A law based on cruelty

[Ereiam_jh]

Endy's comments below are IMO very telling.

How could the law differentiate between the activities he approves of and those he doesn't?

Endy is against cruelty.

The only sensible way for a law governing 'hunting' to work is a law banning cruelty.

Chasing animals is ok as long as it isn't cruel. The law fails to attempt to differentiate between cruel and non cruel actions.

We need a comprehensive modern law against cruelty to wild mammals, not the hunting act.

I am not cruel. THAT is why my activities should be legal.

 

[RunToEarth]

I am not cruel, that is why our activities should be made legal. Shame the law is still in the gloom when it comes to seeing this.

 

[endymion]

May I suggest you look into the physiology of the chased mammal? All papers I have came across conclude the welfare of the chased mammal is very poor. I say chased in the context of a prolonged chase as occurs in hunting (to clarify even further, prolonged is specific to the biology of the animal concerned) This is what I form my opinion from.

Hunting with hounds IS cruel. Chasing a deer for 10 mins with a couple of dogs is NOT cruel. There is a huge difference no matter how much you try to blur the boundaries to suit your own needs.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Endy,

I would accept in certain circumstances the welfare of a chased mammal is very poor as I also have read some papers. But sure as [****] I have never read any paper proving hunting with hounds to be cruel and neither have you. I suggest you adjust your statement, instead of “Hunting with hounds is cruel” change to “Based on absolutely no worthwhile scientific evidence I believe hunting with hounds to be cruel”


Cheers

Nigel

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But Endy you were saying before that you thought it was OK for me to chase wild mammals with dogs.

Just out of interest the Governments position is that chasing is hunting even if there is no intention to catch or to kill. This is from their guidance:

"Is hunting different from chasing away?
The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to search for wild mammals, chase them, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is no intention of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals. "

I deliberately use my four dogs to flush out and chase animals with no intention of catching them. So what, it's illegal but it is NOT cruel.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

A sensible and enforcable law to prevent cruelty should be a law against cruelty. Any such law would require people to be cruel for them to be guilty.

 

[Peta]

Do you think hunting with hounds is the least cruel way to cull deer?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

As I've constantly said I would like the staghounds tro at least be allowed not to shoot the deer that they flush out. I'd also welcome limitations on the length of chase to reduce suffering.

I've tried to persuade them not to shoot any deer they flush out when they come on to my farm.

Their response has been that they would be happy to comply with my wishes were it not for the Hunting Act that requires the deer to be shot.

While I think that this is a great shame I do not feel that it is really our responsibility as it is what the law demands.

While I can openly disobey the law, it is very unlikely that the staghounds would get away with it.

LACS have already prosecuted Tony Wright on the basis that he did not have a 'line or lines of guns' to kill any foxes he flushed out.

LACS shoot their deer. I don't. I am a criminal.

 

[Peta]

Do you think hunting with hounds is the least cruel way to cull deer??

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I've given my answer above. Maybe you could try and develop our discussion a little bit.

Hunting with hounds has pros and cons to the quarry species. I'd like to see modifications made to it to make it cause less suffering.

I don't want to see it banned completely.

I also think the Hunting Ban bans far too much.

In many cases hunting with hounds is not the least cruel way to kill deer. In some cases it is.

I'd like to see a law based on a fair legal definition of cruelty.

A law to prevent cruelty has to be a law against cruelty. Such a law would require someone to be cruel for them to be guilty.

BTW was it you who voted 'arse'?

 

[Peta]

Is that a yes or a no? It's a simple enough question?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

WTF! Can you not read!

Hunting includes searching for, flushing out, chasing and pursuing wild mammals with dogs. It does not have to require any intent to kill. In some cases hunting is cruel in some cases it isn't. A law regulating hunting should be based on cruelty.

Develop the argument Peta, if you are capable of it. Read the words, if you can.

You could equally ask 'Are drugs bad? Give me a yes or no answer!'

Shopuld drugs be illegal? Well some should and some shouldn't and some should be regulated. It's no different with hunting.

 

[Fairynuff]

AA, Im begining to think that "Peta" was and is the same person who "hounded" you on your nuclear thingy! What was he/she called? Same style coming out. Want me to chuck it another bone? M.

 

[Peta]

You don't seem to be able to answer a perfectly simple question. OK, let´s ask another. What would be your definition of "cruelty"?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Probably the best one I could come up with is 'causing unnecesary suffering.'

