Fox baiting
- Thread starter PaulT
- Start date
I have not "simply said that they are different", I have demonstrated at least two ways in which your definition that "baiting is an activity in which dogs are set upon an animal in a confined space" is flawed. First, by pointing out that bear baiting often took place in the middle ages without using dogs, so by your defection that would not be bear-baiting. Fail. Second, by pointing out that the perfectly legal practice of a farmer using a terrier to kill a rat in a grain store would by your definition be rat-baiting. Fail.
Where your little scheme falls apart is your failure to understand the difference between evidence and proof. You have taken two factors that each may or may not indicate that an activity could be defined as baiting and are trying to invent a rule that the presence of these two factors automatically proves that any activity therefore is defined as baiting. This is a fallacious argument.
To take the above example further, I suppose that you could, if you were so inclined, construct an activity involving a very small dog and an absolutely ginormous rat in a grain store with an audience that could be classified as "rat-baiting". However, that does not mean that any famer killing any rat in any grain store with any dog is automatically proven to be guilty of "rat baiting". If it helps you, try constructing a few Venn diagrams.
And this is what it's all about. Were you hoping that we were all going to throw up our hands and say "Damn, that's it, Guys, after all these years of successful dissimilation, PaulT has finally seen though us. There's no use hiding any more, our guilty secret is out. Ok, guvnor, it's a fair cop. We'll come quietly...". Oh dear, you poor thing...
You lone antis who turn up on forums like this from time to time always seem to have your gimmick which you seem think is going to be a world-beater, always failing to realise that there is nothing new under the sun and that by now we have seen it all before. The previous guy's gimmick was to pretend that he was someone who was pro-field sports and pro killing of foxes in other ways but thought that hunting with dogs was unjustified. Once we got into the argument in any depth, however, it was soon transparent that he knew very little about any form of fox control and off he went.
Bingo! As I pointed out before, do you not realise that you are actually weakening your case here. If you think, unlike the Government apparently, that terrierwork is unjustified, then you should be able to bring a case against terrierwork in and of itself. This case should be brilliant and logical and well-argued and supported by compelling evidence that stands alone - that's how to win the argument.
Whining little whinges that an activity ought to be banned because it bears a surface resemblance to some other activity that has already been banned are really not going to get you anywhere very fast. It is a very idle form of argument.
Where your little scheme falls apart is your failure to understand the difference between evidence and proof. You have taken two factors that each may or may not indicate that an activity could be defined as baiting and are trying to invent a rule that the presence of these two factors automatically proves that any activity therefore is defined as baiting. This is a fallacious argument.
To take the above example further, I suppose that you could, if you were so inclined, construct an activity involving a very small dog and an absolutely ginormous rat in a grain store with an audience that could be classified as "rat-baiting". However, that does not mean that any famer killing any rat in any grain store with any dog is automatically proven to be guilty of "rat baiting". If it helps you, try constructing a few Venn diagrams.
And this is what it's all about. Were you hoping that we were all going to throw up our hands and say "Damn, that's it, Guys, after all these years of successful dissimilation, PaulT has finally seen though us. There's no use hiding any more, our guilty secret is out. Ok, guvnor, it's a fair cop. We'll come quietly...". Oh dear, you poor thing...
You lone antis who turn up on forums like this from time to time always seem to have your gimmick which you seem think is going to be a world-beater, always failing to realise that there is nothing new under the sun and that by now we have seen it all before. The previous guy's gimmick was to pretend that he was someone who was pro-field sports and pro killing of foxes in other ways but thought that hunting with dogs was unjustified. Once we got into the argument in any depth, however, it was soon transparent that he knew very little about any form of fox control and off he went.
Bingo! As I pointed out before, do you not realise that you are actually weakening your case here. If you think, unlike the Government apparently, that terrierwork is unjustified, then you should be able to bring a case against terrierwork in and of itself. This case should be brilliant and logical and well-argued and supported by compelling evidence that stands alone - that's how to win the argument.
Whining little whinges that an activity ought to be banned because it bears a surface resemblance to some other activity that has already been banned are really not going to get you anywhere very fast. It is a very idle form of argument.
Now now Herne..stop feeding vermin ,you`ll just encourage it.
Alec.
Evening Herne. You claim my definition would exclude bear baiting as practised in the Middle Ages. Perhaps, but the word has several connotations, some of which would still be applicable to this situation. In the context of terrierwork it involves dogs. In terms of rats, it depends whether they are confined or not.
