Posts Tagged ‘Terrier Men’

So it would appear that once again a hunt has been caught red handed holding a fox in an artificial earth and then dragging it from the hole and throwing it in front of the hounds to be chased and killed for the enjoyment of their riders and followers. This time it was the Kimblewick, a hunt which recently killed 97 of it’s hounds due to being infected with bTB. A disease that has unnecessarily caused the deaths of ten’s of thousands of badgers due to the Governments pointless culling policy. The hunt is the plaything of Lord Gardiner of Kimble, a long time Tory who’s been secretary for various ministers and ex chief spin doctor for the so-called Countryside Alliance and now member of the House of Lords.

The incident took place on New Years Day, the meet was at the Thame showground and was claimed as one of the high points of the hunting calendar.

The full video can be seen below.

 

I don’t think the video needs any explanation here. The Times originally reported on this and it’s clearly going to be a story which isn’t going to go away any time soon and has even made BBC TV. Considering the Kimblewick’s recent history and their claims of being a “super hunt” (whatever that may be) this is certainly big news. Whether there will be any action with regards to prosecutions remains to be seen however even to the most myopic viewer the video is clear evidence of illegal hunting or at the very least the intent to hunt a wild mammal. The terrier men are clearly working under the instruction of the huntsman so one would assume “joint venture” could be worth considering from a legal standpoint.

This compelling evidence once again blows apart the myth that hunts are obeying the law and legally following a trail. What shouldn’t be understated is the frequency in which this takes place. Hunts up and down the country will have artificial earths in their territory and will maintain these in an effort to have foxes to hunt on any given hunt day. This is certainly nothing new or out of the ordinary. Fairly recently the South Herefordshire, the Middleton, the Pytchley, and the Belvoir have all been implicated in keeping foxes purely for the purpose of hunting.

What happened to the fox on New Years Day remains unknown.

The so-called CA and Dim Tim Bonner are certainly going to have a hard time talking their way out of this one especially as their Head of Hunting (Polly Portwin) pretty much lives next door to the Kimblewick kennels and rides with them although they’ll no doubt do their best. If the Masters of Foxhounds Association have any credibility whatsoever they will suspend the Kimblewick immediately and then expel them after their own investigation but let’s face it, what are the real chances of that?

pe1

You’re absolutely right Peter, let’s see some action for the authorities

The simple fact is that the hunting lobby like to promote this chocolate box image of hunting, the spectacle and the pomp and also that they somehow provide a service to farmers by controlling fox numbers, not that its even necessary. The truth is however vastly different and this is being shown time and again. Even in the face of such overwhelming evidence some hunt supporters are offering their own explanation which is, as you’d expect completely laughable.

50310004_973429272864505_7615564017578278912_n

Jo is clearly a master of fantasy fiction

Fox hunting (and all hunting with hounds) is nothing more than organised crime, an organised crime who’s product is cruelty to wildlife, enjoyed by a psychopathic minority who are prepared to pay for the privilege and will employ the lowest of the low to do their dirty work, be that digging out foxes or conducting violent operations against those who oppose them. The fact it is so deeply entrenched within the establishment means we are fighting a constant battle against those who wield both power and influence.

It’s time that changed.

ADDITIONAL

Below is an exert from a post on Facebook by Team Fox (Save Me Trust) run by Brian May. Let’s hope they are as good as their word if the authorities don’t hold the perpetrators to account.

smt

 

 

Well after a brief break from blogging and another trip north of the border in what had to be the coldest week of the summer (it barely got above 13-14°C for the whole week) I’m back to catch up with whats been going on.

One story which obviously came to my attention was the death of 10 hounds and the injury to a cyclist after the collision with a car. The hounds in question belonged to the Cottesmore Hunt, you may remember them from a season ago when their terrier men assaulted sabs and one of their supporters brandished a heavy chain, swinging it wildly like a maniac which could have caused serious injury had it connected with its intended target  (incidentally no charges were forthcoming from Leicestershire Police, surprise surprise).

