I live in the country, own a GSD who has 100% perfect recall, even if he is chasing something, previously had a GSP who was the same.
My other dog is a hound/terrier cross who despite all my efforts has a virtually non existant recall when his nose gets the whiff of something, he is bred from working stock and the hunting genes are high in him, keep him on a lead and he sulks all the way when out.
Where I walk there is little or no traffic, hardly ever see another dog but we do see loads of wildlife and yes he's off, has been known to disappear for over an hour, luckily he knows his way home.
You have to take the breed into account when making sweeping statements about perfect recall training etc., hounds just are never going to get top prizes for obedience.

I agree about having to take the breed into account and I wasn't making sweeping statements (if you meant me), I was pointing out that is what others do/have done.  I wanted a dog that could walk off lead, and where I live there are roads, so we never got the otter hound my other half dearly wanted.

Most people could not let their dog just come home on his own when he is ready, whereever they live - roads, livestock, etc.

Fiona

Fiona,

>>I do not think most people need to worry about this ban - alot of your average pet owners won't even be aware of it I'll bet.<<

That is the whole point IMHO, it will be the average "pet owner" that will suffer because of this ban. Because most average pet owners do not have the training ability or recall, their dogs will become victims to this stupid legislation if it goes that far.

All animals are unpredictable and all animals are vulnerable to external distractions, so it is unfair and not realistic to expect ANY dog off lead to be 100% predictable 100% of the time. I pick and choose where I let my 2 off the lead, as I use my judgement for THEIR safety and I would say that mine have 95% recall. Would you let your dog/s walk along a busy main road without a lead and have in your heart of hearts total trust and peace of mind? I am one of these people that errs on the side of caution because I love my dogs so would rather be safe than sorry, regardless of whether it was a breed that has been bred to run on lead at all times or not.

Something that also springs to mind as a result of this ban in February, is that the government are going to have to pull their fingers out pdq and provide facilities for fallen stock.

When the new European Law came into force, farmers were not allowed to bury any fallen stock on their land, these have to be disposed off at approved places.  That is cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and horses.

The government have failed to provide enough places for this and up until now all fallen stock in areas where there is shortage of disposal points has been sent to the local kennels.

From February this will not happen, so are we going to end up with a carcass mountain in the countryside reminiscent of the Foot & mouth crisis!!!!!!!!!! :-(

What sort of health hazard will that cause. Don't think I would like to take my dogs walking in the countryside with rotting carcasses lying around would you.  Mind they would probably like it ;-)

Hairypooch, I think you have misunderstood me - I agree that no animal is 100% reliable (and I would never let my dog off lead anywhere unsafe either - she doesn't have 100% recall, although is pretty good). 

I fail to see how the average pet owner will suffer, because I don't believe MOST people are not able to see whether a person is actively hunting with their dog, or the dog is just doing its own thing!  My dog chases crows - but I don't think anyone could say whe was 'hunting'.

Fiona

If your dog chases crows, would be interesting to see what happens if it encountered a free running hare or squirrel and then it would be hunting following its natural instinct.

and god forbid if that hare or squirrel happened to get cornered, it would be rare dog that didn't go in for the kill, deliberately or accidently.

You said:

I fail to see how the average pet owner will suffer, because I don't believe MOST people are not able to see whether a person is actively hunting with their dog, or the dog is just doing its own thing!

Exactly, and if someone wanted to misread the situation any dog could be reported.

My dog also very often chases my cats, on the odd occasion when she does corner them she doesn't hurt them.  My dog really seems to get a thrill out of the chase, but she really doesn't 'hunt' in the way I would think of it.  Again, all dogs are different.  when she chases the crows, she gets up a good speed, the crow flies off and she just runs back to me - I look on it as just her way of having a really good run - as she does when she chases another dog in play.

With regard to someone deliberatedly misreading the situation - that is where the innocent until proven guilty comes in - they need PROOF. 

Fiona

I know many people who say their dogs don't chase their 'own' cats, but will chase 'outsiders'. As you say, your dog gets a thrill out of this. According to what some people on this thread have said, this must not be allowed to happen. If you can't stop him doing this, he must be kept on a lead.

No, because the bill says that the INTENTION to hunt must be there, and she is not hunting.  If she did ever prove to me that she did intend to harm what she was chasing then I would keep her on a lead where circumstances required it.   In cases where you cannot avoid wild animals, then obviously some dogs will chase and kill them, but that would be unavoidable and again not intentional.

I hope you don't have any spiteful people in your area. It would be very easy for anyone with a grudge against you to have your dog seized (and your car, if you drive to the woods or fields to exercise your dog). Of course, you will be innocent and can prove this, but how long will it take the case to come to court? Where will your dog be in the meantime?

>>and if someone wanted to misread the situation any dog could be reported.<<

This is also my point. There are a lot of vindictive people out there who would absolutely delight in being "a good lawful citizen" or just a busybody with nothing better to do and who needs to get a life!

I have absolutely NO confidence in the British Justice System and as far as I am concerned you ARE, regardless of the legal system, guilty until proven innocent.

that is exactly my opinion HP

Whatever the legal system says as discussed above, that is not what happens in practice.

I can assure you, in my experience, that IS what happens, that is what the law is there for.  Ofcourse, as with everything, there are examples of poor judgement, but remember, for these few examples that may make the media and therefore be the examples you remember, there are millions of others of examples of the law and legal system serving its purpose 100%.

I do not think there are that many spiteful people around.  If someone was, then there are many more who would defend a wrongly accused person/dog.  I really don't believe they would take your dog/car on the say so of another person either.

I do sincerely hope you're right. I have my doubts though. As we know from the recent case of a grave being desecrated, there are some real loonies out there (thankfully few - I hope) who will stop at nothing. And it only takes one to pick on you ...

Ditto JG :)

But they would still need to PROVE it.

Our friends' children have to have panic buttons in their bedrooms and their alarm is responded to instantly by the police. Should they have to live like that all their lives ??

Daisy

And what does that have to do with the ban then Daisy?

We all know there are sick people out there - it is just a question of keeping things in perspective!  You could say the we are all at risk of being done for actual bodily harm when walking in very crowded places if you want to take things to the ridiculous!

I don't see that they see it as ridiculous - having threats made :( But what do I know ....

Daisy

Daisy you have misinterpreted what I meant.  Of course them having threats made is not ridiculous, but that sort of instance must be kept in perspective.  There are not loads of people waiting to be nasty to other people, only a very tiny minority.  Unluckily for your friends they have been targeted by one of the very small minority.  Most people do not go out of their way to be nasty to others - at least that is what I believe.  The same as there will not be lots of people reported for 'hunting' with their dogs when in fact they are not.

Online Pro-Hunt Petition

Nearly 12000 signatures so far.

no 11861 here :D
Lea :)

11185 here :)

Nobody has mentioned the CPS here. I firmly believe they will not go ahead with prosecuting people unless there is sufficient evidence. I agree that this is just scaremongering people to back hunting.
I'm glad it's been banned.
I can't imagine what sort of person enjoys watching a fox being ripped apart! :-(

Have you ever hunted?

What I want to know is what is going to happen to the horses?! The market is already tough enough with more horses than homes - what happens if its flooded with those that are only used for hunting and need the limited supply of experienced horsefolk to rehome them?

I think you are thinking along the same lines as I am Chloe and not a nice thought at that!!!!

What I also don't understand is the hypocrisy of it.

1. Hunting has been going for hundreds of years
2. Farm/land owners allow it on to do a job - ie control the fox population
3. The fox population will still be controlled - but with shooting and snaring - which, IMO are far more cruel methods
4. The dogs are going to be pts - and yes, the would anyway after lives of DOING A JOB they were BRED for - but if this ban holds up they WILL be shot sooner rather than later (in theory). How could they be rehomed? There are already far too many dogs needing homes and being pts without expecting folk to home an untrained, undomesticated pack animal like a hound!!
5. Some horses are NOT going to find new homes - its a fact - and not everyone wants to keep a horse (expensive) or can justify it if it doesn't have a job. Thjey make very big and expensive pets (this is not applicable to me may I hasten to add - I have 4 very big pets out in the field!). Let me just give an example: £400 insurance a year, £50 shoeing every 5 weeks, livery at up to £300 a month plus, feeding, supplements and general care/rugs: £££££££££££

So, we are talking here of stopping a minority sport that is helping to control fox numbers in the most natural way - and in the process we are going to see up to 25000 dogs being destroyed? And the horses?? Why do foxes - who are going to be killed anyway - take precedence?

I don't hunt and to be honest I never will - I have no desire to know that an animal is being killed even from the back of the field! - but this doesn't make sense to me! I have no desire to see hounds and horses shot either - so WHY interfere in it?

