Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website update
notts...@my-deja.com
our on-going campaign to save the lives of hunted animals in the
Midlands area. The website can be found at:
If anyone is interested in coming out sabbing, or is undecided on the
subject of hunting, please browse the website and see what actually
goes on in the Nottingham area.
Regards
Paul
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs Association
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
notts...@my-deja.com
Whoops Apocalypse
real ale and very attached to all the leather accessories in my life.
I recognise that vermin must be controlled, and I recognise the rights, and
reasons, of the people who need to control it.
Only recently have I had time to take an interest in, and pleasure from my
surroundings, I live in a rural area, but have only just woken up to the
severe problems that my neighbours face, and the harsh realities the current
economic climate presents to them.
I've always had a secret admiration for the Fox. He always seems to catch my
eye on those night drives home and I don't begrudge him when my bin is
wrecked mid-winter in his desperate need for survival.
Your post catches my eye because I had business at Coventry Airport and
travelled in anticipation of a bunch of soap dodging, tree dwelling Hippies
denying me access, scratching my car, and ultimately, taking the food out of
my families mouth.
What I was met with opened my eyes, the 'eco warriors' the press so loved to
focus on were in the minority. And I guess what touched me most was the
coach load from an old folks home, who given a choice of wonderfull gardens
and promenades by the sea, had chosen the cause of cattle destined to a
miserable existance for their weekly outing.
The memories of my grandfather taking me to see a Badger set (on land I now
own) will never leave me, nor will the sight of him destroying the character
he found there once equipped for digging.
So Paul, would (in my own words) a Tory B'st@rd, be made welcome on those
cold and frosty mornings, bedecked in Italian leather, and clutching the
remnants of a genuine smoked bacon sarny, but filled with a hatred for the
putrid excuses who could derive pleasure from the indignant end of a noble
beast ?
<notts...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:88cf6i$56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
An Eco Friendly Famer
>The Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website has been updated with details of
>our on-going campaign to save the lives of hunted animals in the
>Midlands area. The website can be found at:
Yet another bunch of tree hugging trespassers !
For your information, I do go hunting.
I own a completely organic smallholding farm, where we use heavy
horses to work the land instead of tractors. I take no subsidies from
the Government or Europe (even though I could) - I don't claim
benefits of any kind.
Now, my main horse who does the most work has very little opportunity
to enjoy himself, and the hunt is ideal for him, as it is the only way
he can get a really good burn-up without stopping every three minutes
to open gates, danger of cars on the roads etc.
Do you think it is fair to prevent him having this pleasure ? If you
are in any doubt that he enjoys it, then you really don't understand
horses.
In 10 years of hunting, I have only once seen a fox actually killed.
If you want to see the alternative, then go and look at the
flea-bitten rabid foxes that populate the rest of europe.
What really pisses me off is when I take another horse out with the
bloodhounds (for those who don't know, bloodhounds follow a pre-set
trail and not foxes) Bloodhounding is good fun, but because it
follows a preset course it is far more difficult, and not every rider
or horse can manage it.
Anyway, the last time I went bloodhounding, we were set upon by
saboteurs shouting abuse at us jumping in the way and generally
causing a nuisance. Why ?
Hunting these days generally takes place on private land with the
landowners permission - Why do Sabs think they have the right to
trespass ?
Why do Sabs think they have the right to interfere with my method of
farming when I am trying to be as eco-friendly as I can ?
Could I suggest that all the Antis get a grip and get an education -
come and work on a farm for a few years and see the harsh reality
Oh and by the way - if you want to save the environment, next time you
try to Sab a hunt, take the train there instead of driving in
polluting cars.
nh...@envirolink.org
question, yes, you would be welcome. Whilst most of Nottingham Sabs are
either vegetarian or vegans, we have had people who eat meat come out
sabbing with us before, and we've made them welcome.
As for bringing meat out with you - it would probably be more tactful
not to as a mark of respect to the beliefs of the rest of us in the van.
As a side issue, foxes are not officially classed (by the MAFF) as
"vermin".
Cheers
Paul
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
Whoops Apocalypse <Who...@Apocalypse.greatxscape.net> writes
--
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
http://www.enviroweb.org/nhsa
email: Nott...@hotmail.com
nh...@envirolink.org
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:07:34 GMT, notts...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website has been updated with details of
>>our on-going campaign to save the lives of hunted animals in the
>>Midlands area. The website can be found at:
>
>Yet another bunch of tree hugging trespassers !
>
Nothing like parading stereotypes, is there. Unfortunately using such
stereotypes says more you than it does about us.
>For your information, I do go hunting.
OK. In my answers below I've explained a few fox-hunting terms - this
is for the benefit of other readers who don't know about fox hunting.
>
>I own a completely organic smallholding farm, where we use heavy
>horses to work the land instead of tractors. I take no subsidies from
>the Government or Europe (even though I could) - I don't claim
>benefits of any kind.
>
>Now, my main horse who does the most work has very little opportunity
>to enjoy himself, and the hunt is ideal for him, as it is the only way
>he can get a really good burn-up without stopping every three minutes
>to open gates, danger of cars on the roads etc.
>
>Do you think it is fair to prevent him having this pleasure ? If you
>are in any doubt that he enjoys it, then you really don't understand
>horses.
>
Drag-Hunting, then, would be a perfect solution that we can both be
happy with. Your horse gets a good gallop with even less danger from
roads (since an artificially laid scent can be laid to deliberately
avoid roads, railway lines etc.), and no animals get slaughtered in the
process.
>In 10 years of hunting, I have only once seen a fox actually killed.
>
In three years of sabbing I have seen several foxes killed. I'm not
surprised that you've only seen one fox killed though - since I presume
you ride with the rest of the "field" (the group of mounted hunt
followers who ride some distance behind the huntsman) then you would
rarely if ever see the actual kill - the kill is only usually seen by
the huntsman, the whippers-in (members of the hunt who help the
huntsman), hunt saboteurs, and the terriermen (if the fox has gone to
ground then the terriermen are brought in to send terriers down the
hole. The terriers corner the fox and a fight usually ensues, while the
terriermen dig out the hole with spades until they can reach the fox.
The fox is then supposed to be shot, but, as in the example of the LACS
film of the Quorn Hunt in 1991, the fox can be thrown live to the
hounds.).
>If you want to see the alternative, then go and look at the
>flea-bitten rabid foxes that populate the rest of europe.
>
The fox population doesn't need controlling - scientific study has shown
that foxes naturally control their own numbers - when fox populations
are high, vixens will have smaller litters. I have also yet to see any
evidence that the fox population in Europe is more flea-bitten than that
in the UK. And I also believe that the lack of rabies in this country
is more connected to the fact that we're an island with strict
quarantine controls than anything to do with fox-hunting!
Of course, if you want to spread rabies then the best way is to hunt a
rabid fox (the fox is from the canine family) with thirty hounds
(obviously also canines) who can then spread the rabies to the other two
or three packs which are stationed at the hunt kennels (total so far:
90-100 possibly infected animals). Those hounds can then join up with
another hunt for a joint meet (add another 30), and the newly infected
hounds will go back to *their* kennels and we're up to a possible 200 or
so possible infections.
>What really pisses me off is when I take another horse out with the
>bloodhounds (for those who don't know, bloodhounds follow a pre-set
>trail and not foxes) Bloodhounding is good fun, but because it
>follows a preset course it is far more difficult, and not every rider
>or horse can manage it.
>
>Anyway, the last time I went bloodhounding, we were set upon by
>saboteurs shouting abuse at us jumping in the way and generally
>causing a nuisance. Why ?
>
If you were following an artificial trail then we would have no
objection to what you were doing. Let me know the details of where and
when this happened and I'll look into it.
>Hunting these days generally takes place on private land with the
>landowners permission - Why do Sabs think they have the right to
>trespass ?
>
We believe that we have not only a right but a responsibility to try and
change the world for the better and to stop the needles cruelty
inflicted on animals. When Michael Foster's bill to ban hunting with
hounds went to parliament it had the support of 60-80% of the population
and 75% of MPs, yet it was undemocratically talked out. Democracy has
failed and is continuing to fail. Faced with this, non-violent direct
action is the only way to actually save the lives of foxes and other
hunted animals.
>Why do Sabs think they have the right to interfere with my method of
>farming when I am trying to be as eco-friendly as I can ?
>
Sabs have nothing to do with farming - Hunt Saboteurs sabotage hunts.
Farming does not come into the equation.
>Could I suggest that all the Antis get a grip and get an education -
>come and work on a farm for a few years and see the harsh reality
>
Actually, several of our members were born and bred in the countryside,
on farms and in villages. They know the truth from first hand
experience, and that is why they're so determined to stop people hunting
and killing wild animals for their own pleasure.
>Oh and by the way - if you want to save the environment, next time you
>try to Sab a hunt, take the train there instead of driving in
>polluting cars.
Last time we sabbed the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire there were two sab
vans and about two hundred hunt support in cars. I think from that you
can see where the damage is coming from.
Regards
Paul
Apocalypse Baby
rally alongside anyone who considers that 'Rats have rights'.
If you can only muster 2 vans against the Quorn, when they can call on 200,
then my fears are probably founded. Until people can feel that going hunt
sabbing is not just another form of tree hugging, then we'll stay away.
In many respects those pathetic excuses are beating you, in the hearts and
minds battle that means those O.A.P's are going to divert that bus to the
seaside, and not to the pub car park deep in the Leicestershire countryside.
I spent the dawn of the last mid-summer solstice on Stanton Moor, as I have
for the past 30+ years, only to be appalled by the antics of a few soap
dodgers, there on the pretence of saving the Birch trees that the nasty NT
wanted to cut down. They would not listen that the Birch were foreign to
that environment, and had been incorrectly planted not 40 years before.
I want to be there for my reasons, not a social reason or one of identity.
And until myself, and those like me, can feel we are all their for the right
reasons, then you'll never have 200 vans in that that little pub car park
somewhere in the Leicestershire countryside.
You have my respect, and a percentage of my charitable donations, but I
hope, against all hope, that this will be solved in parliament.
My Badgers are still nearby. And I swear that the 'Old 'Un ' winked at me
once.
<nh...@envirolink.org> wrote in message
news:WuB2OEAQ...@lazar.demon.co.uk...
Apocalypse Baby
Well I'll tell you.
You claim to have a small holding, yet you work this with 'heavy horses' ?
And if I know my horse flesh, I know that a 'heavy horse', what works the
land all day, ain't much use for jumping over fences !
And forgive me if I'm wrong......but what subsidies do this government offer
to organic farmers ???
If you're going to troll, at least research your bullshit first.
