Much of what we consider ‘our’ land is in fact either privately owned or controlled by other bodies.
Many of these landowners still license ‘trail hunting’, despite the recent revelations that trail hunting is ‘a sham and a fiction’ as demonstrated in the Hunting Office webinar exposé, subsequent court case and conviction.
Indeed, trail hunting is so toxic that the National Trust has permanently banned it, despite protestations from the hunting community.
Some of these organisations are partly funded by the public purse, such as The Forestry Commission, some of which has now been re-branded as ‘Forestry England’.
Currently Forestry England have suspended trail hunting licenses pending the outcome of any investigations or appeals, but state that they won’t ban a ‘legal activity’.
“We control trail hunting with permissions and licenses according to an agreement with the Masters of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA).”
What’s going on in here, then?
We wonder how they will continue to issue and monitor licenses in the future now the MFHA and its leadership have been completely discredited.
Surely, with added public pressure, it would be simpler to ban this illegal activity and find more sustainable and cruelty free ways to ‘‘increase the value of woodlands to society and the environment’ as their mission statement suggests.
Hmm…was a trail really laid through the dense undergrowth of this public land?
Other large landowners have adopted a similar temporary position.
United Utilities for example, one of the largest water companies serving over 7 million customers and with one of the largest pay-outs to shareholders in the industry, has a temporary suspension of licenses pending further information.
How happy are you if you are one of their customers?
They claim ‘We also monitor the hunts – our employees attend meets to ensure they are acting in accordance with the license. We will take action if the hunts operate outside the conditions of the license’ – Sabs have never seen any such monitoring!
They state that ‘trail-hunting is currently a legal activity and does not impact water quality, then we do not consider it our role to ban a legal activity.’
Other landowners need to follow the National Trust’s example.
In 2004 – the Hunting Act made it illegal for hunts to chase and kill foxes.
It’s time to challenge these big land owners, make the temporary bans permanent and put an end to the cruelty and lies.
So what can you do?
Contact Forestry England
Chief Executive Mike Seddon at firstname.lastname@example.org
0300 067 4000
Twitter – @ForestryEngland
Contact United Utilities
Facebook – United Utilities
Twitter – @unitedutilities
And I mean…There are no concrete reasons for the annual murder of 600,000 foxes in Germany by hunters.
The fur of the fox has long ceased to be a coveted fur.
Many hunters now justify their actions differently.
In this way, hunting would balance the fox population. So they mean that the fox would reproduce infinitely without the hunt because there is no longer a natural enemy.
Contrary to what hunters often claim, unhunted fox populations by no means get out of hand.
Complex social structures, in which significantly fewer puppies are born with a high population density and low hunting pressure, limit the rate of reproduction.
The renowned biologist and fox researcher Dr. Erik Zimen boldly commented on this phenomenon with the words “birth restrictions instead of mass misery”.
Usually a vixen gives birth to three to five cubs.
However, in areas where foxes are heavily tracked, it can be twice as many.
In this way, losses can be quickly compensated for.
Foxes also play an important role as “health police”: They mainly catch mice – for the benefit of agriculture -, devour carrion and mostly prey on sick or injured animals, thus helping to keep animal populations healthy.
But the fox is not only the “health police” of the fields and meadows, it also contributes to the protection of the forest, as it eats forest voles.
Foxes are not just carnivores, foxes eat everything.
In this respect, foxes cannot exterminate any species.
But from the extinction threatened animal species in nature (lynx, wolf, badger …) for which only the hunters are responsible, nobody speaks.
In Germany the hunters consist of fairly high strata.
Lawyers, doctors, judges, city government officials are hunters.
No wonder if lawsuits against hunters always turn out to be in favor of the hunters.
In Germany there is a saying: “Whoever is rich or a hunter is always right”!
So our opponents in the fight against the hunt are rich, influential people who are under the protection of politics.
Finally, I would like to say something that many may not know:
48% of the German forest is privately owned.
For a democratic and otherwise progressive country in terms of animal welfare, I find it an absolute shame.
My best regards to all, Venus