silv
Well-Known Member
I have been saying this for years. How many of these protesters are happy to go home picking up a takeaway on the way that contains meat which has had a miserable life, then go out wearing their animal tested beauty products.
Animal welfare bill
- Thread starter Sanversera
- Start date
palo1
Well-Known Member
That is utterly reprehensible and depressing.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Yes, the issue is that every single hunt is different in lots of ways and frequently there is little common ground or communication directly between hunts though many have joint meets etc with their neighbors. The only way, for example, a hunt like mine could communicate with, for eg The Warwickshire (notorious), would be for the committee to write directly to them. That would have absolutely zero impact as the people that matter in terms of decision making are their own committee and subscribers. The BHSA etc can exert some influence but that doesn't always have the desired effect.
silv
Well-Known Member
Agree, if i had the choice to be born a fox living wild in the countryside or an animal in a factory farm I know what my choice would be.
canteron
Well-Known Member
To me the problem isn’t the fact that some (quite a lot) of hunts were rogue, it’s that the organisations who should have set standards and ostracised them, protected them instead. They should have set high standards but they completely failed.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
I can't believe that foxhounds are so untrainable they can't just use different scent, the foxhounds that go to draghunts seem to manage a human quarry without too much bother. - the university draghounds use aniseed.
moosea
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a good plan to me.
I personally try very hard not to use stuff tested on animals, Use natural slug traps, don't leave food scources for rats,
don't kill any spders ( I think they are wayyy too facinating to do them any harm!) and i've been vegie most of my life.
None of the things you list above are done for sport, which also makes a difference for me.
SEL
Well-Known Member
I was surprised that there wasn't an over arching body for trail hunts. One of our local drag hunts has been very clear this week that they are registered, have to prove their hounds follow a certain scent, abide by certain rules etc etc. Very much trying to distance themselves from trail hunting.
Maybe that was the intent of the BHSA but they have appeared pretty ineffective.
But then the writing on the wall for trail hunting has been there for a few years now so ample opportunity for the hunts to come together - the arrogance of some will lead to the end of it all.
In all honesty I'm not even that bothered from an animal welfare perspective (roads around us take more foxes) but the law is the law and if you break it then there are consequences. If the BHSA had been tougher rather than squealing about edited footage etc then maybe a different outcome.
And if you are going to set a trail with fox scent you can hardly blame hounds for flushing out a real one!
teacups
Well-Known Member
Same here, and another three in my wider area. Most local farmers dislike the hunt.
The problem is that it would be nice to know of a trail hunt which is definitely nót hunting fox, but of course áll of them have the official line that they don’t, so it gets you no further.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree. However mad it seemed though, as the use of fox scent has been completely legal, and provided for in the law, of course hunts used it from the ban when there were strong hopes of the ban being overturned. I understand that thinking though it became really entrenched. Some hunts have absolutely adapted on their own but The BHSA have not provided leadership or coherence, governance or communication! The Hunting Act really is a dire bit of legislation that has done nothing to help quarry species, wildlife or countryside management or biodiversity more widely. The facts of its funding and passage through parliament are still a scandal in my view.
scats
Well-Known Member
Nobody seems to care about fish. Imagine an acceptable sport where you hooked fluffy animals up into the air by their mouths?
silv
Well-Known Member
so what you are saying is that it is OK to to torture animals for cosmetic testing (when there are plenty of alternatives) because it is not for sport? Cannot get my head around this, please justify
Kaylum
Well-Known Member
Animals will always be used for human use. Leather saddlery, mass produced abroad. Sheepskin pads, mass produced abroad. Is that ok? Who ever asks how the animals are treated for the items we buy? Manufacturers don't care or let you know what their animal welfare standards are. Neither do they tell you their carbon footprint. That's a real can of worms.
Suechoccy
Well-Known Member
Lobsters and crabs are sentient beings too but it's legal to boil them alive. (I read that they are deep-chilled first before being killed by being plunged into the boiling water as if deep-chilling them makes boiling an acceptable way to kill them).
