Home > National Dis-Trust > Another Dodgy Fudge

13th June 2018

Another Dodgy Fudge

Fudge picture courtesy of Vocabulary.com

The police would not tell a suspected burglar that they’ll be calling round a week on Saturday at 11am to check their house for stolen goods. Clearly, any dodgy stuff would be moved elsewhere and everyone would be on best behaviour.

Equally, plans by the National Trust to monitor the activities of  so-called trailhunting on their land are flawed – because each hunt will be looked at only once and this will be by prior arrangement.

We are not seeking to deride the National Trust. Quite the contrary. We seek only to be positive.

By its own admission, reports of unlicensed and illegal hunting were rife even before last autumn, winter and spring. The Ruling Council wrote these off as “transgressions” due to “uncertainty“. That’s not really good enough but, given who we’re dealing with, we understand. However, employing someone to conduct one visit per licensed hunt per season by arrangement will reveal no wrong-doing and ensure only that the status quo continues.

We wish that the National Trust would follow the lead of the Woodland Trust and simply forbid rampaging packs of hunting dogs and people to enter their nature reserves, but we know that some at the top of this charity are not yet ready for doing that. So, may we politely suggest that to avoid the whole plan being seen as a dodgy fudge, any monitoring of hunts by National Trust staff is done randomly, without warning and with no limit on frequency?

© Joe Hashman

Tags: ,

Share this page:

5 Comments | Leave a comment

  • Steve says:
    Posted June 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm

    The report by Stephen Wooler into hunting clearly stated that hunts change their behaviour when they know they are being observed. It’s ludicrous to suppose that pre- arranged monitoring is anything else but a sham.

    Reply to this comment >
  • Bradders says:
    Posted June 13, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    Members should know that trail hunting is costing a serious amount of money and already £41,000 a year of their donations goes towards fox hunting.
    how many more foxes, at this huge cost, will accidentally run in front of a huge pack of blood trained hounds?

    Reply to this comment >
  • Moira Ward says:
    Posted June 14, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    People just cancel your National Trust payment. Maybe if you hit them where it hurts they will wake up to the anger of people who DO obey the law.

    Reply to this comment >
    • HoundsOff says:
      Posted June 19, 2018 at 6:41 am

      One thing we feel strongly about is if you can afford to become a Member then join the National Trust. Sure, many have left in disgust after last years Members Resolution to ban trailhunting was scuppered by the Ruling Council but the simple fact is, since then, overall membership has gone up because there’s been a massive influx of hunt supporters joining. Ever since The Bateson Report, they’ve been trying to take over the National Trust. Cancelling or refusing membership might give you some personal satisfaction but as a campaigning tactic it is flawed.

      Reply to this comment >
  • Helen Rowley says:
    Posted June 18, 2018 at 4:11 am

    This organisation has little regard for the law which was brought in because the majority of the population wished there to be a ban on fox hunting

    Reply to this comment >

Leave a comment: