to become such a political issue.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

The whole hunting debate definitely invokes thought and arguments of liberty. Just because a group don't like something does that mean they should be able to ban it? Should they be able to ban it even if they represent the majority? Don't we value rights and freedoms to protect against mob rule in democracy? There's a lot to discuss there and indeed much was raised when the ban was on the table.

Born! Stop using common sense! It's very unbecoming on the forum!

 

Joking aside though democracy at its basic is mob rule. It cares not for protecting the liberties of its minorities. Some of us do value rights and freedoms but some of us now live where there is no objection to the written constitution that guarantees those rights. As a minority community should we not apply the same conditions to other minorities with which we disagree?

 

As a mate often tells me "most people don't give hunting a second of thought, it just doesn't matter to them" which is true but it's also true that when you present them with the issue it stirs enough emotion in them to make a political storm quite easily.

 

That I believe is down to the PR campaign waged for a few decades leading up to it. We were always light years behind the curve. Their minority always stepped up their game when it came to documenting perceived ills. I genuinely think that our community hid behind tradition and didn't honestly believe we had to do anything other than turn up. Even today we apply the appeal to tradition as the main argument for hunting. Also the millennial never grew up in a society where hunting with hounds was legal so there's no frame of reference.

 

Other things like being disgusted at folks climbing the fells in flipflops just doesn't have that same effect and so doesn't have the potential to become such a political issue.

True but consenting adults versus fluffy creatures will always play in favour of the latter. Nailing PETA for how many animals they euthanize a year would be a much better way of displaying the hypocrisy of the animal rights movement.

Edited September 19, 2017 by ChrisJones

[3175darren 1,101]

The whole hunting debate definitely invokes thought and arguments of liberty. Just because a group don't like something does that mean they should be able to ban it? Should they be able to ban it even if they represent the majority? Don't we value rights and freedoms to protect against mob rule in democracy? There's a lot to discuss there and indeed much was raised when the ban was on the table. I was only a teenager at the time, in case anyone should think I know what I'm talking about, but it's all documented and available in this information age.

 

As a mate often tells me "most people don't give hunting a second of thought, it just doesn't matter to them" which is true but it's also true that when you present them with the issue it stirs enough emotion in them to make a political storm quite easily.

 

Other things like being disgusted at folks climbing the fells in flipflops just doesn't have that same effect and so doesn't have the potential to become such a political issue.

thats a balanced view,

[3175darren 1,101]

 

The whole hunting debate definitely invokes thought and arguments of liberty. Just because a group don't like something does that mean they should be able to ban it? Should they be able to ban it even if they represent the majority? Don't we value rights and freedoms to protect against mob rule in democracy? There's a lot to discuss there and indeed much was raised when the ban was on the table.

 

Born! Stop using common sense! It's very unbecoming on the forum!

Joking aside though democracy at its basic is mob rule. It cares not for protecting the liberties of its minorities. Some of us do value rights and freedoms but some of us now live where there is no objection to the written constitution that guarantees those rights. As a minority community should we not apply the same conditions to other minorities with which we disagree?

 

As a mate often tells me "most people don't give hunting a second of thought, it just doesn't matter to them" which is true but it's also true that when you present them with the issue it stirs enough emotion in them to make a political storm quite easily.

 

That I believe is down to the PR campaign waged for a few decades leading up to it. We were always light years behind the curve. Their minority always stepped up their game when it came to documenting perceived ills. I genuinely think that our community hid behind tradition and didn't honestly believe we had to do anything other than turn up. Even today we apply the appeal to tradition as the main argument for hunting. Also the millennial never grew up in a society where hunting with hounds was legal so there's no frame of reference.

 

Other things like being disgusted at folks climbing the fells in flipflops just doesn't have that same effect and so doesn't have the potential to become such a political issue.

 

True but consenting adults versus fluffy creatures will always play in favour of the latter. Nailing PETA for how many animals they euthanize a year would be a much better way of displaying the hypocrisy of the animal rights movement.

But the press seams biased, they will over emphasise what the hunting fraternity do, and play down peta's / RSPCA's actions,

[Born Hunter 17,830]

As a minority community should we not apply the same conditions to other minorities with which we disagree?

