The other reason

He is absolutely correct.

If urbanites find Starbucks and buggery to be acceptable, why shouldn't rural people hunt bloody foxes...??
 
Hi Bushy, I'll get in first. In my youth I had a few years with the local hunt, although mainly Cub hunting, as it was generally an early start and early finish. I was fortunate to buy from a friend, a horse that would go all day and face anything I was brave enough to look at (fences, ditches,banks etc.) and it was exhilerating Fun Fun Fun.
I think this was a well writtn peice and good points put over.
I have heard over the years the hunting fraternity spouting that If fox hunting were banned, that foxes would be shot, wounded and go away and die a lingering death". To my mind, putting down one mans method to defend theirs, is no way to sway an argument.
 
A little too late for someone in the press to come out and say that now but better late than never I suppose. He simply answers his own questions in the end.

Quite a few generalisations but only to be expected. For example, there are many people in the countryside who hunt who are not toffs (or at least what he would label a toff) but work hard to participate, love horses, love seeing the hounds work and meeting their friends and who also are willing to get up early in the morning and get outside. They turn up because they live in the countryside and enjoy it not because they are toffs. There are many who turn up, don't ride but still enjoy it and establishments that benefit from it.

The jackets are tough and warm and red is easy to see. People like wearing them because its traditional, smart and part of past practice. A bit like why someone might put on a football shirt to go and watch a football match. Not essential but makes you feel good. To call everyone who wears a hunting jacket a toff is like calling anyone who wears a football shirt a pleb - it's simply ignorant, not true and shows you haven't actually looked into what you're talking about.

I think there must be something in stronger, fitter foxes being more successful at evading and escaping the hounds than less able ones and so, to a degree, contrary to the article, I believe hunting with hounds does do a job. Often they do a better job at ploughing up a field than fox control.

However as I said, he answered his own question and the answer is that it's dangerous to be seen taking enjoyment in something which ultimately may end in the death of an animal........ so where does that leave us with supermarket bacon or leather seats in cars.
 
I think there must be something in stronger, fitter foxes being more successful at evading and escaping the hounds than less able ones
​This would ring truer if the fox that's fit enough to evade the hounds and get back to it's earth didn't find it's earth blocked, or if the huntsman didn't find the earth the night before, didn't then get dug out by the terrier men and shot for it's trouble.
​Even though I'm against the ban, certain aspects of the hunt have never sat well with me.
 
​This would ring truer if the fox that's fit enough to evade the hounds and get back to it's earth didn't find it's earth blocked, or if the huntsman didn't find the earth the night before, didn't then get dug out by the terrier men and shot for it's trouble.
​Even though I'm against the ban, certain aspects of the hunt have never sat well with me.

And therein is to be found the same conundrum whenever a more humane approach to vermin control with a rifle is ventured. Namely one is scolded and put down for being no more than a Sporting Rifleman and someway from the true "professional" who has no time or soul for sentiment and will kill with poison and peanuts if it gets "results" and to hell with the collateral.

I'm with you and when I go to the grave it will most certainly be with a very messy score card but I'll at least be confident the final figure won't be compromised by my activity with the grooved bore.

Have a safe day in the woods tomorrow.

K
 
Back
Top