Stop tying yourself in knots trying to argue night is day, there's a good chap. Your cack handed attempts to distance so-called terrierwork from the murky world of animal baiting is truly a marvel; in a league of its own. *It is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same; conforming to the definition I have provided.*
Most people object to being treated like idiots, so only like-minded hunt fanatics will be fooled by your shameful attempts to trivialise fox baiting as though it's akin to a Sunday picnic on the village green. Fiagai and your fellow defenders of animal baiting have taken to ridiculing the whole concept of animal baiting, and have put themselves well and truly beyond the pale. You must be ever so proud of your current company, given their propensity to ignore the facts and play to the ignorance of their fellow defenders of fox baiting.
Actually, I don't have high expectations of anyone who sticks up for fox baiting, so I'm certainly not expecting you to have any decency or personal integrity when it comes to discussing this obscenity. I'm not looking for any of you to own up. It is a shame, though, that it isn't possible for yourself, Fiagai et al to discuss these issues in an honest fashion, with a willingness to adopt an evidence-based approach. I really don't think you are mature enough to countenance that, preferring instead to wallow in the arrogance of an 'I'm right, and everyone who happens to disagree is wrong' approach to debate.*
It is noticeable, and extremely telling, that hostility towards my posts to this forum increased as soon as I started to quote scientific research (see 'Taking Stock' thread), which people like Alec regard as 'pointless' and used by 'vermin'. With the exception of possibly Claire, there is little, if any, indication that any of you are concerned about animal welfare. You are more intent on trying to lose the essence of the discussion in nit picking, while the like of Fiagai and Alec are desperate to shut down discussion completely.
Despite these various attempts to end discussion and sweep uncomfortable truths under the carpet, I'm more than happy to continue debating hunting and its associated activities. Surely this forum hasn't been reduced to labelling anyone who has the temerity to base his or her argument on independent scientific research as a 'troll', has it?*
Stop tying yourself in knots trying to argue night is day, there's a good chap. Your cack handed attempts to distance so-called terrierwork from the murky world of animal baiting is truly a marvel; in a league of its own. *It is obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that terrierwork and fox baiting are one and the same; conforming to the definition I have provided.*
Most people object to being treated like idiots, so only like-minded hunt fanatics will be fooled by your shameful attempts to trivialise fox baiting as though it's akin to a Sunday picnic on the village green. Fiagai and your fellow defenders of animal baiting have taken to ridiculing the whole concept of animal baiting, and have put themselves well and truly beyond the pale. You must be ever so proud of your current company, given their propensity to ignore the facts and play to the ignorance of their fellow defenders of fox baiting.
Actually, I don't have high expectations of anyone who sticks up for fox baiting, so I'm certainly not expecting you to have any decency or personal integrity when it comes to discussing this obscenity. I'm not looking for any of you to own up. It is a shame, though, that it isn't possible for yourself, Fiagai et al to discuss these issues in an honest fashion, with a willingness to adopt an evidence-based approach. I really don't think you are mature enough to countenance that, preferring instead to wallow in the arrogance of an 'I'm right, and everyone who happens to disagree is wrong' approach to debate.*
It is noticeable, and extremely telling, that hostility towards my posts to this forum increased as soon as I started to quote scientific research (see 'Taking Stock' thread), which people like Alec regard as 'pointless' and used by 'vermin'. With the exception of possibly Claire, there is little, if any, indication that any of you are concerned about animal welfare. You are more intent on trying to lose the essence of the discussion in nit picking, while the like of Fiagai and Alec are desperate to shut down discussion completely.
Despite these various attempts to end discussion and sweep uncomfortable truths under the carpet, I'm more than happy to continue debating hunting and its associated activities. Surely this forum hasn't been reduced to labelling anyone who has the temerity to base his or her argument on independent scientific research as a 'troll', has it?*
Excellent. Thank you. Point one confirmed.
A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.
But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.
Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.
Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.
I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.
The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you.
But how do you propose that one should act if one is right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.
On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread.
A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.
But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.
Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.
Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.
I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.
The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you.
But how do you propose that one should act if one is right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.
On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread.
Last edited:
Excellent. Thank you. Point one confirmed.
A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.
But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.
Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.
Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.
I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.
The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you.
But how do you propose that one should act if one is right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.
On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread.
A rat in a grain store is confined - but it is still patently absurd to call killing one with a terrier rat-baiting. Thank you again. Point two confirmed.
But as we have now conclusively demonstrated, the definition that you have provided is flawed.