 

I think I know precisely where you are going with this and I agree but it'd be very uncomfortable for most on here! I think any argument based on liberty would be dropped instantly. LOL

 

 

That I believe is down to the PR campaign waged for a few decades leading up to it. We were always light years behind the curve. Their minority always stepped up their game when it came to documenting perceived ills. I genuinely think that our community hid behind tradition and didn't honestly believe we had to do anything other than turn up. Even today we apply the appeal to tradition as the main argument for hunting. Also the millennial never grew up in a society where hunting with hounds was legal so there's no frame of reference.

 

 

True but consenting adults versus fluffy creatures will always play in favour of the latter. Nailing PETA for how many animals they euthanize a year would be a much better way of displaying the hypocrisy of the animal rights movement.

 

I take on board these two points and agree. I would say though that the Anti's PR machine doesn't need much bhp to achieve a political critical mass, it's far easier to whip up public emotion against hunting than it is to for it. Before or after the ban imo. Also millennials might not have grown up in a world where hunting was legal but they have grown up in a world where shooting is legal and these people are similarly instinctively opposed to that in my experience.

 

The PETA argument is very valid, amongst many others that show their hypocrisy and extremism. Does it cut it though? I mean is that not just throwing shit back in a hope that the issue gets lost in all the shit in the air? The anti hunting lobby can too easily distance themselves from everything other than fighting hunting, putting the focus back on foxes being pulled from an earth by a 11 and a half couple hounds to be ripped to bits and say "LOOK! This is the issue right now! This is barbaric and needs consigning to history! Those other issues should be dealt with later.".

 

Looking to the future I see how in the UK we are very sport focused in our fieldsports. I think for historical reasons much of our traditional pursuits developed that way with pest control, conservation and meat harvesting being secondary considerations. Sport is becoming increasingly difficult to justify to the masses and so more easily argued justifications are being used but found lacking when on public inspection the pursuit itself doesn't demonstrate them because it hasn't really adjusted it's focus at all. Typical of course of many instances of tradition vs. progress.

 

I think there is a lot to discuss and use regarding the difference between the reason we hunt/shoot/fish and the justification. We can maintain our traditional focus on sport (reason) while adapting to the modern demands of social progress with better justifications, better because they need to be demonstrably valid. For instance It's no good arguing that we shoot game for the pot to then have reports of 2000 bird days and wasteful use of the harvested meat.

[MOLE265 792]

It's alright for fiennes to slit the throats of rag heads, but when it comes to a minority group looking for a good day out following a scented rag it's a big no no, maybe fiennes could supply rags with heads included, maybe that would be acceptable to him.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I think I know precisely where you are going with this and I agree but it'd be very uncomfortable for most on here! I think any argument based on liberty would be dropped instantly. LOL

Unfortunately, I believe that personal liberty is the only argument we have left. If we're going to deny others their traditions based on perceived cruelty we don't have much left to go on. It's easy for us in the community to understand what we do but to the rest of society that has been the recipient of a dedicated smear campaign, I don't see a reversal anytime soon. In fact, the mercenary in me says that the existing hunts should absorb the flack. Absorb the condemnation because it allows the average dogman to go around virtually untroubled. We don't live in a society where hunting is a community pastime like it is over here. They have laws on the books that make it an offence to target hunters. That's something that Britain will never get around especially when a large number of MP's agree with the cruelty arguments.

 

I take on board these two points and agree. I would say though that the Anti's PR machine doesn't need much bhp to achieve a political critical mass, it's far easier to whip up public emotion against hunting than it is to for it. Before or after the ban imo. Also millennials might not have grown up in a world where hunting was legal but they have grown up in a world where shooting is legal and these people are similarly instinctively opposed to that in my experience.

 

You're correct it doesn't take much when you use your wealth to show pictures of neglected puppies. Defenceless animals will always generate more revenue than starving children, which is very telling of how we are as a species.

 

Indeed millennials have grown up in a world where shooting is legal but look at the restrictions. Look at the negative portrayal of the firearm in society. I know we're talking about the massive cultural difference but it's been a huge PR battle from day one. Bans after Hungerford and Dunblane were a case of majority vote which is much easier when you don't have constitutional protection. Not to mention that they live in a society where these were banned long before they were born in many cases. Living in a society where firearms are simply tools it's a different attitude entirely. Over here you're in a majority as a shooter. Over there you're viewed with suspicion. When you've got the BASC and the CA as the voices of reason you're not winning the PR war you're reinforcing the class war.