Customer of BT internet eh ?
An Eco Friendly Famer <far...@doingmybest.com> wrote in message
news:hjlkassmt1igc8ii2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:07:34 GMT, notts...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website has been updated with details of
> >our on-going campaign to save the lives of hunted animals in the
> >Midlands area. The website can be found at:
>
> Yet another bunch of tree hugging trespassers !
>
> For your information, I do go hunting.
>
> I own a completely organic smallholding farm, where we use heavy
> horses to work the land instead of tractors. I take no subsidies from
> the Government or Europe (even though I could) - I don't claim
> benefits of any kind.
>
> Now, my main horse who does the most work has very little opportunity
> to enjoy himself, and the hunt is ideal for him, as it is the only way
> he can get a really good burn-up without stopping every three minutes
> to open gates, danger of cars on the roads etc.
>
> Do you think it is fair to prevent him having this pleasure ? If you
> are in any doubt that he enjoys it, then you really don't understand
> horses.
>
> In 10 years of hunting, I have only once seen a fox actually killed.
>
> If you want to see the alternative, then go and look at the
> flea-bitten rabid foxes that populate the rest of europe.
>
> What really pisses me off is when I take another horse out with the
> bloodhounds (for those who don't know, bloodhounds follow a pre-set
> trail and not foxes) Bloodhounding is good fun, but because it
> follows a preset course it is far more difficult, and not every rider
> or horse can manage it.
>
> Anyway, the last time I went bloodhounding, we were set upon by
> saboteurs shouting abuse at us jumping in the way and generally
> causing a nuisance. Why ?
>
> Hunting these days generally takes place on private land with the
> landowners permission - Why do Sabs think they have the right to
> trespass ?
>
> Why do Sabs think they have the right to interfere with my method of
> farming when I am trying to be as eco-friendly as I can ?
>
> Could I suggest that all the Antis get a grip and get an education -
> come and work on a farm for a few years and see the harsh reality
>
hard
> Whoops Apocalypse <Who...@Apocalypse.greatxscape.net> writes
> >I'm approaching middle age, a succesfull businessman, enjoying red meat,
> >real ale and very attached to all the leather accessories in my life.
<nh...@envirolink.org> wrote:
> Thanks - that was a really interesting post. In answer to your
> question, yes, you would be welcome. Whilst most of Nottingham Sabs are
> either vegetarian or vegans, we have had people who eat meat come out
> sabbing with us before, and we've made them welcome.
>
> As for bringing meat out with you - it would probably be more tactful
> not to as a mark of respect to the beliefs of the rest of us in the van.
>
> As a side issue, foxes are not officially classed (by the MAFF) as
> "vermin".
> [...]
> Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
>
I was going to keep out of this debate on the grounds that
opposing arguments on the matter of fox hunting seem pretty
well matched (I have followed the arguments from the other
side and I do believe they have a point) and I can offer nothing
really new. Not really any of my business in fact.
But then, its not really any of your business either is it?
I dislike the idea of 'blood sport' per se. It just seems inhuman
to me to derive pleasure from hunting and killing so I will not
personally engage in it nor encourage it. Moreover I think the
fox is a beautiful animal and a part of our English countryside
that would be a great loss if it should disappear. But I would
not, ever, try to impose my will on others and this is precisely
what you are doing and this is my only reason for responding
here.
I hate it when minorities with a sanctimonious viewpoint try to
change the way of life of large sections of the population with
well established customs. I already hate animal rights protesters
for the way they have destroyed the fur trade - not that I ever wore
fur but I did once have a sheepskin coat - and now it seems they
are working on the leather trade. If they should succeed, what
next - meat?
Whatever may be your ethical and moral stances on this issue
you do not have the right to impose them on others. I do not
even believe you have any satisfactory moral grounds for your
activities and the only justification you have, if you are honest,
is the thrill of a fight.
If this is not the case and you are genuinely earnest in your
pursuit then I regard organisations like yours as highly
insidious and a danger to ordinary folks' way of life.
Either way you earn no respect from me.
--
bro
Eco Friendly Farmer
<sp...@yourself.com> wrote:
>Why do I know you talk Bullshit ?
>Well I'll tell you.
Please do.
>You claim to have a small holding, yet you work this with 'heavy horses' ?
>And if I know my horse flesh, I know that a 'heavy horse', what works the
>land all day, ain't much use for jumping over fences !
Who said anything about working *all* day ? - I certainly didn't -
If my horses were working all day, it would be a little bigger than a
smallholding wouldn't it ?
And BTW, it would seem that you don't know your horses - What on earth
do you think draught horses were bred for ?
>And forgive me if I'm wrong......but what subsidies do this government offer
>to organic farmers ???
I didn't say that I was entitled to an 'organic' subsidies - I am
however entitled to subsidies and grants, but not necessarily from the
British Government. Last year I was entitled to a forestry commision
grant for example, but I used my own money to plant two acres of
trees.
>If you're going to troll, at least research your bullshit first.
I don't need to research - I tell it like it is.
>Customer of BT internet eh ?
Yes - why is that a problem ? Or is it yet another loosely worded
threat from a Sab ?
Eco Friendly Farmer
Please read the whole post before replying - I don't think this
newsgroup is the correct forum for this discussion, so this is my last
post on the subject here. I have better things to do.
>>Yet another bunch of tree hugging trespassers !
>
>Nothing like parading stereotypes, is there. Unfortunately using such
>stereotypes says more you than it does about us.
I'm sorry - but doesn't the web site refer to us as 'a bunch of inbred
thugs' ?
Well I for one was born in a run-down council estate, and have worked
damn hard to be able to live and work the way I do because I feel I am
doing something good for this country in my small way. I am certainly
not a thug (except on a rugby field but I think I can be excused
that), and I am certainly not inbred. Nor am I a rich land owning
snob.
So what gives Antis the right to generalise and parade stereotypes ?
<snip>
>Drag-Hunting, then, would be a perfect solution that we can both be
>happy with. Your horse gets a good gallop with even less danger from
>roads (since an artificially laid scent can be laid to deliberately
>avoid roads, railway lines etc.), and no animals get slaughtered in the
>process.
You simply don't understand do you ? - Not every horse or rider is
capable of drag hunting - mine certainly are not, it is a very
different activity (I won't call it sport). Drag Hunts are staged
over pre-planned and often difficult courses, which I for one cannot
get a 3/4 ton horse around.
BTW - what do think the scent is laid with ?
>hole. The terriers corner the fox and a fight usually ensues, while the
>terriermen dig out the hole with spades until they can reach the fox.
>The fox is then supposed to be shot, but, as in the example of the LACS
>film of the Quorn Hunt in 1991, the fox can be thrown live to the
>hounds.).
Terriers are renowned for not letting go, and whilst it looks
extremely violent, little damage is usually caused by the terrier (I
live with several of them). Ask anyone with a Jack Russell at home.
As for throwing a fox to hounds instead of simply shooting it - well I
would agree that that is deplorable. I have never seen it happen
personally, but I don't doubt that it happens. I would not be part of
a hunt where that sort of activity takes place.
>The fox population doesn't need controlling - scientific study has shown
>that foxes naturally control their own numbers - when fox populations
>are high, vixens will have smaller litters. I have also yet to see any
I don't think they necessarily need controlling on a large scale, but
I simply do not want them interfering with my livestock (more on this
further down).
>in the UK. And I also believe that the lack of rabies in this country
>is more connected to the fact that we're an island with strict
>quarantine controls than anything to do with fox-hunting!
Rabies *is* present in Britain - a significant proportion of the Bat
population carries it.
>Of course, if you want to spread rabies then the best way is to hunt a
>rabid fox (the fox is from the canine family) with thirty hounds
>(obviously also canines) who can then spread the rabies to the other two
Yes, but it has been proven time and time again that foxes do not pass
rabies onto hounds just as bats do not pass rabies onto mice (both
part of the rodent family).
>If you were following an artificial trail then we would have no
>objection to what you were doing. Let me know the details of where and
>when this happened and I'll look into it.
I would rather you didn't try and do me any favours - thank you all
the same.
>>Hunting these days generally takes place on private land with the
>>landowners permission - Why do Sabs think they have the right to
>>trespass ?
>>
>
>We believe that we have not only a right but a responsibility to try and
>change the world for the better and to stop the needles cruelty
>inflicted on animals. When Michael Foster's bill to ban hunting with
>hounds went to parliament it had the support of 60-80% of the population
>and 75% of MPs, yet it was undemocratically talked out. Democracy has
>failed and is continuing to fail. Faced with this, non-violent direct
>action is the only way to actually save the lives of foxes and other
>hunted animals.
You didn't answer the question ? Mind you, Antis never do. What
gives you the right to trespass on private land ?
So how are you going to stop the needless cruelty of foxes killing my
livestock ?
Michael Fosters bill was to ban Hunting with *dogs* - he really didn't
have a clue what he was doing, which is the main reason he failed.
A lot of proposed bills are supported by the majority of people
(hanging for example) - that doesn't mean it is a good bill.
I have always been of a liberal mindset - I don't see that I have any
right to dictate the way people in towns and cities live, and I don't
see what right they have to tell me how I should live.
The trouble is people expect the countryside to be nice, clean and
friendly so that they can drive their company Land-Rover Discovery
there at the weekends like it some huge theme park. They want their
meat nicely pre-packed without any thought as to how it got there.
They certainly don't want to be reminded that it is a cow or a lamb or
a pig that they are eating. They don't want to be reminded of where
their leather shoes or gloves came from.
People like me do mucky work - bloody work sometimes, and in return
for keeping things neat and clean for everyone else we get set upon by
people who think they know what is best for us. I don't see how that
is democratic - do you ?
>>Why do Sabs think they have the right to interfere with my method of
>>farming when I am trying to be as eco-friendly as I can ?
>Sabs have nothing to do with farming - Hunt Saboteurs sabotage hunts.
>Farming does not come into the equation.
In my case it does - it is an excellent form of exercise for my
working horses. I do have a fox problem on my small holding however,
and I would rather not lay down poison for them.
What tell me is the alternative way of reducing the fox population in
my area ?
Or are you prepared to compensate me for each animal on my farm that
gets killed ?
I would rather not resort to locking my livestock up in little runs
and battery cages, but quite honestly, that may be the only solution
in years to come.
>Actually, several of our members were born and bred in the countryside,
>on farms and in villages. They know the truth from first hand
>experience, and that is why they're so determined to stop people hunting
>and killing wild animals for their own pleasure.
Well, there is always a few isn't there ? Are you saying that they
have all hunted ? If so, why did they do it ?
And the rest - where do they come from ?
