shot shot Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8575497.stm ok, firstly, yes it's very sad that a pet got attacked, and it sounds like the huntsman could have been more sympathetic, but there are a few issues here. Firstly, they were walking across fields, I'm going to go out on a whim and say that they were trespassing. Also, the hunt covers roughly the same ground every week, so they really, really shouldn't have been there. perhaps I'm being a little cold hearted, but should the owners not be liable for their own dogs? on land that they shouldn't be on especially! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) newry harriers are the hunt that i had trouble with in the past. in the article it just says "in the fields", doesnt say whos fields so who says the kids were in the wrong? and after having to explain to certain members of the harriers what i meant by "you dont have ******* permission to be on my land so **** off, and get those ******* hounds away from my sheep" i wouldnt be so quick to assume the hunt had permission to be there either... Edited March 18, 2010 by Ozzy Fudd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shot shot Posted March 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 newry harriers are the hunt that i had trouble with in the past. in the article it just says "in the fields", doesnt say whos fields, and after having had to explain to certain members of the harriers what i meant by "you dont have ******* permission to be on my land so **** off, and get those ******* hounds away from my sheep" i wouldnt be so quick to assume the hunt had permission to be there either... and there's me jumping the gun to defend them... It'll be interesting to hear how this pans out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollie Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 What I can't understand is why these dogs would attack a terrier. Surely the hounds should be trained to work with other dogs so when a fox goes to ground etc they will tolerate a terrier working in the hole. Some really bad press for hunt supporters over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 youd also think theyd be trained not to go for sheep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperfection Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 perhaps I'm being a little cold hearted, but should the owners not be liable for their own dogs? on land that they shouldn't be on especially! As Babby said-its not clear who had permission to be there,but as for being responsible-they were young children so the emphasis is automatically taken away from them.The hunt master should have had more control over the hounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted March 18, 2010 Report Share Posted March 18, 2010 at the end of the day the kids may have been in the wrong - but they are just that - KIDS.....so they make stupid mistakes, it was still wrong. No matter what the sport you need to be able to control what is happening to an extent and this was not the case in this story. I know as an adult watching a dog torn apart would be horrific so imagine how these kids feel about a pup! I have nothing against the hound packs but it's not something i really like or think is a good thing but it is just my opinion. If the hounds cannot be controlled they should not be allowed to use them. Gixer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) You know guys I don't think it's a matter of who had permission to be on the land and who did not and I don't know enough about the situation to want to comment on the laws of trespass and who was in the right or who was in the wrong but surely this is a straight forwards case of whether the Master of the Hunt was in controll of the hounds, and in this case it looks like he wasn't. Even so, and regardless of if the "Master" was or wasn't in control of the hounds you would have thought that the hunt could have handled the situation a little more sensitively, especially as there were children involved which was bound to attract (Negative) publicity from the media! I am a "Hunting With Hounds" Supporter and feel that the Ban On Hunting With Hounds is totally out of order and a terrible blow for British Tradition and Field Sports, and that the ban should be repealed as soon as possible, but this case looks pretty apauling and is not going to do the Hunting With Hounds issue any good whatsoever and the "Master" of the Newry Harriers should be well and truly ashamed of himself! Edit: After re-watching the video clip and re-reading the article I can see no reference as to whether either the hunt in question or the children had permission to be on that particular land or not. Ozzy, please can you elaborate on the post you have put up which reads:- newry harriers are the hunt that i had trouble with in the past. in the article it just says "in the fields", doesnt say whos fields, and after having had to explain to certain members of the harriers what i meant by "you dont have ******* permission to be on my land so **** off, and get those ******* hounds away from my sheep" i wouldnt be so quick to assume the hunt had permission to be there either... Is this a "first hand experience" that you yourself have had or is it "hearsay" please? Edited March 19, 2010 by Frenchieboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Putting aside the rights and wrongs for a moment, wouldn't the hunt be expected to pay compensation for "damages"caused by their actions irrespective of any blame. Is insurance not a requirement? If not it should be. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSPUK Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Ozzy Why didn't you shoot the hounds - I certainly would have done. - Surely you have a legal right if they are worrying your sheep dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) Ozzy, please can you elaborate on the post you have put up which reads:- newry harriers are the hunt that i had trouble with in the past. in the article it just says "in the fields", doesnt say whos fields, and after having had to explain to certain members of the harriers what i meant by "you dont have ******* permission to be on my land so **** off, and get those ******* hounds away from my sheep" i wouldnt be so quick to assume the hunt had permission to be there either... Is this a "first hand experience" that you yourself have had or is it "hearsay" please? this is a first hand experience mate, happened in february 2007. i was off work with a broken ankle, i had the cast off about 6 weeks but was still walking with a crutch due to ligament/tendon damage. i was living at the ex's house which is only a couple of miles from jerretspass, where the terrier was