 

The PETA argument is very valid, amongst many others that show their hypocrisy and extremism. Does it cut it though? I mean is that not just throwing shit back in a hope that the issue gets lost in all the shit in the air? The anti hunting lobby can too easily distance themselves from everything other than fighting hunting, putting the focus back on foxes being pulled from an earth by a 11 and a half couple hounds to be ripped to bits and say "LOOK! This is the issue right now! This is barbaric and needs consigning to history! Those other issues should be dealt with later.".

I don't think you have to try and deflect the issue you just have to expose the hypocrisy. These are major players but I don't think their extremism is tackled nearly as much as it should be. Look at PETA's record. Look at the RSPCA's record. Not enough pressure being applied there IMO.

 

We have to be honest that our community makes many bad photo opportunities. We've discussed in many parallel threads the dangers of handing over the ammunition, and we still do it. Most of the material I've seen on anti sites is from hunter's photo albums. They no longer have to go into the field when they don't have to leave their computers. The extremists were always in the minority and always will be. There is nothing wrong with us addressing this and exposing the hypocrisy for its own sake, I just think it's a missed opportunity on our part.

 

Looking to the future I see how in the UK we are very sport focused in our fieldsports. I think for historical reasons much of our traditional pursuits developed that way with pest control, conservation and meat harvesting being secondary considerations. Sport is becoming increasingly difficult to justify to the masses and so more easily argued justifications are being used but found lacking when on public inspection the pursuit itself doesn't demonstrate them because it hasn't really adjusted it's focus at all. Typical of course of many instances of tradition vs. progress.

 

I think there is a lot to discuss and use regarding the difference between the reason we hunt/shoot/fish and the justification. We can maintain our traditional focus on sport (reason) while adapting to the modern demands of social progress with better justifications, better because they need to be demonstrably valid. For instance It's no good arguing that we shoot game for the pot to then have reports of 2000 bird days and wasteful use of the harvested meat.

Agreed but we've had the best part of two decades to put our house in order and we have failed. I seriously think we've missed the opportunities, and at this point, we'll be lucky if we get to stand still. I can sit and argue (have and will continue to do so) with many that hate what we do. I've used their own research and adapted it for subsistence hunting. I can justify my responses genetically and ethically. What I cannot understand is why it's not done on a bigger scale. The appeal to tradition is no longer valid when the ban is over 10 years. Evolution favours the most adaptable... We're demonstrating that we're not.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

But the press seams biased, they will over emphasise what the hunting fraternity do, and play down peta's / RSPCA's actions,

That's very true but it's often attributed to the press' political leaning. Conservative papers were generally neutral, or pro. Socialist were anti. They're selling an agenda to whoever wants to buy it which is why I'm a big fan of facts over opinions.

[South hams hunter 8,935]

Personally I don't understand the need for it, every week sabs have photos and videos killed by hounds.

 

It's all just ammo against the whole fraternity that we don't need imo

[low plains drifter 10,773]

The whole hunting debate definitely invokes thought and arguments of liberty. Just because a group don't like something does that mean they should be able to ban it? Should they be able to ban it even if they represent the majority? Don't we value rights and freedoms to protect against mob rule in democracy? There's a lot to discuss there and indeed much was raised when the ban was on the table. I was only a teenager at the time, in case anyone should think I know what I'm talking about, but it's all documented and available in this information age.

 

As a mate often tells me "most people don't give hunting a second of thought, it just doesn't matter to them" which is true but it's also true that when you present them with the issue it stirs enough emotion in them to make a political storm quite easily.

 

Other things like being disgusted at folks climbing the fells in flipflops just doesn't have that same effect and so doesn't have the potential to become such a political issue.

What if the flip flop sporter was taking part in an extreme ironing event, and did'nt have the good sense to be equipped with a survival blanket, magnum of champas,and a cheese board, and various pies, pasties etc ?

[Chicken_man 1,651]

Just proves that an animal being killed is not the problem, their problem is seeing so called toffs on horseback enjoying themselves.

Spot on ?

[keepdiggin 9,561]

getting f****d off with these bans now keep hunting they jail us all