It shouldn't have happened, it says in the report it took time to get the hounds under control which means they were out of control in the first place - it wasn't a 'normal' dog incident, it was a pack of hounds out to kill and kill they did - not out in the countryside - they entered someone's property to maul a small defenceless middle-aged cat to death in front of it's distraught owner who valiantly attempted to save it

I wasnt saying that it was normal... as I thought I made clear in my post.
Yes it should not have happened, but anti hunt people use it and other things like this to jump on the "hunting should be banned" bandwagon.
It is a far more regular occurance to hear this same story but pet dogs involved. I'm not saying that makes it ok as it clearly is not and the hounds were clearly not under control but accidents do happen.

As one of those on the 'hunting should be banned' bandwagon, the reason I think these type of occurrences, which are not so rare, happen is a direct result of people taking pleasure in killing.

The difference in this and incidences that occur with pet dogs, is that owners of the pet dogs are usually devastated when it happens.

Pet dog owners do not deliberately set out to see let alone delight in dogs ripping apart other animals. Huntsmen and women do.

Because hunts will have schedules for their seasons calender.. they will hunt in place a, on said date and b, c ,d on another, they would normally inform any of the surrounding land owners that the hunt will be around on day such and such.


I agree, accidnets happen, just like with any dog ,


What makes you think the hunt wont be as devastated as the pet owner if their hounds kill someone's pet.

Its not a good PR exercise to allow hounds to kill pets.. they (hunt) will be as devastated as any one else.

Your making huge assumptions they those who hunt take pleasure in seeing anything ripped apart.

They are doing a job, just like any wildlife control, its a necessity , it has to be done.

Those who hunt should no longer be seeing anything ripped apart-----they should be following a laid scent.

However they are seeing it as the hounds 'mistakenly' follow a fox scent. Very like the otter hounds hunting mink and catching otters by mistake.

rune

Loads of "reports" from the media, yet when its a pet dog that kills another or rips a cat to bits, its "media hype." Or when a dog bite a person/child, its pulled out of all proportion! Incredible!!

They may have been exercising the Hounds, not trail hunting.

The 'job' is not a necessity! They make very little difference to overall fox numbers so it's a myth to think they make a significant difference when it comes to fox control

If huntsmen/women found the ripping apart of animals abhorrent as many do, they wouldn't participate in the sport.

If a pet owner's dog kills someone's pet they are devastated and take steps to ensure that it can't happen again. In this case, the hunt say they are devastated, but you can betcha bottom dollar that they will risk it again at the very next meet

They shouldn't BE doing that job----it is illegal.

If it happened while they were being excercised it makes it worse IMO. I don't think it did though if they are suggesting they let people know where they are hunting in future.

rune

Huntsmen/women do not do it because 'it has to be done' - they do it because they ENJOY it.