 

[Ereiam_jh]

You don't seem to understand a perfectly good answer to what isn't a perfectly simple question.

 

[Peta]

Do you think hunting deer with dogs, where the average chase is three hours, causes "unnecessary suffering"?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If the deer is chased non stop for three hours then I personally would say yes. I'd expect a law based on cruelty to stop particular practice. Although it would be up to the judge to decide what activities are cruel and what aren't.

It's perfectly possible to draw up and apply a legal definition of cruelty. We do it with children and we should do it with animals too.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Do you consider flushing a deer out of cover with a dog to be cruel?

What if the deer is then shot dead is thast more or less cruel than not shooting it?

I'll accept yes no, or a more in depth answer. If you choose to make your self look a complwete twat by wittering on about body parts that's fine too.

 

[Peta]

Well, we're making progress: under the "Giles" anti-cruelty law, hunting deer with hounds would be banned. Good job!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Not all hunting would be banned hunting would be regulated. You would most certainly bstill be able to flush out deer and chase with hounds like I do.

I note that you fail to even attempt and answer to my question so I will post it again.

Do you consider flushing a deer out of cover with a dog to be cruel?

What if the deer is then shot dead is thast more or less cruel than not shooting it?

I'll accept yes no, or a more in depth answer. If you choose to make your self look a complwete twat by wittering on about body parts that's fine too.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

With regard to making progress. Do you think that might be because you've actually read one of my posts? It could be that your prejudice has slipped just a tad.

I think you'll find I'm a die-hard moderate on the hunting issue.

BTW I flushed chased deer with my four dogs for two days running this weekend. Fantastic fun. There are loads around at the moment. I have to say the average length of my chases is considerably less than three hours.

Only extremely ignorant people would make simply flushing out wild mammals illegal. Do you think it should be?

 

[Peta]

So you think hunting deer with hounds should be banned. What about terrierwork?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I haven't said I want hunting deer with hounds banned. I've said I would be happy to see it regulated to reduce the suffering of the hunted animal.

Read the words peta.

Then apply your brain.

I'm against banning terrier work as I'm against banning hunting deer with hounds. I am for regulating it to reduce suffering. I also think that people who label terrier men as baboons are small mninded petty little bigots.

BTW do you have an answer for my questions? It's fine if you don't, that's probably the best answer of all. It's very noticable that I am able to give a thyought out answer to each of your questions which you then willfully and disengenuously misinterpret while you steadfastly refuse to answer mine.

Do you think flushing out wild ammals with two dogs and not shooting them should be illegal?

 

[Peta]

You want a law which bans cruelty to animals. You define cruelty as "causing unnecessary suffering". You think hunting with hounds causes unnecessary suffering. Ergo, you must want it banned. Thank you.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No, I think hunting with hounds CAN cause unnecesary suffering therefore I want it regulated to reduce suffering.

Don't misrepresent what I say; it is dishonest, unproductive and extremely unintelligent.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Do you think it should be illegal to flush out deer with two dogs and then refuse to shoot them?

Do you think it is cruel?

If you gave a damn then you would answer the question.

Or does your only interest in this matter derive from your need to moralise at people?

 

[Peta]

How would you regulate hunting deer with hounds to make this activity which you consider cruel suddenly not cruel?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Another question you pointedly refuse to answer. And you criticise me for not giving a simple yes or no answer. Forgive me for saying so but your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I'd have a registration system. People who wished to form hunts and practice the myriad of different activities that can be described as hunting would have to register and would be given licenses.

The body responsible for registration would regularily review hunting practices against legal definitions of cruelty, necessity etc and decide whether to license individual hunts.

Licensing would be able to adapt to evolving scientific knowledge about hunting.

I'd personally like to see hunt monitors riding out with hunts to ensure that they stick to the parameters defined in their licenses. Rather than these ridiculous Bumpkin Harrassment Squads we have ion operation at the moment.

This was roughly the proposal of the Moddle Way Group. It is probably something like what we will end up with in the long run.

Regarding hunting deer with dogs. Probably it would end up being somewhere between flushing out deer with dogs and not shooting them which is currently banned but would be legal and flushing out deer with two dogs and then spending all day catching up with them in order to shoot them which is currently legal but might well be banned if it involved a twelve hour continuous chase.

 

[Peta]

Sounds like a very expensive, ineffectual load of red tape. How would you make an activity which you consider cruel not cruel?