Obviously no-one from either side of the hunting debate would wish a tragic event like this but one has to question the reality of the situation and the reaction from supporters of hunting. While I don’t know the full details the hunt supporters were very quick to apportion blame, both on the driver of the vehicle and, you guessed it – sabs.

3g3g

Where the incident happened

It’s very easy to jump to conclusion without knowing the full facts however having observed hounds being exercised and transferred along country roads you have to question the sense and logic behind how this takes place. Having a kennel man on a bicycle with a whip on what is likely to be a bendy country road with a full pack of hounds (probably at least 15 couple) is obviously a recipe for disaster. Dogs do not have any idea of road safety and that many hounds could easily fill a narrow country lane and with these on a blind bend then the outcome is hardly surprising. This isn’t the first time hounds have been killed while being exercised (see here ) and I have no doubt it won’t be the last. Was the driver speeding as the hunt supporters claim or were they merely an innocent party going about their business who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What was even more laughable were the claims that this was actually the work of sabs. Just think about that for a moment. A sab intentionally drove their vehicle at speed into a pack of hounds.

To say it’s utterly ridiculous is an understatement.

First off most sabs are vegans. Harming any animal goes against the very ethos of veganism and the ideal by which we live. We believe hounds are as big a victim of hunting as the animals they are trained and forced to hunt. Even ignoring this the legal ramifications of potentially losing ones license make the stupidity of those actions only bettered by the morons who suggested it in the first place. Here are a few of those comments posted on a pro hunting Facebook group.

1

2.jpg

3

4.jpg

5

Aren’t they all just wonderful? One has to question where and how this rumour started? The same old tired and jaded stereotypical opinions such as claims of being hypocrits and their usual favourite (terrorists) are being wheeled out once more without any shred of evidence to support the claims but then this is of course nothing new and hardly unexpected.

As it turns out this proved to be somewhat of an embarrassment for that particular group and it had to delete all the comments blaming sabs and publish a post contradicting all those slathering hunt supporters looking to blame.

6.jpg

Well at least that’s cleared up then but was the driver really out of control? It should also be noted that the driver of the vehicle hasn’t been charged with any traffic offences so the police clearly believe none had taken place which would suggest the claims by the hunt that they were out of control are also innacurate. Regardless of that what are the necessary requirement for exercising a large number of hound on a public road? I’m fairly sure Joe public would’t be allowed to walk a large number of dogs who weren’t controlled by a lead on a public highway. As hunting hounds come under the classification of working dogs the same laws don’t apply – perhaps they should.

Finally the longest hunting case in history (I made that up but it certainly feels like it) will be resolved on the 14th January 2019, a full 3 years after the offence took place. This will be the appeal of convicted Fitzwilliam huntsman George Adams. Let’s hope we can get this written into case law at the crown court and finally the ridiculous Bird of Prey Exemption can be written into history.

 

So last week I summed up what I thought were the most relevant points in the hunting act (see here). What I’ll do here is explain how the hunts are circumnavigating this legislation and what any monitor or sab would need to do to gain a conviction.

We’ve already established that the wording of the act limits the number of hounds to 2 for the act of stalking and flushing out. However as most people are already aware this part of the act was largely made irrelevant by the creation of “trail hunting”. There have been thousands of words written about this in the past (most notably the IFAW report Trail of Liesfull report can be found here) and don’t want to cover old ground again however it is the most common excuse that hunts use because, it seems, it is the most difficult to gain a prosecution against.

The fine people at Hounds Off produced a great list of requirements for gaining a prosecution against hunters using this alibi. It can be found here. What I will add to that is the expansion of point 4 on the list – Proving intent. This cannot be stressed enough. If the hunt staff are aware they are hunting live quarry (you need to prove this) then the addition of them using either horn or voice calls to hunt the hounds on should be enough to secure a conviction provided all the other criteria are met. Learn what these calls are and memorise them. In the fields we have however noted that some hunt staff are remaining quiet if sabs or monitor are present and filming their activities. NOT calling the hounds off the line of the hunted animal may not be enough to prove intent.