>Last time we sabbed the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire there were two sab
>vans and about two hundred hunt support in cars. I think from that you
>can see where the damage is coming from.
The hunt cars will have almost certainly been local, whereas your vans
will have come down the busy M1.
In conclusion, I have to say that one day, hunting will probably be
banned in this country, and then shooting, and then fishing.
What then ?
Earlier I refused to call Hunting 'sport' I personally don't believe
that it is. I do however think it is necessary to protect my
livestock and my livelihood - I don't want to be put out of business,
and I don't want inferior foreign food on supermarket shelves instead
of mine.
I believe that you have the right to protest against what we do. And
if you succeed in getting a bill through parliament, then fair play to
you, and I will respect the law, and never hunt again just as I always
respect the law.
Instead, I will be forced to lay poison for foxes for them to return
to their lairs and spread around. I don't want that to happen.
Neither do I want to own a shotgun.
Neither do I want to be forced to cage my livestock and introduce
inhumane living conditions for them. I want them to be truly
free-range as they are now.
But in the meantime, what has happened to peaceful and legal protest ?
You often trespass, and more often than not get in the way of horses
shouting and creating a fuss.
Now I for one don't mind if you get in my way, but don't anybody dare
scare my horses or get in their way - they are not trained for that in
the same way Police crowd control horses are. My horses are a very
quiet and gentle breed, so leave them alone - they have work to do.
nh...@envirolink.org
their views on others set of people. This happens in democratic
elections (when everyone votes and one set of people impose their choice
of government on the other set of people). Do you vote? Do you attempt
to impose your choice of political party on others by doing so?
I believe that everyone has not only a right, but a responsibility, to
change the world for the better, because if you don't then you can bet
that someone will be changing it for the worse while you wring your
hands. To paraphrase the famous quotation, all it takes for evil to
prosper is for good people to do nothing.
If you view this as "insidious and a danger to ordinary folks' way of
life" then I feel sorry for you. Yes, our intentions are based solely
on our moral/ethical beliefs about the inherent cruelty involved in
hunting. When we believe that something is wrong we try and stop it.
We believe that is a better and more responsible attitude than crossing
by on the other side of the road, pretending that it is not your
problem.
Regards
Paul
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
hard <ha...@freeuk.com> writes
--
nh...@envirolink.org
many independent opinion polls) the vast majority of the population
wanting hunting with hounds to be banned. Being prepared to give up
every Saturday of the hunting season (we don't sab on week days because
most of us have normal Mon-Fri jobs) is a different matter - especially
in the cubbing season when you're looking at getting up at around 3am-
4am in the morning! When you add into that equation the very real
threat of physical violence from hunt supporters and "stewards" to sabs
and their vehicles, then that certainly puts most people off.
It would be great if hunting with hounds were banned by Parliament, but
when will that happen in a situation where, while the majority of both
voters and MPs want hunting banning, a small minority of powerful people
can stop the democratic process (e.g. the Foster bill) and prevent that
from happening? In the meantime, foxes and other animals are still
being killed for no other reason than the pleasure of those who take
part in hunts.
Apocalypse Baby <sp...@yourself.com> writes
>I didn't mean to infer that fox's are vermin, just that I wouldn't wish to
>rally alongside anyone who considers that 'Rats have rights'.
>
>If you can only muster 2 vans against the Quorn, when they can call on 200,
>then my fears are probably founded. Until people can feel that going hunt
>sabbing is not just another form of tree hugging, then we'll stay away.
>
>In many respects those pathetic excuses are beating you, in the hearts and
>minds battle that means those O.A.P's are going to divert that bus to the
>seaside, and not to the pub car park deep in the Leicestershire countryside.
>
>I spent the dawn of the last mid-summer solstice on Stanton Moor, as I have
>for the past 30+ years, only to be appalled by the antics of a few soap
>dodgers, there on the pretence of saving the Birch trees that the nasty NT
>wanted to cut down. They would not listen that the Birch were foreign to
>that environment, and had been incorrectly planted not 40 years before.
>
>I want to be there for my reasons, not a social reason or one of identity.
>And until myself, and those like me, can feel we are all their for the right
>reasons, then you'll never have 200 vans in that that little pub car park
>somewhere in the Leicestershire countryside.
>
>You have my respect, and a percentage of my charitable donations, but I
>hope, against all hope, that this will be solved in parliament.
>
>
>
>
>My Badgers are still nearby. And I swear that the 'Old 'Un ' winked at me
>once.
>
>
><nh...@envirolink.org> wrote in message
>news:WuB2OEAQ...@lazar.demon.co.uk...
>> Thanks - that was a really interesting post. In answer to your
>> question, yes, you would be welcome. Whilst most of Nottingham Sabs are
>> either vegetarian or vegans, we have had people who eat meat come out
>> sabbing with us before, and we've made them welcome.
>>
>> As for bringing meat out with you - it would probably be more tactful
>> not to as a mark of respect to the beliefs of the rest of us in the van.
>>
>> As a side issue, foxes are not officially classed (by the MAFF) as
>> "vermin".
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Paul
>> Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs
>>
>
>
>
--
nh...@envirolink.org
>Yes - why is that a problem ? Or is it yet another loosely worded
>threat from a Sab ?
Just a quick note here - the poster you are replying to isn't a sab - he
was just joining in with the debate, and was asking me in an earlier
post about sabbing. As far as I know I'm the only sab actually posting
here.
Just wanted to clear that up, otherwise there'll be rumours of sabs
threatening people on usenet which will be quoted as gospel truth by
people like the Countryside Alliance. That's how these myths get
started.
Regards
Paul
nh...@envirolink.org
>
>
>Please read the whole post before replying - I don't think this
>newsgroup is the correct forum for this discussion, so this is my last
>post on the subject here. I have better things to do.
>
>>>Yet another bunch of tree hugging trespassers !
>>
>>Nothing like parading stereotypes, is there. Unfortunately using such
>>stereotypes says more you than it does about us.
>
>I'm sorry - but doesn't the web site refer to us as 'a bunch of inbred
>thugs' ?
>
It refers to the specific group of about 10-15 Quorn Hunt Stewards who
have been launching physical attacks at hunt saboteurs, as documented in
the photos on the site, as a bunch of inbred thugs who I have met on
more than one occasion. It is not a stereotype aimed at someone I have
never met before.
<snip>
>
>So what gives Antis the right to generalise and parade stereotypes ?
>
We don't. Please see the explanation above.
><snip>
>
>>Drag-Hunting, then, would be a perfect solution that we can both be
>>happy with. Your horse gets a good gallop with even less danger from
>>roads (since an artificially laid scent can be laid to deliberately
>>avoid roads, railway lines etc.), and no animals get slaughtered in the
>>process.
>
>You simply don't understand do you ? - Not every horse or rider is
>capable of drag hunting - mine certainly are not, it is a very
>different activity (I won't call it sport). Drag Hunts are staged
>over pre-planned and often difficult courses, which I for one cannot
>get a 3/4 ton horse around.
>
That's strange, because one of the arguments that has been put forward
by the pro-hunt lobby is that drag-hunts are too *easy*. (because the
scent can be laid to avoid difficult terrain, and can be too
predictable).
>BTW - what do think the scent is laid with ?
>
I've seen and read about the scent being laid with a garden spray or a
scented rag. I'm sure there are several different methods.
<snip>
>As for throwing a fox to hounds instead of simply shooting it - well I
>would agree that that is deplorable. I have never seen it happen
>personally, but I don't doubt that it happens. I would not be part of
>a hunt where that sort of activity takes place.
The only hunt where I have documented of this taking place is the Quorn
Hunt in Leicestershire, where it was filmed by LACS in 1991. I'm sure
there have been many other incidents, though.
>You didn't answer the question ? Mind you, Antis never do. What
>gives you the right to trespass on private land ?
>
We will go on to private land (using public footpaths if they have not
been blocked) in order to save the fox. Using a public footpath is not
trespass. Although many of the Quorn Hunt Stewards seem to think it is!
>So how are you going to stop the needless cruelty of foxes killing my
>livestock ?
>
Some of Nottingham Sabs were doing some voluntary work at a wildlife
sanctuary. A fox had managed to gain entry to the sanctuary and had
started killing some of the rabbits there. The volunteers found some
old bits of wood and patched the fence and the rabbit enclosure properly
(it took a couple of hours work). The fox never managed to get in
again. I would suggest you use the same method to protect your
livestock - ensure that their enclosure is secure. Foxes are
opportunists, but if they can't gain access then they'll give up and get
their meal elsewhere (note: the fox's natural diet consists mainly of
small mammals such as voles).
>Michael Fosters bill was to ban Hunting with *dogs* - he really didn't
>have a clue what he was doing, which is the main reason he failed.
>
No. Michael Foster's bill failed because it was undemocratically
"talked out" by a minority of MPs who opposed it - a traditional way for
a small minority of MPs to derail a bill which the majority of MPs
elected by the British people have voted for.
>A lot of proposed bills are supported by the majority of people
>(hanging for example) - that doesn't mean it is a good bill.
>
>I have always been of a liberal mindset - I don't see that I have any
>right to dictate the way people in towns and cities live, and I don't
>see what right they have to tell me how I should live.
>
>The trouble is people expect the countryside to be nice, clean and
>friendly so that they can drive their company Land-Rover Discovery
>there at the weekends like it some huge theme park. They want their
>meat nicely pre-packed without any thought as to how it got there.
>They certainly don't want to be reminded that it is a cow or a lamb or
>a pig that they are eating. They don't want to be reminded of where
>their leather shoes or gloves came from.
I totally agree with what you say in the paragraph above.
>
>People like me do mucky work - bloody work sometimes, and in return
>for keeping things neat and clean for everyone else we get set upon by
>people who think they know what is best for us. I don't see how that
>is democratic - do you ?
>
>>>Why do Sabs think they have the right to interfere with my method of
>>>farming when I am trying to be as eco-friendly as I can ?
>
>>Sabs have nothing to do with farming - Hunt Saboteurs sabotage hunts.
>>Farming does not come into the equation.
>
>In my case it does - it is an excellent form of exercise for my
>working horses.
As mentioned in a previous post, drag-hunting would be a perfect
alternative. You said elsewhere that drag-hunting was more difficult -
too difficult for your horse, but as I said, many hunters have said that
drag-hunting is too easy - I would guess, therefore, that the difficulty
of the gallop can be determined by the person laying the scent
(determined by their choice of terrain, obstacles etc). This would be
even better, since pony club meets (when the hunt is joined by children
who ride at the local stables) could be made easy for the children to
manage, whilst at the other extreme you could lay a fiendishly difficult
course for the more experienced riders who want a challenge. The
average drag-hunt should be in-between - some chances for a good gallop
and a few not-too-difficult obstacles. And of course, drag-hunting
scents could avoid train lines and prevent hounds from being fried on
electric train tracks, which happened recently when the New Forest Hunt
hunted across a railway line in Hants - six hounds were electrocuted.