Were you to suddenly to decide to make a grandiose claim that the definition of "an elephant" was a greyish-brown animal with big ears, we would not be obliged to accept thereafter any claims you made that mice are elephants.
Sorry, chap, but you will find that you can avoid that by not acting like one.
I have trivialised nothing. I have demonstrated that it is not appropriate to refer to terrierwork as fox-baiting, but I certainly have not trivialised terrierwork, and I have conceded that there are indeed possible adverse welfare implications inherent in terrierwork - and indeed have actively tried to urge you to concentrate on them if you wish to have a rational discussion rather than persisting with your rather weak and, frankly, rather pointless, attempts at semantic mud-slinging.
The fact that you persist on flogging a dead horse is up to you.
But how do you propose that one should act if one is right and the other person is wrong. Explain why, with examples? Ok - see above.
On this we agree - and you will be pleased to hear that once that we have finally put this fox-baiting silliness to bed, I am looking forward to getting stuck in to your various claims on the "Taking Stock" thread.
Hello Herne. After the pasting you've been given, if it makes you feel better to claim victories which clearly aren't there, far be it from me to disillusion you!
You've conclusively demonstrated nothing in regard to the definition of baiting, although you have proved a number of other things which I suspect even you won't be proud of - at least you certainly shouldn't be.
In terms of your acceptance that there are adverse welfare consequences which arise from fox baiting, at least we have at last identified a point we can agree on. To explore this a bit further, would you accept that a fox having part of it's scalp bitten away whilst being baited comes under the general banner of 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the fox? Furthermore, would you also accept that there are also 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the terrier(s) engaged in the baiting?
I need some context to your question about how one should act if one is right, I'm afraid, as it doesn't make much sense as it stands.
BTW, look forward to renewing the discussion on the Taking Stock thread. No need to wait for our current discussion to end as it really isn't all that taxing contributing to more than one thread. At least I don't tend to find it so.
You've conclusively demonstrated nothing in regard to the definition of baiting, although you have proved a number of other things which I suspect even you won't be proud of - at least you certainly shouldn't be.
In terms of your acceptance that there are adverse welfare consequences which arise from fox baiting, at least we have at last identified a point we can agree on. To explore this a bit further, would you accept that a fox having part of it's scalp bitten away whilst being baited comes under the general banner of 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the fox? Furthermore, would you also accept that there are also 'possible adverse welfare implications' for the terrier(s) engaged in the baiting?
I need some context to your question about how one should act if one is right, I'm afraid, as it doesn't make much sense as it stands.
BTW, look forward to renewing the discussion on the Taking Stock thread. No need to wait for our current discussion to end as it really isn't all that taxing contributing to more than one thread. At least I don't tend to find it so.
As previously stated, nothing more than a propaganda b*ll**** term dreamed up for the benefit of the Scottish inquiry into hunting with dogs,
"I was going to propose an alternative to just identifying what we have termed fox baiting, which is terminology that has recently come into our vocabulary.We may know what it means, but I am not sure that everybody else does"
The Scottish Parliament banned fox baiting but restricted terrier work quiet clearly they can see there is a difference.
PaulT - fine by me if you want to peddle b*ll**** propaganda just don`t expect anybody to believe you.
"I was going to propose an alternative to just identifying what we have termed fox baiting, which is terminology that has recently come into our vocabulary.We may know what it means, but I am not sure that everybody else does"
The Scottish Parliament banned fox baiting but restricted terrier work quiet clearly they can see there is a difference.
PaulT - fine by me if you want to peddle b*ll**** propaganda just don`t expect anybody to believe you.
Is it classed as shrew/mouse baiting if a cat brings a live shrew/mouse into a house and releases it. Then I tell my dogs to find it and get it (as I refuse to touch them and obviously they weren't very smart if they couldn't avoid a cat)? If so this happens 4/5 times a week
Would you class ferreting as rabbit baiting?
Would you class ferreting as rabbit baiting?
The beauty of discussions on forums like this, Paul, is that the previous messages all hang around for everyone to look at. It is therefore rather silly to make grandiose claims about what has happened before when anyone and everyone can simply scroll back and see in seconds whether what you claim is true.
Take this case, for example. What this whole thread basically boils down to is a semantic discussion about whether a somewhat archaic term can correctly be applied to an activity to which is has not traditionally been applied.
I have explained what the traditional definition of the term has generally been understood to be and why it therefore has not previously been applied to the activity in question.