killed. anyway the house was surrounded by her and her uncles land, some was rented to a local farmer and some was kept for our own use. we'd had trouble with dogs killing sheep, one tuesday afternoon i was sitting in front of the tv when i heard dogs barking in the field behind the house, which had about a dozen pregnant ewes in it. i grabbed a 12ga and a few buckshot shells and ran/hobbled as quick as i could into the field behind the house. when i got in i was presented with 30 arrogant ****'s charging about the place on horseback as if they owned it (which was doing the wet ground no favours) while several of the hunt followers on foot were trying to drag some of the hounds away from the ewes. this could turn into a long story, so to summarise i shouted at them to clear off and was ignored (some even turned their horses away from me), then the hunt master (who is actually my aunts - sisters - brother in law ) came over and started spouting that they had a right to be here, etc etc. i explained that they didnt have permission, he wasnt happy with this, then i said about the hounds chasing the sheep, he replied "oh they wouldnt touch them" while 50 yards away a hound was literally being dragged of the back of a ewe by someone. after a few more words he started rearing his horse in front of me, either to intimidate or kick me, i dont know which. im not going to say what happened next, but lets just say he saw that course of action as being futile and left, leaving me to check over the sheep (two of which aborted due to this happening) as a kid i can remember going every boxing day to see the hunt near sheepbridge (outside newry) and i was against the fox hunting ban, but after having to deal with these clowns (and this being only one example) i think most people could understand why im not a fan of it anymore ps as for shooting the hounds the police told me as long as there was a member of the hunt in the same field as them they were classed as being under control, even if they were running amok. shooting one would have lost me my FAC. i was told the best course of action, which sickens me, is to let the hunt get on with it then claim off them for any damage caused. Edited March 19, 2010 by Ozzy Fudd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Thanks for the reply Ozzy. This certainly sounds like this particular hunt's general conduct (In particular the Master's general attitude) needs some serious looking at. However we do need to be careful that we do not "tar them all with the same brush" and start some sort of a witch hunt that will do the Pro-Hunting Movement no favours whatsoever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGD Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 Another big shot in the foot for hunts, if ANY of the hunt members had taken the time to deal with the situation properly this would likely not have made the news. It's kids and a puppy we're talking about here, rights or wrongs of who should be there and who shouldn't don't come into it; accidents happen and its how they're dealt with after the event that determines how people feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST3V3 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 What would happen to the hunt if it was a fox the hounds caught up with? they should be held responsable for there actions obviously they cant control the hounds so they should be muzzled and not be off a lead. if it was a rottweiller it would have been put down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepe Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 newry harriers are the hunt that i had trouble with in the past. in the article it just says "in the fields", doesnt say whos fields so who says the kids were in the wrong? and after having to explain to certain members of the harriers what i meant by "you dont have ******* permission to be on my land so **** off, and get those ******* hounds away from my sheep" i wouldnt be so quick to assume the hunt had permission to be there either... It is not surprising the incident happened then. Well done Ozzy The BBC is getting worse, their reports are very vague with no real information just sensationalism. The RSPCA marketing people are quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeh Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 (edited) The problem I have, and this is in stereotype (but, like the stereotype that follows gypsies, it proves to be true) is that a lot of Hunt riders are over privileged snobbish twits with superiority complexes. Furthermore, and a hearty follower of Field Sports playing hand in hand with conservation, I really don't see how a bunch of yahoo's charging about on horses, often trespassing, ******* off livestock and crushing newly planted trees and hedgerows, (and wrecking wet ground) really falls into place with it. I'm sure I could be converted pro hunt, but like shooting, it does have it's fair share of idiots, and I'm yet to have a positive experiance. Edited March 19, 2010 by Bleeh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 The problem I have, and this is in stereotype (but, like the stereotype that follows gypsies, it proves to be true) is that a lot of Hunt riders are over privileged snobbish twits with superiority complexes. Furthermore, and a hearty follower of Field Sports playing hand in hand with conservation, I really don't see how a bunch of yahoo's charging about on horses, often trespassing, ******* off livestock and crushing newly planted trees and hedgerows, (and wrecking wet ground) really falls into place with it. I'm sure I could be converted pro hunt, but like shooting, it does have it's fair share of idiots, and I'm yet to have a positive experiance. I completely agree with the above, I support the repeal of the ban because I believe people have the right to do what they like as a pastime regardless of class etc as long as it is legal. However my experience of hunts is exactly that as has been posted. I have seen them ride right through the middle of a dog training class rather than go around, crash through hedges and fences like they weren't there. Leave gates open and generally be a bloody nuisance. While I cannot stand the antis and what they stand for the hunts really ought to get their act in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomhw100 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 obviously being a shooter im a supporter of the hunt,but i have to say on this occasion if whats said is true i'm absolutely disgusted in the way the hunt acted,how can you just throw a little kids mangled dog into the bush in front of him! i cant believe any one would be so cruel. Who ever was trespassing/had permission is a different agenda here