On the occasions I have followed I have seen fit foxes trotting off totally unperturbed by the huntsmen - usually stuck on the other side of the fence! However they have caught and killed ill/diseased foxes (from what I understand they get mange so badly they are known to chew their feet to the point of chewing them away)

So why?

Oh come ON Chloe ...you *know* why .....so we won't all moan about the war in Iraq, the state of the Health Service, Education standards in the Uk, the fact that the tax system is now SO complicated that no-one understands it, the fact that indirect taxation has increased :

Quote, Daily Telegraph 4/9/04:
The average higher-rate taxpayer is giving as much as 50p in every pound he earns in taxes, nearly half as much again as he would have paid in 1997 before Labour came to power

;) :D

If the Alliance win their fight in court over the Human Rights issue, it would imagine that everyones tax bill will increase to pay out the millions in compensation to those who have lost their livelihoods.

It certainly won't come out of the pockets of those back benchers who forced this bill through. :-(

You're right.

Lets not forget how they are trying to sneak through taxing all house sales too.

I wish I knew the answer to that one Chloe.

The only reason I can come up with is that people have such misconceived ideas of what actually happens in the hunting field, fuelled by anit-organisations, that they just accept that what they are told is what actually happens.

If they were go out on just one hunt, even as foot followers they would understand so more of the necessity of what is being done.

Next time a fox gets in and either kills all of our chickens or takes a new-born lamb maybe some of the people on this board would like to come and see the carnage for themselves.

Or when hunting is no longer happening and my son or husband have had to shoot a fox, to find that it has been injured previously by a bad shot or a trap.  They would like to come and witness for themselves and imagine what agonies that fox has gone through.

O.k let me explain what you seem to regard as the 'hypocrisy of it'- firstly hunting is NOT treated as simply a method of pest control it is primarily a 'hobby' for most who take part. the number of foxes killed by the hunts is minimal in controlling numbers and indeed there has been evidence of hunts deliberatly breeding foxes in order to ensure 'good sport'. Any hobby which has the torture and death of an animal as central to it's enjoyment is - to most folk - repugnant and inexcusable.

the  responsibility for the fate of the horses and hounds after a ban comes in will be purely down to those who own/breed them - in the same way that any animal that I own or breed is- if my 'show dogs ' are no longer winning I most certainly do not have them put down - the big difference here is that pro hunters do not see the horses and hounds as having any intrinsic value in their own right but only as 'tools of the trade' and there fore useless when the job is no longer there. their fate suddenly becomes the government's fault - I don't think so - if the pro hunters can support these animals during the short hunting season then why can't they take on their own responsibilities and support them when hunting is banned ( or swapover to drag hunting !) - THEY are responsible for their own animals - I fail to understand how anyone can say that they will kill their horses simply because they can no longer hunt - SHAME ON YOU !!!

A hunt ban has been coming for a very long time - why were breeding programmes not stopped ? why the sudden concern about the fate of animals that were quite clearly seen as disposable until a ban seemed likely and their death could be used as propaganda.

thank goodness you have LOST the battle and this shameful 'sport' is now finished.

*sigh*

Yes, SHAME ON US ...we are evil, bad people ...GOD HELP ME...I SMOKE TOOO!

Arghhhh

Must go and slit my wrists....the moral minority is agin me

ARGHHHHHH!

ROTFLOL Mel

Think I'll join you :-D

the thing I cannot stand is the way the anti's are doing the whole "ner ner" thing. It just makes me more and more sure that this is a CLASS issue and has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Of course its a class thing Chloe, if it was really because of "cruelty" how come the front bench could bear to try and put the ban off untill after the election! 

*sigh* - interesting that you have only childish comments left- you have not answered the points that I raised - is it not the height of callousness to kill an animal because your hobby is 'taken away from you' ? if you can afford to keep a horse for hunting why can't you afford to keep it for drag hunting/hacking etc ... if you have it destroyed then that is YOUR choice.

Why do you always insist that it is a class thing - just answer my questions !