>I do have a fox problem on my small holding however,
>and I would rather not lay down poison for them.
>
>What tell me is the alternative way of reducing the fox population in
>my area ?
>
Since many fox hunts breed foxes to artificially high levels using
artificial earths, I'd have a word with your local hunt for a start.
The hunts breed foxes because there aren't enough to kill. And yes, we
do have documented evidence for this (and admissions from hunters!). So
the number of foxes in your area may be due to your local hunt breeding
them.
>Or are you prepared to compensate me for each animal on my farm that
>gets killed ?
>
Again, since many hunts artificially increase the fox population, then
maybe you should approach them for compensation.
>I would rather not resort to locking my livestock up in little runs
>and battery cages, but quite honestly, that may be the only solution
>in years to come.
>
>>Actually, several of our members were born and bred in the countryside,
>>on farms and in villages. They know the truth from first hand
>>experience, and that is why they're so determined to stop people hunting
>>and killing wild animals for their own pleasure.
>
>Well, there is always a few isn't there ? Are you saying that they
>have all hunted ? If so, why did they do it ?
>
No, none of Nottingham Sabs have ever taken part in cruelty to animals.
>And the rest - where do they come from ?
Nottingham, and from various other places around the UK (and beyond.).
>
>>Last time we sabbed the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire there were two sab
>>vans and about two hundred hunt support in cars. I think from that you
>>can see where the damage is coming from.
>
>The hunt cars will have almost certainly been local, whereas your vans
>will have come down the busy M1.
Actually, we usually take the A roads, but that's a minor point. I
still can't see what point you're trying to make. 200 cars - 2 vans.
Even if the vans had travelled for many more miles than the cars, the
200 cars would still be causing far more pollution than 2 vans.
>
>In conclusion, I have to say that one day, hunting will probably be
>banned in this country, and then shooting, and then fishing.
>
>What then ?
Less animals will be killed for fun. And I'll get to lie in on Saturday
mornings.
>
>Earlier I refused to call Hunting 'sport' I personally don't believe
>that it is. I do however think it is necessary to protect my
>livestock and my livelihood - I don't want to be put out of business,
>and I don't want inferior foreign food on supermarket shelves instead
>of mine.
>
>I believe that you have the right to protest against what we do. And
>if you succeed in getting a bill through parliament, then fair play to
>you, and I will respect the law, and never hunt again just as I always
>respect the law.
>
>Instead, I will be forced to lay poison for foxes for them to return
>to their lairs and spread around. I don't want that to happen.
>
As I said before, scientific study has shown that there is no need to
artificially control the fox population. Foxes have a self-regulating
population, although, again as I said before, their numbers are
artificially increased by hunts so that there are more to kill.
<snip>
>But in the meantime, what has happened to peaceful and legal protest ?
>
Sabbing, by the way, is both peaceful and legal. There have been no
arrest of sabs in our area (South Notts and North Leics) for over three
years, and the police have been present on every occasion we have been
out.
>You often trespass, and more often than not get in the way of horses
>shouting and creating a fuss.
>
>Now I for one don't mind if you get in my way, but don't anybody dare
>scare my horses or get in their way - they are not trained for that in
>the same way Police crowd control horses are. My horses are a very
>quiet and gentle breed, so leave them alone - they have work to do.
The only time we have to gesture wildly at horses is when they are
ridden at us - I'm not accusing you of that, but I have been ridden at
by the mounted field (the riders who follow the hunt) and by members of
the hunt staff on more than one occasion. The best way to deal with
that is either to dive for cover or, of there is no cover, to shout and
wave at the horse, which usually causes it to veer off course and avoid
riding you down.
Simon Chamberlain
I think you're being unfair to Paul & the majority of people who are
disgused by bloodsports.
He's doing a fine job of dealing with your Harry-Enfield-character
logic but I thought I'd chip in anyway.
Nott'm Hunt Sabs have generated an excellent site that contains photos
and text that make a strong case against fox hunting. Nice one, Paul.
>I hate it when minorities with a sanctimonious viewpoint try to
>change the way of life of large sections of the population with...
That's interesting. You play an important role in "Hucknall Against
Rural Development" (HARD) and it's fair to say that the minority
(people of Hucknal) are trying to prevent the majority from building
new homes thus creating new jobs etc.
Aren't you being a bit hypocrytical?
Actually I agree with HARD's intentions and hope you lot win - we must
keep our green land at all costs! By the way - you quoted
"www.hard.freeuk.co.uk" whch failed. "http://www.hard.freeuk.com/" is
OK.
>Either way you earn no respect from me.
I've met Paul and he is the most ordinary bloke you could imagine.
Except that he a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and commitment which
he channels into following his beliefs. He's doing his bit (against
the odds) to do what he feels is right.
Don't you think that someone like that should have the respect from
another protester like yourself?
Simon
mmmmmmm
Eco Friendly Farmer <far...@doinghisbest.com> wrote in message
news:4acoass9kmsm1nk3b...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 03:54:39 -0000, "Apocalypse Baby"
> <sp...@yourself.com> wrote:
>
> >Why do I know you talk Bullshit ?
> >Well I'll tell you.
>
> Please do.
>
> >You claim to have a small holding, yet you work this with 'heavy horses'
?
> >And if I know my horse flesh, I know that a 'heavy horse', what works the
> >land all day, ain't much use for jumping over fences !
>
> Who said anything about working *all* day ? - I certainly didn't -
> If my horses were working all day, it would be a little bigger than a
> smallholding wouldn't it ?
>
> And BTW, it would seem that you don't know your horses - What on earth
> do you think draught horses were bred for ?
>
Draughting of course......show me a Shire, and I can value it within a
Guinea.
I think your horses aren't heavy at all, nor do they work your land, I think
your full of shite' and keep a Donkey for sexual purposes !
> >And forgive me if I'm wrong......but what subsidies do this government
offer
> >to organic farmers ???
>
> I didn't say that I was entitled to an 'organic' subsidies - I am
> however entitled to subsidies and grants, but not necessarily from the
> British Government. Last year I was entitled to a forestry commision
> grant for example, but I used my own money to plant two acres of
> trees.
>
I'd change your accountant if I were you. If you're prepared to allow your
business to miss such an opportunity, then he must be taking advantage of
your stupidity, and grossly overcharging you.
> >If you're going to troll, at least research your bullshit first.
>
> I don't need to research - I tell it like it is.
>
> >Customer of BT internet eh ?
>
> Yes - why is that a problem ? Or is it yet another loosely worded
> threat from a Sab ?
Are you really an organic farmer ? Or just a hunt supporter looking for ammo
?
I'll STFU if it harms the sab's cause, but something niggles me about your
approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but organic farmers exist because the
product can be sold at a premium. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't
the majority of your (ultimate) customers be abhorred with your hunting
stance ?
Eco Friendly Farmer
I wasn't going to post again but.....
>> And BTW, it would seem that you don't know your horses - What on earth
>> do you think draught horses were bred for ?
>
>Draughting of course......show me a Shire, and I can value it within a
>Guinea.
Draught horses were bred because they are the perfect farm horse -
big, heavy and strong to do manual labour like logging and ploughing,
but not so big that they can't hunt - Take a look at your Equine
history.
For your info, I have two Shire Horses in addition to the draughts,
both of which are lightweight Shires, and yes, whilst it is a little
unorthodox, I have hunted with one of them - I have even been placed
in a dressage test on a Shire.
>I think your horses aren't heavy at all, nor do they work your land, I think
>your full of shite' and keep a Donkey for sexual purposes !
I wonder what sort of mind comes up with this sort of accusation ?
Say what you like - I won't dignify this sort of comment with an
answer in future. alt.society.nottingham is not the place for this.
>> British Government. Last year I was entitled to a forestry commision
>> grant for example, but I used my own money to plant two acres of
>> trees.
>
>I'd change your accountant if I were you. If you're prepared to allow your
>business to miss such an opportunity, then he must be taking advantage of
>your stupidity, and grossly overcharging you.
I have a perfectly good accountant who is well aware of my stance of
not accepting subsidies, benefits or charity. I pay for what I need
with hard earned money, I pay my taxes honestly and fairly, and I
conduct myself and my business fairly and honestly - That is how I
was raised, and that is how I raise my children.
I was taught to believe that every pound I take in benefit is a pound
that someone else has worked hard for.
I believe that the country should provide benefit for people that have
genuinely fallen on hard times, but I believe that if you are claiming
job-seekers-allowance, that you should be seeking a job.
>> >Customer of BT internet eh ?
>> Yes - why is that a problem ? Or is it yet another loosely worded
>> threat from a Sab ?
>
>Are you really an organic farmer ? Or just a hunt supporter looking for ammo
I'm sorry if you dislike my way of life.
>I'll STFU if it harms the sab's cause, but something niggles me about your
>approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but organic farmers exist because the
>product can be sold at a premium.
Probably - But I personally farm 'organically' because that is how
we did it as a child. I sell most of my produce at farmers markets
and our farm shop and not to supermarkets, because then I can
guarantee that my end customers are getting the produce they deserve
at a fair price.
But lets get one thing straight - I am not producing hundreds of tons
of 'organic' veg - I produce a tiny quantity of produce compared to
most farms - all our potato for example is pulled up by hand, as are
our carrots and onions. All our eggs are as free range as you can
get.
>And correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't
>the majority of your (ultimate) customers be abhorred with your hunting
>stance ?
I doubt it, although I might be wrong. If they don't like it, they
can go to Sainsburys and buy pre-frozen jacket potatoes.
I make no excuses for my hunting stance, however if and when hunting
is banned I shall simply stop and respect the law - I can't be any
more fair than that.
Eco Friendly Farmer
>Just a quick note here - the poster you are replying to isn't a sab - he
>was just joining in with the debate, and was asking me in an earlier
>post about sabbing. As far as I know I'm the only sab actually posting
>here.
Fair point.
>Just wanted to clear that up, otherwise there'll be rumours of sabs
>threatening people on usenet which will be quoted as gospel truth by
>people like the Countryside Alliance. That's how these myths get
>started.