i think lads, the dogs should never be allowed to hunt if the hunt master hasn't got full control over his hounds what if it was a mother and a little toddler! i know that seems a bit drastic but if they can rip sheep and terriers apart why couldn't they do it to a little child. Either control your dogs or dont use them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 you know the stereotype Bleeh but its slightly wrong, the most arrogant tend to be the ones who are actually local builders and labourers who hunt and tend to be the ones involved in trouble generally and feel like they are better than most because they hunt. We've had a fair few round us that I know and wouldn't trust in the slightest, our local hunt was banned for a fair few years from my local estate because they couldn't keep the hounds from chasing deer. Very bad PR for them as they repeatedly killed deer in peoples gardens. Personally there are areas where hunting should be done and can be done and there are areas where it can't be, in the south east generally there are too many people and private gardens etc for it to be sensibly done. This incident doesn't surprise me in the slightest and though I feel like I ought to support hunting in principle a lot of their actions make me think twice about whether its suited to much of our countryside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPT1 Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 I'm a hunter and angler but have always been anti fox hunting with hounds. Same as not wanting bear baiting and dog fighting to be legal. It is in all honesty a dislike of the type than any real humane concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toka_shigazu Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 as for shooting the hounds the police told me as long as there was a member of the hunt in the same field as them they were classed as being under control, even if they were running amok. shooting one would have lost me my FAC. i was told the best course of action, which sickens me, is to let the hunt get on with it then claim off them for any damage caused. sorry but that comment from the Police seems to be absolute ****.....just 'cos someone is there with the dogs does not mean they are under control!!! they would be subject ot the same laws as anyone else and if the dogs were out of control they could be dealt with just the same.... as Frenchieboy has also said, i follow hunts when i get the chance [more so when younger] but shooting/terrier work is more my thing i like to think i am supportive of all fieldsports but incidents like this and the one mentioned at the beginning of the post cast all fieldsports in a dark light.... by the sounds of it this particular hunt may have a PR problem.....[to be polite] ATB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 obviously being a shooter im a supporter of the hunt,but i have to say on this occasion if whats said is true i'm absolutely disgusted in the way the hunt acted,how can you just throw a little kids mangled dog into the bush in front of him! i cant believe any one would be so cruel. Who ever was trespassing/had permission is a different agenda here i think lads, the dogs should never be allowed to hunt if the hunt master hasn't got full control over his hounds what if it was a mother and a little toddler! i know that seems a bit drastic but if they can rip sheep and terriers apart why couldn't they do it to a little child. Either control your dogs or dont use them! Regarding this particular topic, I'm with the above, but in general, I have an issue with the opening phrase.. For me, 'obviously' doesn't come into it. Whereas I won't go against them, my support is out of the question. In an effort to prevent the ban they opened up with every weapon in their arsenal. In so doing they started aiming at one of their biggest groups of supporters. US. Apparently we are responsible for wounding large numbers of deer and fox that we leave littering the countryside. This, of course, they don't do. I explained why I would not sign the BASC petition to the organiser who asked if I would if he promised to speak to the CA expressing the concern. I signed but patently as it continued, as it still does, they simply aren't interested. Nope, sorry, they're on their own as far as I'm concerned. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulpicide Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 What would happen to the hunt if it was a fox the hounds caught up with? they should be held responsable for there actions obviously they cant control the hounds so they should be muzzled and not be off a lead. if it was a rottweiller it would have been put down! I think you will find they were actually trying to kill foxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr W Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 I think you will find they were actually trying to kill foxes. Yes but not allowed to with dogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted March 19, 2010 Report Share Posted March 19, 2010 What would happen to the hunt if it was a fox the hounds caught up with? they should be held responsable for there actions obviously they cant control the hounds so they should be muzzled and not be off a lead. if it was a rottweiller it would have been put down! over here fox hunting is still legal, sorry i may have been misleading in one of my replies sorry but that comment from the Police seems to be absolute ****.....just 'cos someone is there with the dogs does not mean they are under control!!! they would be subject ot the same laws as anyone else and if the dogs were out of control they could be dealt with just the same.... as Frenchieboy has also said, i follow hunts when i get the chance [more so when younger] but shooting/terrier work is more my thing i like to think i am supportive of all fieldsports but incidents like this and the one mentioned at the beginning of the post cast all fieldsports in a dark light.... by the sounds of it this particular hunt may have a PR problem.....[to be polite] ATB apparantly because hounds are working dogs they are classed as being under control as long as someone from the hunt is in the same field as them. this is different from a domestic pet, which if off a lead is classed as being not under control, no matter what. the problem that this particular hunt have is not a PR problem, its a **** problem, the **** in question being the huntmaster. quick qeustion for those who would know - how often do hunts "lose" hounds in an area that theyve been through? and how often would they leave the stray hounds roaming the area til residents called them to pick the hound up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.