Essentially in the video evidence you’ll need: Quarry running – Hounds chasing quarry – Huntsman aware of live quarry and showing intent.

If you intend to monitor you need to learn to recognise the set of circumstance which could lead to a conviction as quick as you can. And herein lies the problem. Hunts have themselves learnt to avoid those situations, either that or they simply don’t care because they know the police (for one reason or another) won’t investigate and prosecute. I covered this in a previous blog which can be found here.

Although the recent conviction we achieved against the Fitzwilliam related to the Falconry Exemption in the Act many of the situational points were similar. The fox killed by the Thurlow last Boxing Day is a different matter and they are claiming to have been following a trail although have already set out their defence by claiming the fox was turned into the hounds by the sabs present. Although this is an ongoing case and as I such I can’t elaborate on the exact details (we’re currently waiting on a decision from the CPS) their claims are quite common and were similarly made by the Fitzwilliam. Needless to say this is complete nonsense (as it was in the previous case) and we hope the truth will come out in court. We have compelling video evidence from 2 separate sources and believe we have fulfilled all the relevant criteria for a successful outcome.

Beagling

Of course the hunting act doesn’t just relate to fox hunting. There are other forms of hunting which may also include Stag/Hind hunting and Mink/Otter hunting but Beagling (hunting the Brown Hare with a pack of Beagles) is the most likely to be encountered, certainly in my locality which is one of the last strongholds of this fast disappearing majestic animal.

packing up for the day

Packing up for the day.

Beagling runs in a very similar way to fox hunting except the hunters are on foot (but still wearing daft outfits). The hounds will be put into a field to search for hares. This will initially be done via scent but once the quarry is flushed the beagles will act more like sight hounds. The usual hangers on will be present to watch and some may be stationed around the edges of the open field to be hunted. Their purpose is to turn the hare back into the field and to prolong the chase. A hare will easily outrun a beagle however it doesn’t have the stamina and they tend to run in large circles. Eventually they will be caught and killed.  A pack of beagles can kill a lot of hares in an afternoons hunting.

Due to their less obvious nature and smaller following field beagle packs can be hard to find, they are very secretive for obvious reasons. The handy point from a monitoring and sabbing point of view is that once found they are effectively scuppered! Merely entering their hunting field with a running camera should be enough encouragement for the hunter to gather their hounds and head back to the meet but once again the criteria for any attempted conviction remains the same.

Falconry Exemption

I’ve written a lot about this recently so won’t cover it all again but needless to say this part of the act is now being seriously called into question as an alibi for hunters since the prosecution of the Fitzwilliam. whether those hunts that still using a bird of prey continue to do so remains to be seen. Next season could be interesting . . .

Gamekeepers Exemption

This is a tricky one and the greyest of grey areas. The simple fact is there is no place for terrier men in a trail hunt and yet all hunts still employ at least 1 terrier man with the usual tools of his trade. The Countryside Alliance might like to claim they are fence menders and call them “Countrymen” but I don’t think anyone really believes that nonsense as terriers aren’t terribly good at mending fences.

I know some sources will disagree but I have always believed that in certain circumstances terrier work would be in breach of the hunting act. I’ve had long discussions with various police forces and their wildlife crime officers over the presence and indeed use of terrier men during a trail hunt. My personal experience of these particularly awful humans would also suggest that once an animal has gone to ground sabs/monitors arriving on the scene will see the terrier men making themselves scarce pretty quickly. The fact they will almost always be masked in some way suggests their need to hide their identity and thus reducing the chance of prosecution.

OHTM

Oakley terrier men.

The gamekeepers exemption was never intended to be used in conjunction with a mounted hunt. If a hunt was to chase and mark their quarry to ground and then call in the terrier men to dig out or bolt the animal they are in effect admitting to hunting in breach of the act. Obviously proving this might be nigh on impossible but it will certainly call into question their activities. My local force actually advised me prior to a hunt meet that if we witnessed dogs being used below ground we should call them immediately. A WCO from a different force suggested he would stop the use of terriers if used in conjunction with a hunt however could not stop them if they came back for the hunted animal later on when the hunt has ceased.