It wouldn't suprise me, but then I am not part of the Countryside
Alliance - I keep myself and my beliefs to myself.
hard
Toby A Inkster Esq <tobyink...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> hard wrote:
>
> >Paul, I do wish you would post your replies properly - underneath
> >the text you are replying to - as per usenet convention. But perhaps
> >being conventional is not your style:
> >
> ><grumble> all this cutting an' pasting wears me out</grumble>
>
> You just replied above the original message yourself!
Might have known someone would pick on that. Not to be
pedantic but my reply to the actual content was beneath.
If you'd care to take another look at it your constructive
comments would be appreciated.
--
bro
Eco Friendly Farmer
>>newsgroup is the correct forum for this discussion, so this is my last
>>post on the subject here. I have better things to do.
I wasn't going to post again but.....
Incidently, why is there no uk.hunting newsgroup ?
>It refers to the specific group of about 10-15 Quorn Hunt Stewards who
>have been launching physical attacks at hunt saboteurs, as documented in
>the photos on the site, as a bunch of inbred thugs who I have met on
>more than one occasion. It is not a stereotype aimed at someone I have
>never met before.
Fair enough, but I do wonder how a Sab can get close enough to a
mounted rider for them to alledgedly 'whip them'.
In my experience, the Sabs come up to the riders shouting and waving
arms - something that can be terrifying to a horse.
>That's strange, because one of the arguments that has been put forward
>by the pro-hunt lobby is that drag-hunts are too *easy*. (because the
>scent can be laid to avoid difficult terrain, and can be too
>predictable).
Well, I am not part of the pro-hunt lobby - I'm just someone who
hunts, and I'm telling you that one of the advantages of a hunt is
that there is not pre-set fast route. The standing around waiting is
preferable to my horses and I than a fast gallop over fences.
If you are follow a fox hunt, you have time to navigate through gates
rather than jumping fences and hedges if you prefer.
I'm not saying that a suitable replacement can't be found for
fox-hunting, I'm just saying that at the moment, fox hunting is the
most suitable activity for me.
>>BTW - what do think the scent is laid with ?
>I've seen and read about the scent being laid with a garden spray or a
>scented rag. I'm sure there are several different methods.
A fox's leg is quite usual.
>The only hunt where I have documented of this taking place is the Quorn
>Hunt in Leicestershire, where it was filmed by LACS in 1991. I'm sure
>there have been many other incidents, though.
I don't doubt it, but it is not the norm. most football supporters
are not unlawful, but that doesn't mean football should be banned
because a few break the law does it ?
>>You didn't answer the question ? Mind you, Antis never do. What
>>gives you the right to trespass on private land ?
>We will go on to private land (using public footpaths if they have not
>been blocked) in order to save the fox. Using a public footpath is not
>trespass. Although many of the Quorn Hunt Stewards seem to think it is!
Very few footpaths are blocked, and if they are, you should do the
right thing and complain to the county council in writing.
If you are using a legal footpath, then you should of course stay on
it walking from a to b and not loitering. I'm sure that gathering in
a group of more than 8 is unlawful (since the poll tax riots).
>>So how are you going to stop the needless cruelty of foxes killing my
>>livestock ?
>Some of Nottingham Sabs were doing some voluntary work at a wildlife
>sanctuary. A fox had managed to gain entry to the sanctuary and had
>started killing some of the rabbits there. The volunteers found some
>old bits of wood and patched the fence and the rabbit enclosure properly
>(it took a couple of hours work). The fox never managed to get in
>again. I would suggest you use the same method to protect your
>livestock - ensure that their enclosure is secure. Foxes are
>opportunists, but if they can't gain access then they'll give up and get
>their meal elsewhere (note: the fox's natural diet consists mainly of
>small mammals such as voles).
But this is my whole point, your stance on not hunting foxes is going
to force people like me to put secure enclosures around my livestock -
I don't see why I should do that. I want my hens to roam as they
please and not be couped up all day. Fox hunting allows me to do this
- I still lose a few, but without fox hunting I will lose all of them
if I don't cage them.
>>Michael Fosters bill was to ban Hunting with *dogs* - he really didn't
>>have a clue what he was doing, which is the main reason he failed.
>No. Michael Foster's bill failed because it was undemocratically
>"talked out" by a minority of MPs who opposed it - a traditional way for
>a small minority of MPs to derail a bill which the majority of MPs
>elected by the British people have voted for.
If you feel that the legal system in this country is so unfair, then
you should do something to change that first. Don't complain when it
doesn't work for your cause.
The bill was a *very* badly worded bill - as it stood, if the bill had
been passed it would have been perfectly legal to hunt with bitches
and not dogs.
>>They certainly don't want to be reminded that it is a cow or a lamb or
>>a pig that they are eating. They don't want to be reminded of where
>>their leather shoes or gloves came from.
>
>I totally agree with what you say in the paragraph above.
You see - we are not all unreasonable. I'm glad we can agree on some
things.
A lot of work has to be done in this country to get things right
again. We are messing things up in a big way with overcrowded roads,
over polluting cars etc. What we need to do is channel our energies
into correcting polutants and GM foods before it is too late.
I am trying to do my bit - I own one small economical van, and I
really do ride into the village on horseback if I only need a few
things. Horses are great - they give back in compost what you give
them in food - the ultimate recyling plant !
Now, if I only need one small enconomical van, then why do people in
towns and cities need Land Rovers and Nissan Patrols ?
Why don't you spend your energy on getting these big things right -
far more foxes get killed by polutants and Land Rover tyres every year
than get killed in fox hunts.
>>In my case it does - it is an excellent form of exercise for my
>>working horses.
>
>As mentioned in a previous post, drag-hunting would be a perfect
>alternative. You said elsewhere that drag-hunting was more difficult -
I think we shall have to agree to disagree here.
>and a few not-too-difficult obstacles. And of course, drag-hunting
>scents could avoid train lines and prevent hounds from being fried on
>electric train tracks, which happened recently when the New Forest Hunt
>hunted across a railway line in Hants - six hounds were electrocuted.
The trouble is that Sabs use examples like this to get peoples
emotions going. This is a *very* rare example - more children get
fried on train lines than hounds or foxes - don't you think they
deserve more care and thought ?
>>What tell me is the alternative way of reducing the fox population in
>>my area ?
>Since many fox hunts breed foxes to artificially high levels using
Some do yes - I don't agree with that, and I won't until I see good
scientific evidence to prove that they should be bred artificially.
>artificial earths, I'd have a word with your local hunt for a start.
My local hunt does not breed foxes to artificially high levels - I can
guarantee that.
>>Or are you prepared to compensate me for each animal on my farm that
>>gets killed ?
>>
>Again, since many hunts artificially increase the fox population, then
>maybe you should approach them for compensation.
Obiously not then.
When the hunts are all killed off, are you going to compensate
'normal' horse and pony owners when their horses die that will have to
pay extremely high bills to dispose of the bodies. As things stand
now, when one of mine dies, the hunt come and collect it for food for
the hounds. Without the hunt, a £400 cremation bill will not be
unusual. At the very least £150 disposal feee (including land fill
duty) will be charged if you can find someone to dispose of it.
In parts of Ireland where the hunts are no longer in existance, I have
heard of people dumping bodies of horses and cattle on household waste
disposal sites - do you really want that to happen here ?
Just remember that I told you so.
>No, none of Nottingham Sabs have ever taken part in cruelty to animals.
And you can guarantee that can you ?
>>>Last time we sabbed the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire there were two sab
>>>vans and about two hundred hunt support in cars. I think from that you
>>>can see where the damage is coming from.
I thought it was illegal to carry passengers in the back of vans.
>>In conclusion, I have to say that one day, hunting will probably be
>>banned in this country, and then shooting, and then fishing.
>>What then ?
>Less animals will be killed for fun. And I'll get to lie in on Saturday
>mornings.
More animals will be killed in the long run - perhaps not by people,
but there will be more.
>As I said before, scientific study has shown that there is no need to
>artificially control the fox population. Foxes have a self-regulating
>population, although, again as I said before, their numbers are
>artificially increased by hunts so that there are more to kill.
>Sabbing, by the way, is both peaceful and legal. There have been no
>arrest of sabs in our area (South Notts and North Leics) for over three
>years, and the police have been present on every occasion we have been
>out.
So why does a page on your site refer to a female rider asking someone
to call 999 if the police are always out with you ?
The thing is, I have seen a marked increase in hunt popularity over
the past ten years - usually during weekday hunts.
People are more inclined to go hunting now to make a point aginst the
Sabs and for a way of life, so I truly believe that more foxes are
being killed as a result of your activities.
If you had simply left them alone, things would have ticked over quite
normally, and eventually the hunts would have died out of their own
accord as peoples lives change.
I find that very cruel.
hard
Simon Chamberlain <SimonCha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I think you're being unfair to Paul & the majority of people who are
> disgused by bloodsports.
>
> He's doing a fine job of dealing with your Harry-Enfield-character
> logic but I thought I'd chip in anyway.
>
> Nott'm Hunt Sabs have generated an excellent site that contains photos
> and text that make a strong case against fox hunting. Nice one, Paul.
>
> >I hate it when minorities with a sanctimonious viewpoint try to
> >change the way of life of large sections of the population with...
>
> That's interesting. You play an important role in "Hucknall Against
> Rural Development" (HARD) and it's fair to say that the minority
> (people of Hucknal) are trying to prevent the majority from building
> new homes thus creating new jobs etc.
>
> Aren't you being a bit hypocrytical?
>
It may seem that way but in fact I see a great difference between
appealing to authority and proactively sabotaging it.
> Actually I agree with HARD's intentions and hope you lot win - we must
> keep our green land at all costs! By the way - you quoted
> "www.hard.freeuk.co.uk" whch failed. "http://www.hard.freeuk.com/" is
> OK.
>
You're right. Sorry about that.
> >Either way you earn no respect from me.
>
> I've met Paul and he is the most ordinary bloke you could imagine.
> Except that he a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and commitment which
> he channels into following his beliefs. He's doing his bit (against
> the odds) to do what he feels is right.
>
> Don't you think that someone like that should have the respect from
> another protester like yourself?
>
Well yes - if I was totally convinced that he is right. But I haven't
yet been pursuaded that he is and in any case, as I said at the
outset, I don't know enough about the issue to take sides. What
I do see is an organisation that is not content with passive
demonstrations, but actively engages in destructive sabotage,
and that I think is wrong. Clearly if they had a believable cause
they would surely not need to do any of this?
I take your point that the same thing applies to HARD, but
how much progress do you think we would make if we
threatened to physically sabotage housing developments?
> Simon
>
--
bro
hard
<nh...@envirolink.org> wrote:> hard <ha...@freeuk.com> writes
> >
> >Paul, I do wish you would post your replies properly - underneath
> >the text you are replying to - as per usenet convention. But perhaps
> >being conventional is not your style:
>
> wrong on me! Surely you would argue that I can post my replies how I
> want?