It isn't my hobby Trevor, *I* have never been hunting. I can't afford to keep a horse either. FREEDOM OF CHOICE Trevor ;) At the moment in the UK it is a case of, 'if I don't do it/ don't want to do it/ don't see the need for doing it, lets ban it'

:rolleyes:

Of course it is a class thing...just read what the antis say for heavens sake, they *always* use the words 'toffs' and 'snobs' ...it only goes to prove they have no idea what a real working hunt is like

Well I am anti - hunting and nowhere have I used the words Toff or Snob - the so called class war exists only in the pro hunters mind - in this country a number of things are bannned on moral grounds - the precedents have been set before with the bans on badger baiting/otter hunting/dog fighting/bear baiting/cock fighting etc. all previously 'sports' enjoyed by a minority and banned by the majority as unacceptable pastimes.

You still have not answered my point about the responsibility for the lives of the animals currently owned by those who suport hunting -

As I don't hunt Trevor I can't answer that, can I? :)

I would be happy with hunting being banned on *moral* grounds IF the majority of anti hunt people actually knew what they were talking about. This is not the case. The vast majority see the fox as a cute and pretty cheeky chappy being slaughtered by the evil men in red :(  Talking to people about it it is patently obvious that the majority of antihunt people think of it as a class thing unfortunately.

Badgers and Otters were not pests. Bears are not native to this country and dogs are not pests either. The simile falls over in my view.

Otters are certainly a pest to commercial fisheries and badgers carry bovine TB and in some areas are culled  NOT hunted for sport.

Only 1or 2 hares are killed each time during  hare coursing,so that activity can hardly be described as pest control and there seems to be a great deal of contradiction as to the effectiveness of fox hunting as a form of culling - a great many more foxes are killed on our roads than are ever killed by the hunts BUT even if there was a case for a cull there can be no excuse for using it as a hobby for others.

ChloeH certainly asked what was going to happen to the surplus horses after February and even gave a breakdown of the sums involved in keeping one - perhaps she will give reasons why it is acceptable for a horses owner to destroy it when they can no longer go hunting ? ( rather than change to another equestrian hobby )

where did i say it was acceptable?

Trevor,

Agree with your posts and very well said.  The bottom-line is that a "sport" or a "hobby" in which the goal is to watch a pack of dogs rip an animal to shreds is too me defenseless in the 21st century.   Those who defend keeping hunting because of all the hunting dogs that will be killed are really crying wolf.  These are killed at 5 or 6 years of age and none of the so-called countryside animal lovers seem to have a problem with it. 

There is a world of difference between a farmer who shoots a fox which is killing chickens or livestock and "hobby" killing.

Stacey

Trevor,

Agree with your posts and very well said.  The bottom-line is that a "sport" or a "hobby" in which the goal is to watch a pack of dogs rip an animal to shreds is defenseless in the 21st century.   Those who defend keeping hunting because of all the hunting dogs that will be killed are really crying wolf.  These are killed at 5 or 6 years of age and none of the so-called countryside animal lovers seem to have a problem with it. 

There is a world of difference between a farmer who shoots a fox which is killing chickens or livestock and "hobby" killing. 

I personally do not understand how anyone can enjoy killing animals, whether or not they eat meat (as mentioned in another post.)   At least most people who hunt hares or fowl do consume what they kill .. and I do not see any difference between that and buying a chicken at Tescos.  Apart from the fact that the Tescos chicken problem had a miserable life until its death.   It's how anyone can enjoy killing that leaves me cold.

Stacey

Perhaps you can answer me one question, Trevor (as you seem to be able to debate without getting over-emotional!). If hunting with dogs is so cruel, why (unless I've read the law wrong) is it okay to hunt some animals thus and not others? Rats, rabbits and mink can be hunted, but not foxes or hare. I'm at a loss to see the difference.

Rats a far as I am aware, are not hunted in the sense of a 'sport' but culled as a form of population control - the same usually appplies to rabbits (although I think that some folk do use hunting mink as a 'hobby').

Most sensible people can clearly see a case for ppopulation control where a species is becoming a pest BUT they do not see the need for hunting as a hobby for those not directly involved in the kill.

Although there is the perception of cruelty involved in the majority's view on hunting it is this business of treating an animals death as a 'fun day out' which quite frankly is repugnant to most folk.

So are you saying that it's not the dogs killing the foxes that people object to, it's the fact that there are people with them? I can't believe people are genuinely that small-minded!

Obviously you have never been on a Rat Day out then Trevor :-D

When dozens of owners and terriers get together to rid a farm of rats.

Yes it is ridding the farm of pests, but is all a very social fun day!!!!!!!!

thank goodness you have LOST the battle and this shameful 'sport' is now finished.

I already explained I don't hunt so explain to me why I have lost the battle?