Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Why are they (or were they) not allowed to do that? One might have thought that eating it would have been their reward, in the days prior to the ban. Does Beckford have anything to say on that point? I don't know he died in 1811 .. when we have our next séance I will ask him however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 The hounds are not allowed to eat the carcassStill waiting for a logical explanation of why hounds would not be allowed to eat a carcass. Does Adge Cutler know the answer? Have other reliable experts written anything that would enlighten us? Beckford did not simply pontificate, he generally also provided the source of his information and the reasoning behind his advice. It would be nice if PW forum contributors were willing to do likewise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benthejockey Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 It's not so much that they're not allowed to eat the carcass it's more that they just don't. Terriers with rats will go through a concrete floor to get one and then go mad shaking it but once it's dead they aren't really interested and don't want to eat it. Depending how revved up the hounds are to a certain extent will dictate how badly they break up a carcass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Still waiting for a logical explanation of why hounds would not be allowed to eat a carcass. Does Adge Cutler know the answer? Have other reliable experts written anything that would enlighten us? Beckford did not simply pontificate, he generally also provided the source of his information and the reasoning behind his advice. It would be nice if PW forum contributors were willing to do likewise. I don't know about all Hunts but the those I've been involved with will not allow young dogs to eat a fox carcass in the hope that when they catch one in the Hunt their is something left of it. This is just early stage quarry training so that the dogs learn that fox is the quarry by scent association ...you don't want dogs going off in various directions chasing hares, deer, or other animals. In the past terrier men would have dug out fox cubs and took them to the hunt sometimes dead sometimes alive for the purpose of baiting. I'm ashamed to say I've witnessed worse practices than this before the ban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Bottom line - is there going to be a successful prosecution? Based on what I have seen and read - not a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Bottom line - is there going to be a successful prosecution? Based on what I have seen and read - not a chance. Could go either way methinks.. Who knows the guy might even fall on his sword and confess. He would need a pretty plausible reason for taking a live fox cub into a hunting kennel. Its like leading a lamb into the lions den. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 He doesn't need a reason - he just needs to say nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver pigeon69 Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Innocent untill PROVEN Guilty. They have to prove he DID it. He doesn't have to prove he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McSpredder Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Two explanations (so far) for why the carcase might have remained intact. One expert says hounds wouldn't want to eat a fox. The other expert seems to imply that hounds would like to eat a fox, but are not allowed to. Not exactly a consensus. Back in the days before the ban, there rarely seemed to be much left after a kill. Perhaps hounds in my locality were under-fed, and therefore gobbled up anything they could get hold of. Or maybe they were like some of those non-working Labradors, which will also gobble up anything they can get hold of, even when over-fed to the point of obesity. Time to read up about dog breeds, and find out why it is that I rarely see an underweight Lab, and have never in my life seen an obese whippet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 It seems odd that the hounds could kill the fox, without ripping it to bits. I think anyone would find it difficult to get the hounds to release the fox so easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 I await a trial before I pass my own judgment of this. That said if found guilty I hope they throw the book at anyone responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyeruk Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 I await a trial before I pass my own judgment of this. That said if found guilty I hope they throw the book at anyone responsible. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 +2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delburt0 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) . Edited November 5, 2016 by delburt0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) Just occurred to me there is a difference between an adult fox and a cub, an old fox is muscular and tough....a cub is very soft and easy for powerful foxhounds to break up, if the cub had been thrown to the hounds I really can't see it remaining intact for more than a second or two! The other concern I have in this case is about continuity of evidence! Once the chain is broken the "evidence" is next to useless! Edited November 5, 2016 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 panoma1 - continuity is non-existent, from what has been reported. The video makers might not know the significance, but I agree - it renders their "proof" as almost worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davyo Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 I dont think it looks good either way.Wbat i would want answering is. Why had a huntsman got hold of a cub (fox hunting banned) Why if he wants to go down the Vermin co trol route is it still alive. Why if hes going to dispatch it,does it needs to be removed from what ever cage it was in. Why is it anywhere near his property & how did it get there alive and WHY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Davyo - these are fair points, but are not directly connected to an offence of feeding a fox to the hounds. They are questions for his hunt colleagues to be asking him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Davyo - these are fair points, but are not directly connected to an offence of feeding a fox to the hounds. They are questions for his hunt colleagues to be asking him. Whether it was thrown to the hounds live ( which it probably was imo ) the fact remains a young fox was carried into the hounds kennel alive and came out dead. So who killed it and why If I was filmed walking into a room with a live person in it and filmed coming out again 5 minutes later and the occupant was strangled, I'm pretty sure I would be convicted even though it wasn't filmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) Adge - common sense dictates that you are right, but a lack of continuity of evidence means that it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Can it be proven that it is the same fox? Did the events - going in and coming out - happen on the same day? Has the video been tampered with? How many hands did it pass through before it reached the Police? Is there an evidential continuity trail backed up by MG11s? I suspect not. If the man is convicted and the verdict survives an appeal, I would be obliged to revise my judgement, but I believe it will not succeed. What some people believe happened - and they may well be correct - is light years away from getting a conviction. Edited November 5, 2016 by Gordon R 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.