>
Of course - how could I stop you?
I think you are confusing imposition of view with an appeal to
reason. I didn't invent this convention - Usenet did, as you can
see for yourself if you read their FAQ. The idea is that quoted
text can be kept in order so that other readers and contributors
to the thread can follow the argument.
But I digress:
[snipping where no further argument]
>
> ><nh...@envirolink.org> wrote:
> >> The whole history of the human race consists of sets of people imposing
> >> their views on others set of people. This happens in democratic
> >> elections (when everyone votes and one set of people impose their choice
> >> of government on the other set of people). Do you vote? Do you attempt
> >> to impose your choice of political party on others by doing so?
> >>
> >Of course. But the difference is that political voting is done by invitation.
> >What you are doing is not. What's more, most decent members of the
> >public do not approve of militant activism, whatever the cause.
>
> Voting in democratic election is just one example. Individuals, groups
> and societies impose their views of right and wrong on people all the
> time in all sorts of ways. I haven't managed to access your website as
> yet (see note below) but surely it is trying to impose your sense of
> what is right and what is wrong on the people who visit it - just as the
> Nottingham Hunt Sabs website does. A demo with people waving banners
> and placards is the same thing. And so is sabbing. And newspapers,
> television, films, theatre, lyrics in songs, billboard adverts, etc.
>
OK Paul, so tell me how 'sabbing' equates to banner waving demos?
isn't it true that 'sabotage' implies purposeful destruction of something -
in this case The Hunt?
> >The fox has been around for centuries, quite possibly because it
> >has been regularly culled by hunting, and if it ever dies out it will
> >more likely happen as a result of man's expansion and erosion of
> >the countryside.
> >
>
> Organised fox hunting has been around for about 200-300 years. Fox
> Hunts now encourage foxes to breed, producing an artificially high
> population so there are more foxes to kill.
This sounds like a very contrived argument. Have there been
studies to prove this, or is it just your assumption?
> ... Yet another example of the human race messing around
> with nature.
On this point I do agree with you. Humanity and the planet
earth is getting sicker by the year. Wouldn't your campaigning
talents be more usefully aimed at pollution, food additives,
pesticides, plastics?
>... The point is, of course, that
> the fox survived quite happily for centuries until hunting started, so,
> no, stopping hunting will not wipe out the fox population.
>
So basically you are saying that the fox will survive whether
hunting is stopped or not?
Aren't you flogging a dead horse - so to speak?
> Couldn't access your site today - it was down - but I'll try again
> later. As such, I can't comment on whatever it is you've got on your
> site or how important it is.
>
Simon Chamberlain pointed out to me how I managed to get this
wrong. Sorry about this.
The URL should read http://www.hard.freeuk.com
--
bro
nh...@envirolink.org
>
>>>newsgroup is the correct forum for this discussion, so this is my last
>>>post on the subject here. I have better things to do.
>
>I wasn't going to post again but.....
>
>Incidently, why is there no uk.hunting newsgroup ?
>
uk.politics.animals tends to deal with hunting and the issues
surrounding it, but it's a major flame war most of the time. BTW, the
reason I posted my original message to alt.society.nottingham (and
uk.local.midlands) was because it was about Nottingham sabs. Maybe the
resulting discussion is a little off-topic, but it seems to have
generated more replies than anything else recently. If you don't want
the thread to continue then stop contributing to it and it will soon
disappear!
>>It refers to the specific group of about 10-15 Quorn Hunt Stewards who
>>have been launching physical attacks at hunt saboteurs, as documented in
>>the photos on the site, as a bunch of inbred thugs who I have met on
>>more than one occasion. It is not a stereotype aimed at someone I have
>>never met before.
>
>Fair enough, but I do wonder how a Sab can get close enough to a
>mounted rider for them to alledgedly 'whip them'.
>
Mounted Riders and Hunt Staff frequently ride down (and turn into
complete mires) public footpaths. They also ride on the roads when
chasing a fox from one field to another.
>In my experience, the Sabs come up to the riders shouting and waving
>arms - something that can be terrifying to a horse.
>
As stated in a previous post, this is the best way to avoid being ridden
down by a mounted rider deliberately charging at you. Several sabs have
been injured by hunters in this manner, and this tactic was developed to
prevent sabs being injured in this way without causing any physical harm
to the horse or rider.
>>That's strange, because one of the arguments that has been put forward
>>by the pro-hunt lobby is that drag-hunts are too *easy*. (because the
>>scent can be laid to avoid difficult terrain, and can be too
>>predictable).
>
>Well, I am not part of the pro-hunt lobby - I'm just someone who
>hunts, and I'm telling you that one of the advantages of a hunt is
>that there is not pre-set fast route. The standing around waiting is
>preferable to my horses and I than a fast gallop over fences.
>
>If you are follow a fox hunt, you have time to navigate through gates
>rather than jumping fences and hedges if you prefer.
>
>I'm not saying that a suitable replacement can't be found for
>fox-hunting, I'm just saying that at the moment, fox hunting is the
>most suitable activity for me.
>
>>>BTW - what do think the scent is laid with ?
>
>>I've seen and read about the scent being laid with a garden spray or a
>>scented rag. I'm sure there are several different methods.
>
>A fox's leg is quite usual.
>
But not necessary. Sabs use a sprays consisting of essential oils and
garlic which are sprayed onto the undergrowth where a fox has passed.
This masks the scent of the fox and the hounds have also quite happily
followed trails made by these harmless scents.
>>The only hunt where I have documented of this taking place is the Quorn
>>Hunt in Leicestershire, where it was filmed by LACS in 1991. I'm sure
>>there have been many other incidents, though.
>
>I don't doubt it, but it is not the norm. most football supporters
>are not unlawful, but that doesn't mean football should be banned
>because a few break the law does it ?
>
Throwing lives foxes to the hounds is not the main reason I want to see
hunting banned (although that is bad enough). I want to see hunting
banned because it is responsible for killing and causing pain and
suffering to animals.
>>>You didn't answer the question ? Mind you, Antis never do. What
>>>gives you the right to trespass on private land ?
>
>>We will go on to private land (using public footpaths if they have not
>>been blocked) in order to save the fox. Using a public footpath is not
>>trespass. Although many of the Quorn Hunt Stewards seem to think it is!
>
>Very few footpaths are blocked, and if they are, you should do the
>right thing and complain to the county council in writing.
>
When the footpath is blocked by a 20 stone Quorn FH Steward, you can bet
that three months later when the county council have finally taken
action, the Steward in question will no longer be there. We unblock
public footpaths which have been blocked with inanimate material
ourselves (I'm tempted to include the Quorn Stewards in the definition
of "inanimate material", but I won't). There is nothing illegal about
us unblocking public footpaths - in fact you could view it as a free
service to the public.
>If you are using a legal footpath, then you should of course stay on
>it walking from a to b and not loitering. I'm sure that gathering in
>a group of more than 8 is unlawful (since the poll tax riots).
>
Are hunts illegal then, since it is a gathering of more than 8 people?
Actually I think the article of the Criminal Justice Bill that you are
referring to prevents a gathering of more than 9 people playing music
characterised by a repetitive beat. (A law made to try and ban raves).
We very rarely start playing music while we're out sabbing.
>>>So how are you going to stop the needless cruelty of foxes killing my
>>>livestock ?
>
>>Some of Nottingham Sabs were doing some voluntary work at a wildlife
>>sanctuary. A fox had managed to gain entry to the sanctuary and had
>>started killing some of the rabbits there. The volunteers found some
>>old bits of wood and patched the fence and the rabbit enclosure properly
>>(it took a couple of hours work). The fox never managed to get in
>>again. I would suggest you use the same method to protect your
>>livestock - ensure that their enclosure is secure. Foxes are
>>opportunists, but if they can't gain access then they'll give up and get
>>their meal elsewhere (note: the fox's natural diet consists mainly of
>>small mammals such as voles).
>
>But this is my whole point, your stance on not hunting foxes is going
>to force people like me to put secure enclosures around my livestock -
>I don't see why I should do that. I want my hens to roam as they
>please and not be couped up all day. Fox hunting allows me to do this
>- I still lose a few, but without fox hunting I will lose all of them
>if I don't cage them.
>
In the real world, some sort of enclosure is necessary. I'm not talking
about a battery farm, but a large compound which is fenced off. I would
love to leave my backdoor open all day in the summer, but the real world
of thieves and burglars means I have to shut it. I can live with that.
>>>Michael Fosters bill was to ban Hunting with *dogs* - he really didn't
>>>have a clue what he was doing, which is the main reason he failed.
>
>>No. Michael Foster's bill failed because it was undemocratically
>>"talked out" by a minority of MPs who opposed it - a traditional way for
>>a small minority of MPs to derail a bill which the majority of MPs
>>elected by the British people have voted for.
>
>If you feel that the legal system in this country is so unfair, then
>you should do something to change that first. Don't complain when it
>doesn't work for your cause.
>
It's the democratic system, not the legal system, I was referring to
(although I could suggest a number of changes to the legal system as
well!). I feel that I can save more animals' lives by sabotaging a hunt
than by campaigning to improve the democratic system of this country.
Saving the lives of animals is my objective in being a hunt sab.
>The bill was a *very* badly worded bill - as it stood, if the bill had
>been passed it would have been perfectly legal to hunt with bitches
>and not dogs.
>
This has been mentioned by other people before, but it is not certain
that this would have been the case. This argument, though, was one used
by one of the MPs in order to "talk out" the bill. Whether it has any
truth in it is highly debatable since the only reason the argument was
aired was to use up the parliamentary time dedicated to the bill and
prevent it from being passed as law.
>>>They certainly don't want to be reminded that it is a cow or a lamb or
>>>a pig that they are eating. They don't want to be reminded of where
>>>their leather shoes or gloves came from.
>>
>>I totally agree with what you say in the paragraph above.
>
>You see - we are not all unreasonable. I'm glad we can agree on some
>things.
>
>A lot of work has to be done in this country to get things right
>again. We are messing things up in a big way with overcrowded roads,
>over polluting cars etc. What we need to do is channel our energies
>into correcting polutants and GM foods before it is too late.
>
Good, we're still finding common ground. I agree with all of the
statements in the above paragraph (isn't this better than parliament,
where one party insists on disagreeing with the other party on every
single issue, just because it's the other party!)
>I am trying to do my bit - I own one small economical van, and I
>really do ride into the village on horseback if I only need a few
>things. Horses are great - they give back in compost what you give
>them in food - the ultimate recyling plant !