Trot_on
Well-Known Member
This is in the bill to ban as well... though to make them safe to eat, they'll still need to be travelled in a stressful environment alive to keep them fresh. Which means they'll still suffer greatly.
Clodagh
Playing chess with pigeons
I hope something I enjoy stays legal until I’m old and decrepit! (Accepting I’m an anomaly on this thread).
NB I don’t hunt any more. And think fishing is awful. Especially for trophies rather than dinner.
moosea
Well-Known Member
No. I have not said that at all.
I don't wear make up.
So, no that is not what I am saying.
I am saying torturing animals for sport is, IMHO, vile.
It's 2025, not the dark ages.
If your chickens are killed by foxes then they need to be secured better.
I think that it all should be banned because those who hunt illegally are in the same class as dog fihters, they think they are above the law.
Pearlsacarolsinger
Up in the clouds
Are you seriously saying that you think that testing make-up/shampoo on animals is preferable to chasing a fox, which might well escape, with hounds? How very odd.
I'm not sure what you consider to be a natural slug trap or why that makes it OK to kill slugs.
Personally, I prefer to buy make-up/skincare that hasn't been tested on animals and only buy high welfare, free-range, usually organic meat. I do NOT want to lose cows, sheep, pigs etc from our landscapes, which is exactly what would happen if everybody stopped eating meat.
Gloi
Too little time, too much to read.
I hate shooting of birds. There is so much round here, pheasants raised to be shot. Hate riding past the shoots , beaters behind hedges freak the horses out, never mind the noise of the guns. Try and avoid them but often fail. Injured pheasants dropping out of the air, flapping on the road 
. Some are so tame it's like shooting hens and some of the men are really unpleasant. They used to not be so bad, would stop while horses passed, but not any more.
. Some are so tame it's like shooting hens and some of the men are really unpleasant. They used to not be so bad, would stop while horses passed, but not any more.
Sanversera
Well-Known Member
I don't think sheep etc would all go. Horses haven't gone because we stopped using them as transport. I think some people would keep and breed rare breeds and they are necessary for rewilding projects. The book Wilding by Isabella Tree is a thoughtful and interesting read. Can't say I agree with it all but a lot of it I do.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Something I've noticed about the arguments on Facebook is that they are about whether foxhunting is right or wrong. It's like going back in time.
And in a way, it's a pointless argument because hunting foxes with hounds is illegal.
I remember at the time of the hunting ban there was a lot of fuss about it being a daft law and very difficult to enforce. And then there was the 'accident' loophole - ie, if hounds could not be called off and a fox accidentally got killed, it was technically within the law. (Obviously some of the incidents we've seen over recent years are definitely not 'accidents'. But the loophole exists.)
It turns out that those who argued that the law would be very difficult to enforce have been proved right. It seems to be down to sabs to find evidence and I don't personally think that this is a great idea.
So anything that goes further - ie, banning trail hunting - will have to be less problematic to enforce and personally I don't see how it can be done easily.
And in a way, it's a pointless argument because hunting foxes with hounds is illegal.
I remember at the time of the hunting ban there was a lot of fuss about it being a daft law and very difficult to enforce. And then there was the 'accident' loophole - ie, if hounds could not be called off and a fox accidentally got killed, it was technically within the law. (Obviously some of the incidents we've seen over recent years are definitely not 'accidents'. But the loophole exists.)
It turns out that those who argued that the law would be very difficult to enforce have been proved right. It seems to be down to sabs to find evidence and I don't personally think that this is a great idea.
So anything that goes further - ie, banning trail hunting - will have to be less problematic to enforce and personally I don't see how it can be done easily.
silv
Well-Known Member
It actually does, it renders them unconscious. Lots of people catch lobsters here they never boil them alive and there is rarely food poisoning. I have been vegetarian for 30 years so not defending it.