From: "Andrew Chastney", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Why have you never ridden?
Because a serious accident I was involved in years ago has
left me incapable of sitting with my back unsupported for
anything
more than a few minutes without debilitating pain. Whether it's
a
saddle, a stool or a bale of straw makes no difference. As a
result
the majoritty of the 'hunting' I do is for hares, either
following beagles
or basset hounds, or else coursing.
>Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always following on foot or
in
>their cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never riding to
the
>hounds?
Obviously I can only speak for those that I am acquainted with.
Some
of their reasons are as follows -
# Don't like horses
# Too old still to be riding
# Like riding but don't like jumping
# Horse injured, in foal or otherwise temporarily out of action
# Horse been stolen and can't afford to replace it
# Inexperienced rider and don't feel sufficiently confident
# Tried it but prefer to be on foot because you can see more of
the actual hunt that way
And my milkman falls into both camps. He doesn't like being
mounted when there's a big field out, so he's on horseback
- looking very smart - at the midweek meetings which tend to be
quieter, but on a Saturday when there are a lot more people
out,
he's in his car wearing his scruffy old jeans.
And of course there are dozens of packs of hounds where _none_
of the followers are mounted, even if they would like to be.
All the
beagles, basset hounds and minkhounds for starters, plus all
the
foxhunting footpacks from Wales and the fells.
>I put it to you the scruffy ordinary Joes would soon go find
something else
>to follow, hence fulfilling their 'follower' needs. So banning
hunting
>would only effect the 'toffs' that the original poster
remarked on.
The implication that banning hunting won't affect footfollowers
is
completely untrue. I know scores of 'ordinary' people who hunt
on
foot who would be every bit as devastated if their sport is
banned
as all pistol shooters were post Dunblane.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are saying it's OK
to
legislate against 'toffs'. How do you define a 'toff' anyway?
Someone
who speaks with a pound of plums in their mouth? They can't
help
the way they speak any more than can a Geordie or a Brummie.
Or is a 'toff' someone with a certain amount of money? Like Sir
Paul McCartney perhaps, or maybe Carol Vorderman? Certainly
not in my book.
Or is a toff someone who is arrogant? I'm sure we can all think
of
plenty of 'celebrities' and MPs who fall into that category.
Whatever a 'toff' means to you, you can't legislate against
them
any more than you can against blacks, gays or Jews.
Andrew Chastney
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