>
Good for you - you have my support.
>Now, if I only need one small enconomical van, then why do people in
>towns and cities need Land Rovers and Nissan Patrols ?
>
I can't answer that question, although I've asked it myself a few times.
Somehow I think that "fashion" and "status symbol" would form part of
the answer.
>Why don't you spend your energy on getting these big things right -
>far more foxes get killed by polutants and Land Rover tyres every year
>than get killed in fox hunts.
>
Who says I'm not campaigning for these things as well? Just because I'm
a hunt saboteur doesn't mean that I don't campaign for other issues,
whether they be animal rights, environmental, human rights, electoral
reform or whatever else I may believe in. I'm just posting here with my
"hunt sabs" hat on. I'm sure that you support more causes than just
one.
>>>In my case it does - it is an excellent form of exercise for my
>>>working horses.
>>
>>As mentioned in a previous post, drag-hunting would be a perfect
>>alternative. You said elsewhere that drag-hunting was more difficult -
>
>I think we shall have to agree to disagree here.
>
>>and a few not-too-difficult obstacles. And of course, drag-hunting
>>scents could avoid train lines and prevent hounds from being fried on
>>electric train tracks, which happened recently when the New Forest Hunt
>>hunted across a railway line in Hants - six hounds were electrocuted.
>
>The trouble is that Sabs use examples like this to get peoples
>emotions going. This is a *very* rare example - more children get
>fried on train lines than hounds or foxes - don't you think they
>deserve more care and thought ?
>
I don't know the current figures, but I do know that 14 hounds were
killed while hunting between Nov 1999 and the end of 9th Dec 1999 (the
first 5 weeks of the current hunting season). That's about 3 hounds per
week. It is not at all *rare*. I don't have exact figures of children
getting killed on railway lines to compare that to. Just because
children getting killed is horrific, it doesn't mean that the hounds
getting killed should be ignored.
>>>What tell me is the alternative way of reducing the fox population in
>>>my area ?
>
>>Since many fox hunts breed foxes to artificially high levels using
>
>Some do yes - I don't agree with that, and I won't until I see good
>scientific evidence to prove that they should be bred artificially.
>
>>artificial earths, I'd have a word with your local hunt for a start.
>
>My local hunt does not breed foxes to artificially high levels - I can
>guarantee that.
>
Which hunt is that? I might have evidence to the contrary.
>>>Or are you prepared to compensate me for each animal on my farm that
>>>gets killed ?
>>>
>>Again, since many hunts artificially increase the fox population, then
>>maybe you should approach them for compensation.
>
>Obiously not then.
>
No, obviously not.
>When the hunts are all killed off, are you going to compensate
>'normal' horse and pony owners when their horses die that will have to
>pay extremely high bills to dispose of the bodies.
Why should they have compensation? Owning and looking after an animal
is an expensive business which has a great deal of responsibility. And
anyway, if all the fox hunts changed to drag hunting, then the hounds
would still need to be fed, so this practice would remain.
<snip>
>In parts of Ireland where the hunts are no longer in existance, I have
>heard of people dumping bodies of horses and cattle on household waste
>disposal sites - do you really want that to happen here ?
>
See above. Switching to drag-hunting will affect none of this, and the
tradition and jobs involved in hunting will remain.
>>No, none of Nottingham Sabs have ever taken part in cruelty to animals.
>
>And you can guarantee that can you ?
Yes. I've been there every time we've gone out.
>
>>>>Last time we sabbed the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire there were two sab
>>>>vans and about two hundred hunt support in cars. I think from that you
>>>>can see where the damage is coming from.
>
>I thought it was illegal to carry passengers in the back of vans.
>
Actually our van is a minibus which complies with all the new
regulations on this subject.
>>>In conclusion, I have to say that one day, hunting will probably be
>>>banned in this country, and then shooting, and then fishing.
>
>>>What then ?
>>Less animals will be killed for fun. And I'll get to lie in on Saturday
>>mornings.
>
>More animals will be killed in the long run - perhaps not by people,
>but there will be more.
>
That is very unlikely and completely unsubstantiated by any evidence.
>>As I said before, scientific study has shown that there is no need to
>>artificially control the fox population. Foxes have a self-regulating
>>population, although, again as I said before, their numbers are
>>artificially increased by hunts so that there are more to kill.
>
>>Sabbing, by the way, is both peaceful and legal. There have been no
>>arrest of sabs in our area (South Notts and North Leics) for over three
>>years, and the police have been present on every occasion we have been
>>out.
>
>So why does a page on your site refer to a female rider asking someone
>to call 999 if the police are always out with you ?
>
If you refer to that report you'll see that it was not in this area - we
were out with Wolverhampton sabs at the South Shropshire FH just by the
Welsh border. Police have always been present in Leicestershire and
Nottinghamshire (even if we don't turn up, apparently. It seems to be a
policy decision taken by these two constabularies).
>
>The thing is, I have seen a marked increase in hunt popularity over
>the past ten years - usually during weekday hunts.
>
We've noticed numbers dropping, particularly at the Quorn FH, but I
won't argue about other areas because I don't have any specific
information.
>People are more inclined to go hunting now to make a point aginst the
>Sabs and for a way of life, so I truly believe that more foxes are
>being killed as a result of your activities.
>
So hunters are slaughtering more animals to make a political point? What
nice people.
>If you had simply left them alone, things would have ticked over quite
>normally, and eventually the hunts would have died out of their own
>accord as peoples lives change.
>
>I find that very cruel.
>
I'm sorry, but that is absolute rubbish. The hunters are responsible
for killing foxes. That's their job. They are paid for it by the hunt.
Without opposition, fox hunting would continue indefinitely. If you
find fox hunting "cruel" (as you seem to imply in your last sentence)
then why do you take part in it?
nh...@envirolink.org
>
>Simon Chamberlain <SimonCha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's interesting. You play an important role in "Hucknall Against
>> Rural Development" (HARD) and it's fair to say that the minority
>> (people of Hucknal) are trying to prevent the majority from building
>> new homes thus creating new jobs etc.
>>
>> Aren't you being a bit hypocrytical?
>>
>It may seem that way but in fact I see a great difference between
>appealing to authority and proactively sabotaging it.
>
>> Actually I agree with HARD's intentions and hope you lot win - we must
>> keep our green land at all costs! By the way - you quoted
>> "www.hard.freeuk.co.uk" whch failed. "http://www.hard.freeuk.com/" is
>> OK.
>>
>You're right. Sorry about that.
>
OK, I managed to access your website, and from the quick look I got of
it I would support your cause. But using your own arguments, since I
don't live in Hucknall surely it's none of my business and I should stay
out of it and not write a letter to the local MP or whatever else.
Luckily I don't take that attitude and I'll certainly write a letter
supporting your cause.
>> >Either way you earn no respect from me.
>>
>> I've met Paul and he is the most ordinary bloke you could imagine.
>> Except that he a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and commitment which
>> he channels into following his beliefs. He's doing his bit (against
>> the odds) to do what he feels is right.
>>
Cheers Simon!
>> Don't you think that someone like that should have the respect from
>> another protester like yourself?
>>
>Well yes - if I was totally convinced that he is right. But I haven't
>yet been pursuaded that he is and in any case, as I said at the
>outset, I don't know enough about the issue to take sides. What
>I do see is an organisation that is not content with passive
>demonstrations, but actively engages in destructive sabotage,
>and that I think is wrong. Clearly if they had a believable cause
>they would surely not need to do any of this?
>
Sabotaging a hunt is not "destructive". Let me explain what sabotaging
a hunt entails: Sabs will use horn calls and voice calls to take
control of the hounds and call them off any scent that they may have
picked up. They will use the same calls to keep the attention of the
hounds and prevent them from hunting properly (the calls get the
attention of the hounds and they get their heads up, stopping them from
sniffing the ground for a scent). We will also spray harmless
artificial scents (made from water, garlic and essential oils) on
undergrowth where a fox has passed to mask it's scent. There is
absolutely nothing destructive about that. Perhaps the definition of
the word "sabotage" is where your objection comes from. The common
definition seems to imply destruction of physical objects, but the
definition when used about hunt saboteurs implies no such thing.
>I take your point that the same thing applies to HARD, but
>how much progress do you think we would make if we
>threatened to physically sabotage housing developments?
As mentioned above, sabotaging a hunt is, basically, convincing the
hounds not to hunt by using voice calls and horn calls. Physically
sabotaging a housing development would, I presume, involve destruction
of machinery or something like that. Using our definition of "hunt
sabotage", do you still disagree with our methods?
One last thing. I've updated the Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website
again with details of our sabbing yesterday (Saturday 19th Feb) at the
Quorn FH on the Nottinghamshire - Leicestershire border. We had a great
day and prevented any foxes from being killed, despite a number of
threats of violence from the Quorn Stewards and support.
nh...@envirolink.org
>
<snip>
>>
>> ><nh...@envirolink.org> wrote:
>> >> The whole history of the human race consists of sets of people imposing
>> >> their views on others set of people. This happens in democratic
>> >> elections (when everyone votes and one set of people impose their choice
>> >> of government on the other set of people). Do you vote? Do you attempt
>> >> to impose your choice of political party on others by doing so?
>> >>
>> >Of course. But the difference is that political voting is done by
>invitation.
>> >What you are doing is not. What's more, most decent members of the
>> >public do not approve of militant activism, whatever the cause.
>>
>> Voting in democratic election is just one example. Individuals, groups
>> and societies impose their views of right and wrong on people all the
>> time in all sorts of ways. I haven't managed to access your website as
>> yet (see note below) but surely it is trying to impose your sense of
>> what is right and what is wrong on the people who visit it - just as the
>> Nottingham Hunt Sabs website does. A demo with people waving banners
>> and placards is the same thing. And so is sabbing. And newspapers,
>> television, films, theatre, lyrics in songs, billboard adverts, etc.
>>
>OK Paul, so tell me how 'sabbing' equates to banner waving demos?
>isn't it true that 'sabotage' implies purposeful destruction of something -
>in this case The Hunt?
>
Sabotage, when applied to "Hunt Sabotage" involves no physical
destruction. I've explained it in another post a couple of minutes ago.
It involves the use of voice calls and horn calls to take control of the
hounds and prevent them from catching and killing a fox.
>> >The fox has been around for centuries, quite possibly because it
>> >has been regularly culled by hunting, and if it ever dies out it will
>> >more likely happen as a result of man's expansion and erosion of
>> >the countryside.
>> >
>>
>> Organised fox hunting has been around for about 200-300 years. Fox
>> Hunts now encourage foxes to breed, producing an artificially high
>> population so there are more foxes to kill.
>
>This sounds like a very contrived argument. Have there been
>studies to prove this, or is it just your assumption?
>
We have video evidence of artificial earths (fox earths built by hunts
to encourage the increase of the fox population) and also admissions by
hunters and ex-hunters (including an ex-huntsman who is now anti-hunt)
that this is the case. It is a fact and not a contrived argument - many
Fox Hunts artificially breed foxes in order to maintain a high
population of foxes to hunt. Another tactic is using "bagged foxes".
Bagged foxes are foxes which have been caught beforehand and been fed by
hunt staff on the morning of the hunt. They are released close to the
hounds during the hunt (usually in the middle of a wood) and, because
the fox has been fed, it is sluggish and less likely to be able to out
run the hounds. This tactic is generally used when the huntsman is not
particularly skilled at their job.
It should be pointed out here that fox hounds have been deliberately
bred by hunts over the years to be slower than foxes, but have more
stamina. This means that the "chase" will not be too short (short
chases are not as "enjoyable" for the hunt) - the fox will be able to
outrun the hounds at first, but the hounds (having more stamina) will
eventually catch the exhausted fox and kill it.
>> ... Yet another example of the human race messing around
>> with nature.
>
>On this point I do agree with you. Humanity and the planet
>earth is getting sicker by the year. Wouldn't your campaigning
>talents be more usefully aimed at pollution, food additives,
>pesticides, plastics?
>
Many of Nottingham Sabs are indeed involved in campaigns concerning
these issues. It doesn't prevent them being sabs as well. Please
remember that although I'm here arguing specifically against hunting, I
am a human being with numerous beliefs and values, and this applies to
all sabs. I have views on various political and social issues ranging
from the state of the NHS, Northern Ireland, the Economy, the EC...
just because I'm posting here on one single issue doesn't mean that
nothing else matters to me.
>>... The point is, of course, that
>> the fox survived quite happily for centuries until hunting started, so,
>> no, stopping hunting will not wipe out the fox population.
>>
>So basically you are saying that the fox will survive whether
>hunting is stopped or not?
>
>Aren't you flogging a dead horse - so to speak?
>
The future of the fox population is not in question. What we aim to do
is to stop the systematic and deliberate infliction of suffering on
animals - i.e. hunting.
Gavin Gillespie
> We have video evidence of artificial earths (fox earths built by hunts
> to encourage the increase of the fox population) and also admissions
by
> hunters and ex-hunters (including an ex-huntsman who is now anti-hunt)
> that this is the case. It is a fact and not a contrived argument -
many
> Fox Hunts artificially breed foxes in order to maintain a high
> population of foxes to hunt.
This reminded me of driving through a pheasant farm in Lincolnshire,
which was used for breeding pheasants for shooting. As I drove slowly
towards the pheasants, I expected them to move, but they just stood
there looking up at the van, totally unconcerned, I had to drive through
them, sounding the horn to get them to move out of the way. I thought
then, that in a few weeks time, these poor birds would be blasted out of
the sky, by someone with a spreadshot shotgun who had paid for the
privilege, and who would then claim to be a crack shot, and they call
this sport.
--
Gavin Gillespie
Nottingham UK
Use ga...@giltbrook.co.uk
JC
Whilst I don't like to see any dumb animal unnecessarily hurt or frightened
I make the exception with your bunch and other people like you. Perhaps a
new sport of destroy the hunt saboteur should be invented.
<notts...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:88cf6i$56$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs website has been updated with details of
> our on-going campaign to save the lives of hunted animals in the
> Midlands area. The website can be found at:
>
> http://www.enviroweb.org/nhsa
>
> If anyone is interested in coming out sabbing, or is undecided on the
> subject of hunting, please browse the website and see what actually
> goes on in the Nottingham area.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
hard
I've heard enough folks; Paul. I'm ducking out of this
debate - at least from the stance I have taken until now.
I've learned a lot about the issue in the past few days
(enough to strengthen my dislike of blood sports)
and I thank Paul for explaining things so patiently.
But <parting shot>
If you ever move on to sabotaging butchers' shops
or forcing me to wear plastic shoes I shall be very upset.
--
bro
The Monk
spoke the following words of wisdom:
The only problem I have with the Hunt Saboteurs in Nottingham is that
they don't book slots for their 'charity' stalls in Nottingham city
centre. They just plonk em there, and piss off people who booked the
slot 9 months ago via the rules.
My mum runs the Nottingham Cot Death Support Group, and didn't really
need a bunch of Anti Hunt campaigners on a neighbouring table putting
off customers (A lot of people do cross the road to avoid being
harassed by political campaigners)
Okay this was about 3-4 yrs ago now, but you might like to consider
other people when organising your 'campaigning' in future.
(Note I do not express an opinion either way on fox hunting, it's
probably cruel, and certainly silly, but then again at least fox
hunters don't spend their entire lives draining funds out the social
state, that could be better spent on health, education and state
pensions..)
--
remove the post club snack to reply via email.
Visit Arnold On-line @ http://www.andysands.clara.net/
nh...@envirolink.org
>Get a life you people.
>
>Whilst I don't like to see any dumb animal unnecessarily hurt or frightened
>I make the exception with your bunch and other people like you. Perhaps a
>new sport of destroy the hunt saboteur should be invented.
>
We get a little tired of threats like these. Doesn't deter us, though.
Regards
nh...@envirolink.org
>
>The only problem I have with the Hunt Saboteurs in Nottingham is that
>they don't book slots for their 'charity' stalls in Nottingham city
>centre. They just plonk em there, and piss off people who booked the
>slot 9 months ago via the rules.
>
>My mum runs the Nottingham Cot Death Support Group, and didn't really
>need a bunch of Anti Hunt campaigners on a neighbouring table putting
>off customers (A lot of people do cross the road to avoid being
>harassed by political campaigners)
>
>Okay this was about 3-4 yrs ago now, but you might like to consider
>other people when organising your 'campaigning' in future.
>
I've been involved) we have indeed had a council licence for the
Saturdays we had the stall out, and for its location. We have never
claimed it was a "charity" stall (we are not a registered charity and
have never claimed to be). I am somewhat concerned about the allegation
in the first paragraph that we have ever claimed that.
We have had similar problems with stalls from other groups who have set
up near us (I won't name which ones because that's irrelevant) but we
find that we have a huge amount of support from the general public, and
people actually head towards us rather than avoiding us, especially when
we have people dressed in fox costumes.
>(Note I do not express an opinion either way on fox hunting, it's
>probably cruel, and certainly silly, but then again at least fox
>hunters don't spend their entire lives draining funds out the social
>state, that could be better spent on health, education and state
>pensions..)
It's a shame that you decided to end the post by resorting to insulting
and false stereotypes of the propagandist kind produced by pro-
Bloodsports groups. It just destroyed any respect I had for your
previous argument.
As a point of information, the vast majority of the members of
Nottingham Hunt Saboteurs have full time jobs, with a large proportion
of them employed in the "care" sector (nurses, outreach workers, etc.)
as well as teachers and other professional careers. Those not employed
are either studying or spend much of their time in unpaid voluntary
work.
I believe that your final remarks have revealed far more about the
reasons for your "grudge" than the (erroneous) claims with which you
started your post.
Paul
nh...@envirolink.org
>
><nh...@envirolink.org> wrote:
>> hard <ha...@freeuk.com> writes
>> >
>> <snip>
>I've heard enough folks; Paul. I'm ducking out of this
>debate - at least from the stance I have taken until now.
>I've learned a lot about the issue in the past few days
>(enough to strengthen my dislike of blood sports)
>and I thank Paul for explaining things so patiently.
>
Many thanks for your contribution to the debate - it was genuinely
interesting and presented in a civilised manner. It was good to
actually have a debate on usenet which didn't turn into a flame war.
Good luck with the HARD campaign.
>But <parting shot>
>If you ever move on to sabotaging butchers' shops
>or forcing me to wear plastic shoes I shall be very upset
Damn, that's my secret plans discovered (JOKE!).
Anony Mouse
news:3v03bssohuai3l13o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:39:01 -0000, "JC" <J...@Xeipon.freeserve.co.uk>
> spoke the following words of wisdom:
> Big Snip <
> (Note I do not express an opinion either way on fox hunting, it's
> probably cruel, and certainly silly, but then again at least fox
> hunters don't spend their entire lives draining funds out the social
> state, that could be better spent on health, education and state
> pensions..)
Strikes a chord with me, so many pseudo politico's tell me how the world
could be a better place, whilst they themselve's are work shy, and a burden
on the welfare state.
I used to enjoy my little chats with an infamous chap who was quite high up
in the WP movement. Quite how he could class himself as part of the master
race totally confused me.
Brian Shuttlewood
<nh...@envirolink.org> wrote in message
news:6BPNlLAu...@lazar.demon.co.uk...
I've been reading your debate....
Seems to me the arguments against foxhunting are pretty feeble, ie "Foxes
killed all my chickens" Who supposed to be the smartest creatures on earth,
certainly not people that keep chickens, they can't even build a run that
can keep a fox out!!!
"I just do it for the ride" Well just bloody ride then, Why kill?
I was born and bred in Quorn and I'm ashamed of the association it has with
the hunt, I've seen the bastards letting foxes go that have been captured
out the area so they don't know where to run for cover.
Power to the sabs I say, I've never done it but I most certainly would like
to put pay to the hunting fraternity, but I'm afraid I would end up
kneecapping the arrogant sods.
Keep it up, stop hunting of ANY sort.
Matrix (Matt Holmes)
first place, there wouldn't be an artificial population for foxes to kill.
The whole argument for fox hunting is yet another example of Britain's
pompous upper-class bullshit for their own pathetic enjoyment.
Good job Britain isn't renowned for believing in karma - I'm sure some fox
hunters would be having sleepless nights.
--
Matrix / Matthew Holmes
ICQ:#45369950 *http://www.uncovered.co.uk* Now 21 Projects!
[Home of Uncovered Projects, Uncovered Search & the BorgNorns]
"Adam and Eve had an ideal marriage. He didn't have to hear about all the
other men she could have married, and she didn't have to hear about the way
his mother cooked." - Kimberley Broyles
Simon Chamberlain
That's like saying men who play role-play games all night wear
spectacles, have only 2 other friends and not a girlfriend between
them.
(Andy is a RPG fan, for those who didn't know.)
You see - it's completely inaccurate, isn't it? And I would imagine
it's a tad annoying too.
>Visit Arnold On-line @ http://www.andysands.clara.net/
I like the site - but you need MORE PICTURES (dammit!)