You have supplied an alternative suggestion for a strict definition of the term and explained why, if that definition is correct, the activity would be covered.
I have supplied two examples of why your proposed definition is inaccurate. You have conceded one and not challenged the other.
It would seem fairly logical, therefore, that the result so far is that the traditional definition is probably more accurate than your new one and that therefore your suggested classification of the activity with that term is flawed.
However, the point here is that it is all pretty insignificant. We are discussing whether one word is or is not applicable to an activity that is entirely lawful under the new Hunting Act and that is only incidental to Hunting with hounds in any case.
Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing.
To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck.
No, I said that there are adverse welfare implications that can be associated with hunt terrierwork. If you would like to discuss these I would be entirely happy to do so in a thread about hunt terrierwork. Talking about hunt terrierwork in a topic about fox-baiting, if such a thing even exists, would be to take the thread off-topic.
Take this case, for example. What this whole thread basically boils down to is a semantic discussion about whether a somewhat archaic term can correctly be applied to an activity to which is has not traditionally been applied.
I have explained what the traditional definition of the term has generally been understood to be and why it therefore has not previously been applied to the activity in question.
You have supplied an alternative suggestion for a strict definition of the term and explained why, if that definition is correct, the activity would be covered.
I have supplied two examples of why your proposed definition is inaccurate. You have conceded one and not challenged the other.
It would seem fairly logical, therefore, that the result so far is that the traditional definition is probably more accurate than your new one and that therefore your suggested classification of the activity with that term is flawed.
However, the point here is that it is all pretty insignificant. We are discussing whether one word is or is not applicable to an activity that is entirely lawful under the new Hunting Act and that is only incidental to Hunting with hounds in any case.
Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing.
To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck.
No, I said that there are adverse welfare implications that can be associated with hunt terrierwork. If you would like to discuss these I would be entirely happy to do so in a thread about hunt terrierwork. Talking about hunt terrierwork in a topic about fox-baiting, if such a thing even exists, would be to take the thread off-topic.
"Fox baiting is fox baiting, whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt"
And
Terrier work is Terrier work whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt
And
Terrier work is Terrier work whether carried out by the yobs on the council estate or the fine upstanding citizens of the hunt
Yes, I love the fact that comments are there for all to see, although this is really only beneficial if the reader is willing to take the trouble to think about the arguments and consider the evidence presented in an unblinkered fashion. Im sure that anyone prepared to do this will be extremely interested in the quotes provided in the Taking Stock thread, for example. Likewise, in this discussion they will appreciate there is little doubt that terrierwork amounts to fox baiting.
I would argue the term is very much current, because there is a need to accurately label some aspects of human activity which typically involve dogs being used in confrontations with captive or restrained animals. I do not believe the word 'terrierwork' captures the essence of what the 'sport' actually involves - it says nothing about the 'welfare implications' you pointed to earlier, which I would argue are of central concern and certainly not peripheral. On the other hand, people generally understand what is meant by baiting.
But this completely ignores the fact, which I have pointed out on several occasions, that the word does have more than one meaning. In the Middle Ages it may well have been used to refer to an activity which didnt involve dogs, in the modern day setting it does.
Herne, your responses remind me of another example where pro-hunters were unable to see the bigger picture. During the time of the Countryside March many hunters believed they had achieved the be-all-and-end-all when in fact they had lost sight of what was actually happening behind the scenes in Parliament. You point to inconsequential differences between two examples of baiting, which in no way detract from the blindingly obvious similarities. My point about you having received a pasting relates to this bigger picture.
See above; yet again youre getting far too hung up on inconsequential detail which doesnt detract in any way from the fact that in fox baiting humans are using dogs to attack a confined fox.
I completely agree with your point that whatever its called, it makes no difference to the activity itself. However, as already stated, I do believe it is important to have accurate terminology instead of using labels which are designed to sanitise.
Again, see above. I feel quite strongly the accurate way to label this activity is as fox baiting, so entirely disagree that it is in any way off topic for the reasons already given.
I would argue the term is very much current, because there is a need to accurately label some aspects of human activity which typically involve dogs being used in confrontations with captive or restrained animals. I do not believe the word 'terrierwork' captures the essence of what the 'sport' actually involves - it says nothing about the 'welfare implications' you pointed to earlier, which I would argue are of central concern and certainly not peripheral. On the other hand, people generally understand what is meant by baiting.
But this completely ignores the fact, which I have pointed out on several occasions, that the word does have more than one meaning. In the Middle Ages it may well have been used to refer to an activity which didnt involve dogs, in the modern day setting it does.
Herne, your responses remind me of another example where pro-hunters were unable to see the bigger picture. During the time of the Countryside March many hunters believed they had achieved the be-all-and-end-all when in fact they had lost sight of what was actually happening behind the scenes in Parliament. You point to inconsequential differences between two examples of baiting, which in no way detract from the blindingly obvious similarities. My point about you having received a pasting relates to this bigger picture.
However, the point here is that it is all pretty insignificant. We are discussing whether one word is or is not applicable to an activity that is entirely lawful under the new Hunting Act and that is only incidental to Hunting with hounds in any case.
Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing.
To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck.
Even if I had lost the argument, it would only be a case of oh, yes, how interesting, I had not really thought of that. It would not change a single fact about the activity, how it is carried out or the rights or wrongs of so doing.
To claim, therefore, that I have been given a pasting is really rather bizarre. Do you really suppose that the discerning reader is going to magically forget all of the above and believe it is so, merely because you suggest it? If so, good luck.
I completely agree with your point that whatever its called, it makes no difference to the activity itself. However, as already stated, I do believe it is important to have accurate terminology instead of using labels which are designed to sanitise.
Again, see above. I feel quite strongly the accurate way to label this activity is as fox baiting, so entirely disagree that it is in any way off topic for the reasons already given.
You can feel as strongly as you like. The FACT is that those of us who know how proper terrierwork is carried out - and who can envisage the type of activities that might be classified as 'fox baiting' - disagree strongly. For THAT reason we will NOT debate the welfare implications of terrier work on a thread about fox baiting, which none of us would support for a second!!
So I would suggest this topic might have run its course!
So I would suggest this topic might have run its course!
Janet, you're joining the others in trying to close down legitimate debate.
Tell me how the 'proper terrierwork' you refer to differs from fox baiting. Your response does suggest there is such a thing as 'improper terrierwork'; I'm intrigued.
Tell me how the 'proper terrierwork' you refer to differs from fox baiting. Your response does suggest there is such a thing as 'improper terrierwork'; I'm intrigued.
PaulT this whole baiting crusade you are on can be put to bed quite simply;
1/ BAITING (of any animal) ILLEGAL
2/ TERRIERWORK LEGAL
The Government of this country does not hold that terrierwork is baiting or it would be illegal in all forms...............Carreg
1/ BAITING (of any animal) ILLEGAL
2/ TERRIERWORK LEGAL
The Government of this country does not hold that terrierwork is baiting or it would be illegal in all forms...............Carreg
Paul, dear boy, do please try to apply even a little bit of logic to your thinking - it's not a big ask.
Try to observe the fact that your own argument is self-defeating - regardless of what I or any other pro say about it.
Think about this simple fact: if what you say were true, you would not need to be saying it.
If terrierwork could be referred to as fox-baiting, then it already would be referred to as fox-baiting. The anti-hunting lobby has been going for over 70 years now - do you really think that none of them have considered the possibility; do you suppose that they had not already considered the advantages of the "guilt-by-association" ploy that you are trying? Plainly they have – see the references elsewhere in this thread to the reference being made in regard to the Scottish Ban – but is it part of standard anti-speak? No. Why not?
Obviously, they have realised - as you seem to be unable to do at present - that the definition does not apply. Baiting means something else. The argument is too easily defeated to be worth perpetuating.
You are so blinded by the self-satisfaction of thinking that you have invented this oh-so-clever gimmick that you seem to have failed to stop and wonder why no one else has beaten you to it.
You claim to have made this great new revelation and yet you are also claiming that it is so obvious that “anyone with at least half a brain can see it.
Er, right, ok, so if it were that obvious, then it would have been part of the anti-hunt doctrine since the first attempted ban in 1948 and there would be absolutely no point in you saying it now.
The very fact that you even feel the need to raise it demonstrates that you are wrong about how obvious it is.
So we seem to have two options here:
Either
the whole anti-hunt movement, the media and the politicians and every one else have failed for the last 70 years to spot something that is so obvious that anyone with half a brain can see it.
Or
Poor, lonely little PaulT in the H&H Hunting section has got his definition wrong and is too stubborn to admit it.
Personally, my money is on option 2, but hey, I’m biased. I’ll let people make their own minds up.
Try to observe the fact that your own argument is self-defeating - regardless of what I or any other pro say about it.
Think about this simple fact: if what you say were true, you would not need to be saying it.
If terrierwork could be referred to as fox-baiting, then it already would be referred to as fox-baiting. The anti-hunting lobby has been going for over 70 years now - do you really think that none of them have considered the possibility; do you suppose that they had not already considered the advantages of the "guilt-by-association" ploy that you are trying? Plainly they have – see the references elsewhere in this thread to the reference being made in regard to the Scottish Ban – but is it part of standard anti-speak? No. Why not?
Obviously, they have realised - as you seem to be unable to do at present - that the definition does not apply. Baiting means something else. The argument is too easily defeated to be worth perpetuating.
You are so blinded by the self-satisfaction of thinking that you have invented this oh-so-clever gimmick that you seem to have failed to stop and wonder why no one else has beaten you to it.
You claim to have made this great new revelation and yet you are also claiming that it is so obvious that “anyone with at least half a brain can see it.
Er, right, ok, so if it were that obvious, then it would have been part of the anti-hunt doctrine since the first attempted ban in 1948 and there would be absolutely no point in you saying it now.
The very fact that you even feel the need to raise it demonstrates that you are wrong about how obvious it is.
So we seem to have two options here:
Either
the whole anti-hunt movement, the media and the politicians and every one else have failed for the last 70 years to spot something that is so obvious that anyone with half a brain can see it.
Or
Poor, lonely little PaulT in the H&H Hunting section has got his definition wrong and is too stubborn to admit it.
Personally, my money is on option 2, but hey, I’m biased. I’ll let people make their own minds up.
Evening Herne. It's rather amusing that you are critical of my logic whilst adopting such sloppy 'reasoning'. Your latest corker, that so-called terrierwork can't possibly constitute fox baiting because it's widely labelled 'terrierwork', may possibly be your best yet. Presumably this 'reasoning' didn't apply to the pastime of cub-hunting (labelled as such for generations), before some bright spark decided it needed a PR makeover and renamed it 'autumn hunting'? Of course misnomers have never ever found their way into common parlance!
In fact Herne I have never claimed to have been the first to accurately label fox baiting - this term has been used interchangeably with the term terrierwork by those opposed to your barbaric pastimes for years. The fact that you and your chums prefer the latter term should surprise no one.
Yet another example of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Herne, for me you're truly the gift that keeps on giving. Just when I think you can't possibly get any further up your own backside, you surpass yourself.
Tell me, do you think the association of fox baiting with hunting helps, rather than hinders, the campaign to repeal the Hunting Act?
In fact Herne I have never claimed to have been the first to accurately label fox baiting - this term has been used interchangeably with the term terrierwork by those opposed to your barbaric pastimes for years. The fact that you and your chums prefer the latter term should surprise no one.
Yet another example of not being able to see the wood for the trees. Herne, for me you're truly the gift that keeps on giving. Just when I think you can't possibly get any further up your own backside, you surpass yourself.
Tell me, do you think the association of fox baiting with hunting helps, rather than hinders, the campaign to repeal the Hunting Act?
Alright - I'll bite!
I know nothing of fox-baiting - I don't move in those circles - but I assume it is an activity similar to badger baiting (which I also have managed to steer well clear of) where the aim is to torment the target species using dogs until ONE of them if badly injured or dies. The victims are not usually 'baited' in the wild but in an enclosed area - so they can't escape! Betting on the outcome usually forms an integral part of the activity!
Proper terrierwork involves using a trained terrier - wearing a locator collar - to pinpoint the area of the earth (or other underground tunnel) where a fox is. The terrier blocks the exit - so the terrier handlers can dig down and despatch (kill) the fox with a pistol. The aim is fox control - not sick 'entertainment'!
Terrier work is largely carried out by gamekeepers - and is totally legal when the aim is to protect gamebirds. This - of course - is illogical! If terrier work is unacceptably cruel then there should have been no exceptions - and what makes the protection of gamebirds more important than the protection of poultry or lambing ewes?? Well - I'll let you into a little secret. The Labour Government didn't want to be seen as attacking shooting!! Logic has NOTHING to do with the Hunting Act!
IMPROPER terrier work is terrier work that does not follow the Code of the National Federation of Working Terriers, where foxes are not properly, promptly and humanely killed, where exits are blocked when terriers are underground, etc etc. IF you're at all interested (and I doubt that the facts actually DO interest you) see http://www.terrierwork.com/nwtfcode.htm
I know nothing of fox-baiting - I don't move in those circles - but I assume it is an activity similar to badger baiting (which I also have managed to steer well clear of) where the aim is to torment the target species using dogs until ONE of them if badly injured or dies. The victims are not usually 'baited' in the wild but in an enclosed area - so they can't escape! Betting on the outcome usually forms an integral part of the activity!
Proper terrierwork involves using a trained terrier - wearing a locator collar - to pinpoint the area of the earth (or other underground tunnel) where a fox is. The terrier blocks the exit - so the terrier handlers can dig down and despatch (kill) the fox with a pistol. The aim is fox control - not sick 'entertainment'!
Terrier work is largely carried out by gamekeepers - and is totally legal when the aim is to protect gamebirds. This - of course - is illogical! If terrier work is unacceptably cruel then there should have been no exceptions - and what makes the protection of gamebirds more important than the protection of poultry or lambing ewes?? Well - I'll let you into a little secret. The Labour Government didn't want to be seen as attacking shooting!! Logic has NOTHING to do with the Hunting Act!
IMPROPER terrier work is terrier work that does not follow the Code of the National Federation of Working Terriers, where foxes are not properly, promptly and humanely killed, where exits are blocked when terriers are underground, etc etc. IF you're at all interested (and I doubt that the facts actually DO interest you) see http://www.terrierwork.com/nwtfcode.htm
I would sooner Bait pault obviously stands for T***
Your latest corker, that so-called terrierwork can't possibly constitute fox baiting because it's widely labelled 'terrierwork', may possibly be your best yet. Presumably this 'reasoning' didn't apply to the pastime of cub-hunting (labelled as such for generations), before some bright spark decided it needed a PR makeover and renamed it 'autumn hunting'? Of course misnomers have never ever found their way into common parlance
PaulT THE Corker is by you using flawed logic. Cub Hunting is the same activity as Autumn hunting, you have taken two separate activities as recognized by HM Government and tried to rebrand one with the name of the other.
PaulT THE Corker is by you using flawed logic. Cub Hunting is the same activity as Autumn hunting, you have taken two separate activities as recognized by HM Government and tried to rebrand one with the name of the other.
Morning Janet, good of you to join us. Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed.
Its extremely difficult to get inside the minds of these people who participate in baiting so all we can do is speculate on their motives, as I doubt any of them are likely to say anything they consider incriminating or likely to put what they do in a bad light. Some may really think theyre performing some sort of useful function possibly fox control whereas Ive little doubt that others derive considerable enjoyment from what they do. Who knows, perhaps both motives apply in some cases.
Whether or not they derive enjoyment, the fact remains that fox baiting involves setting one or more dogs on a trapped or restrained animal. Once a fox goes to ground, escape routes are typically blocked and a terrier is entered. Once the terrier locates the fox I dont dispute that barking or a locator collar helps hunt servants find where both animals are to dig down. They may even cleanly despatch the fox, once located with a humane killer (then again, they may botch the killing, as happened to the fox mentioned earlier in the post-mortem report). That isnt the point at issue; my main objection is what is likely to happen when the terrier confronts the fox. As you know, it can take a considerable time for hunt servants to dig down and locate both terrier and fox. In some cases I believe a dig out has lasted hours rather than minutes. We are all expected to believe there is simply a standoff between fox and terrier in the confines of the earth! Even if the terrier is exceptionally well trained not to attack in such a situation, I doubt the fox is similarly disciplined.
Herne earlier mentioned that occasionally the animals get into a scrap. I would regard the confrontation as part and parcel of the activity of baiting, and it amounts to far more than a simple scrap. Just because the baiting is out of sight it doesnt mean it isnt happening. The post-mortem evidence posted earlier, which was carried out for Burns, showed that one of the foxes dug out had multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head; damage to the right eye; and bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck. These injuries didnt kill the fox, and they were the result of a so-called scrap with a terrier during a dig out lasting 25minutes. No mention is made if the terrier was injured during the baiting. God only know what injuries are inflicted on fox, and possibly terrier, during dig outs which last over an hour.
As far as I can see, none of this breaches the NFWT code it isnt worth the paper its written on. Even if it were possible to provide training lessons to terrier and fox on how to behave in a nice way to each other before each dig out, who is going to make sure everything that takes place is above board and according to the code? Dont tell me, the terriermen and their friends!
If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago.
Its extremely difficult to get inside the minds of these people who participate in baiting so all we can do is speculate on their motives, as I doubt any of them are likely to say anything they consider incriminating or likely to put what they do in a bad light. Some may really think theyre performing some sort of useful function possibly fox control whereas Ive little doubt that others derive considerable enjoyment from what they do. Who knows, perhaps both motives apply in some cases.
Whether or not they derive enjoyment, the fact remains that fox baiting involves setting one or more dogs on a trapped or restrained animal. Once a fox goes to ground, escape routes are typically blocked and a terrier is entered. Once the terrier locates the fox I dont dispute that barking or a locator collar helps hunt servants find where both animals are to dig down. They may even cleanly despatch the fox, once located with a humane killer (then again, they may botch the killing, as happened to the fox mentioned earlier in the post-mortem report). That isnt the point at issue; my main objection is what is likely to happen when the terrier confronts the fox. As you know, it can take a considerable time for hunt servants to dig down and locate both terrier and fox. In some cases I believe a dig out has lasted hours rather than minutes. We are all expected to believe there is simply a standoff between fox and terrier in the confines of the earth! Even if the terrier is exceptionally well trained not to attack in such a situation, I doubt the fox is similarly disciplined.
Herne earlier mentioned that occasionally the animals get into a scrap. I would regard the confrontation as part and parcel of the activity of baiting, and it amounts to far more than a simple scrap. Just because the baiting is out of sight it doesnt mean it isnt happening. The post-mortem evidence posted earlier, which was carried out for Burns, showed that one of the foxes dug out had multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head; damage to the right eye; and bite wounds, haemorrhage and oedema in the region of the larynx and lower neck. These injuries didnt kill the fox, and they were the result of a so-called scrap with a terrier during a dig out lasting 25minutes. No mention is made if the terrier was injured during the baiting. God only know what injuries are inflicted on fox, and possibly terrier, during dig outs which last over an hour.
As far as I can see, none of this breaches the NFWT code it isnt worth the paper its written on. Even if it were possible to provide training lessons to terrier and fox on how to behave in a nice way to each other before each dig out, who is going to make sure everything that takes place is above board and according to the code? Dont tell me, the terriermen and their friends!
If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago.
Morning Janet, good of you to join us. Im so glad theres more than one pro hunter who has ignored attempts to close down debate on this subject when inconvenient truths are exposed.
If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago.
If this form of animal baiting was carried out above ground, in full view, it would have been made illegal years ago.
JG is an extreemly well respected and accomplished woman. As are many of the other members you are "baiting". Your behaviour is starting to wane from polite discussion to extreemist type veiws.
It is obvious that you do not have ANY idea of the amount of training and attention to detail that goes into many forms of hunting and nor are you prepared to learn about them.
Fox baiting is illegal and the baiters are despised by hunters for the sole reason that they are cruel and vile people. I think you are mixing up many of the legal and decent country persuits with those carried out by monstrous folk (the sort we are always trying to get the police to sort out but they are too busy eating doughnuts and filling out yesturdays paperwork to attend). You are in effect tarring all with the same brush and there are very big and important details that you are choosing to ignore because it doesn't agree with your indoctrinated views.
Hi Paddydou. With a few exceptions (which should be taken firmly with tongue in cheek) I have tried to remain polite during these discussions, despite unwarranted provocation from various pro hunters. Ive no doubt that Janet is extremely well respected and accomplished (Ive never suggested otherwise), but that doesnt mean I have to unquestioningly accept whatever she posts; after all, I thought this is a discussion forum!
Tell me, which 'big and important details' am I choosing to ignore?
Tell me, which 'big and important details' am I choosing to ignore?
Btw this is not a reply for the benefit of PaulT. For those reading this thread, I would like to make the following observations
The OP is deliberatly using tactics that are aggresive, provocative and inflamatory. When faced with a rational discusion his methodolgy has been to attempt to flame the thread.
I have abstracted the following extracts from PaulTs posts for those that may be tempted to reply to this individual believing that he is actually a genuine poster.
I know his defence to this will be that I am "attempting to close down enlightened discussion"! I will allow other posters to make their own mind up about the truth of this statement from what PaulT has already posted...
The OP is deliberatly using tactics that are aggresive, provocative and inflamatory. When faced with a rational discusion his methodolgy has been to attempt to flame the thread.
I have abstracted the following extracts from PaulTs posts for those that may be tempted to reply to this individual believing that he is actually a genuine poster.
I know his defence to this will be that I am "attempting to close down enlightened discussion"! I will allow other posters to make their own mind up about the truth of this statement from what PaulT has already posted...