Hunted foxes will know their surroundings and look for the quickest route to safety within their territory. This will often be a badger sett – provided the terrier man hasn’t already blocked the entrances of course. This is a traditional job of the terrier man and still regularly takes place. Again evidence of this should be gathered and passed on the the authorities as interference with a sett is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act. Should a fox go down a badger sett then the protection of the fox becomes a little easier. The sett would need to be proven to be active. This can be done by photographing the entrances. Are they clear of detritus which suggests regular use? Can badger prints be seen in earth? Are there large and fresh spoil heaps or bedding outside the entrances? Further evidence of activity can be gained by the used of a trail cam showing actual footage of the badgers using the sett.

There have been several instances where terrier men have been caught red handed digging into badgers setts in an attempt to get to a fox. They have even left their terriers in the sett in their haste to escape!

23916605_1472273606202708_1602461237778589833_o

Finally if in doubt call the police. They may be reluctant to attend but call them (on 101) and report it anyway. The more people who start calling the police the better. Don’t get fobbed off, get a crime reference number and chase it up after the event if you don’t get a satisfactory response. Cite your safety concerns if hounds are running around the roads, complain of followers driving dangerously, being aggressive or blocking the highway. Ultimately hunts rarely want the police to attend, it can be a pain in the arse for them to explain themselves and it could save a life.

 

Last week on the One Show there was a piece about hunting and those that monitor the hunts in their own time. The Cheshire Monitors took part in the filming of this and you can see what they thought about what was aired on their facebook page plus you can also watch the piece itself if you haven’t already.

The major talking point however came from Countryside Alliance spokesperson Polly Portwin. When questioned on the presence of masked up men on quad bikes following the hunt she claimed they were there to mend fences, they carried tools for that job in the boxes on their quads and they were in fact masked up to protect themselves from dust. It’s a shame the program makers didn’t challenge this and in fact stop one of the terrier men present and ask to have a look in their box.

Polly Portwin.png

Polly “Pinocchio” Portwin

Even by the CA’s standard this is laughable. Do they really expect the viewer to believe this unmitigated tripe? Even a casual observer with no real knowledge of the issue could see through these contemptuous claims and the evidence to the contrary is, to say the least, overwhelming.

The Hunt Saboteurs Association were quick to reply with 2 separate posts from their press officer, Lee Moon:

The Countryside Alliance claimed on The One Show tonight that Hunt terrier men use the metal boxes on their quads to carry tools to mend fences. These photos prove their lie. They carry terriers on their quads to corner foxes below ground that are then dug out and shot or thrown to the hounds.

The presence of terrier men on hunts proves the lie of trail hunting.

And also:

“The Countryside Alliance claimed on The One Show that Hunt terrier men wear masks to protect themselves from dust. These photos prove their lie. Terrier men and Hunt supporters wear masks to intimidate, threaten and assault anyone who tries to disrupt their bloodsport.

The presence of terrier men on hunts proves the lie of trail hunting”.

To see original posts click here and here.

These posts were accompanied by a selection of photographs (some of which you will have already seen on this blog) utterly disproving the nonsense the CA were spouting.

charming

Oakley Terrie Man Neil Young.

CA CEO Tim Bonner is also well known for spouting a similar amount of utter drivel and is obsessed with the issue of anti-hunt personnel hiding their identities (for legitimate reasons) and I’ve covered this many times in the past. His recent behaviour on Twitter also leaves a lot to be desired, particularly his comments regarding mental health and Chris Packham.

The CA is a truly insidious organisation. An organisation which will openly lie in an effort to try and claim their members aren’t breaking the law and will use any and all measures to discredit those who stand against them. They may have plenty of money and people with influence in their pocket but an overwhelming number of the general public stand against them and, given time, they will be shown up for what they really are. The rubbish spouted on the One Show is just another example that this failing organisation are becoming more and more desperate and will soon need the Fire Brigade to put out all those underwear fires.