Hurrah! I'm not a criminal!

"Why didn't they revamp the laws against cruelty to wild mammals as a whole rather than banning just one activity completely."

I agree with that 100% (well the 1st bit), all animals need to be protected against cruelty BUT if banning 1 activity stops just some of the cruelty then it is a step in the right direction.
 
"BUT if banning 1 activity stops just some of the cruelty then it is a step in the right direction."

But it didn't because hunting is the least cruel way of controlling foxes and other forms of fox control that cause more suffering will inevitably have increased.
 
Are we going to go over this one again?
Do foxes need to be killed? Can't the farmers etc protect their stock in other ways?

"Are we going to go over this one again?"
OK, I won't bother, read my previous posts in other threads on this subjuct to answer all your questions I know you will be thinking (I have heard and answered them all before)
 
"Do foxes need to be killed?"

That seems to me to be the true crux of the question.

If foxes don't need to be killed then the law should prohibit them being killed entirely. If they do need to be killed then it shouldn't.

Assuming the latter it doesn't seem right that one method is banned unless it can be shown to produce considerably more suffering than other methods that remain legal. I read research recently that said that the legal method of shooting foxes with shotguns can wound up to 78% of foxes that are hit and that in fact wounding rates increased as the shooters became more competant. It seems to me that figures like this cast real doubt on wether shooting causes less suffering than hunting.

I think the only arguments for killing foxes are as follows:

1) in instances where they are causing considerable economic damage to agricultural interests.

2) in order to prevent them from suffering due to disease etc.

3) when overpopulation is causing ecological damage to bio diversity or through disease etc.

I also read that in Ireland instead of the Hunting Act they have a law preventing anyone from deliberately causing undue suffering to any animal. I was wondering if you thought such a wide ranging law covering all forms of causing suffering to animals was preferable to the far more restricted one we have over here which you don't even seem to completely agree with.
 
I think the only arguments for killing foxes are as follows:

1) in instances where they are causing considerable economic damage to agricultural interests.

2) in order to prevent them from suffering due to disease etc.

3) when overpopulation is causing ecological damage to bio diversity or through disease etc.

OK, quick answers.
1) Why do we (humans) care more about money than an animals life?
2) Animals get sick, they either recover or they die, natural selection.
3) Animal population will grow if there is enough food, if there is not enough the weakest die, protect you stock and let the wild animals get on with it.


You are right in saying I don't agree with the Hunting Act, it doesn't go far enough to protect the animals.
All cruelty to animals caused by human intevention (Including setting hounds on them) should be stopped.
"a law preventing anyone from deliberately causing undue suffering to any animal." still does not go far enough as some say hunting with hounds does not cause undue suffering, we (humans) always seem to know what is best for animals, wild animals should be allowed to live wild without being killed, chased, flushed or abused.
 
"we (humans) always seem to know what is best for animals,"

You (wrighty) always seem to know what is best for animals.

"Animals get sick, they either recover or they die, natural selection."

Animals get sick, they either recover or are killed, natural selection.

"3) Animal population will grow if there is enough food"

And in the absence of a natural predator they will grow to the extent that they sytart to exhaust there food supply. With animals like deer in the absense of culling this would cause massive ecological damage, loss of bio diversity as well as unnacceptable amounts of suffering to the deer themselves.

"wild animals should be allowed to live wild without being killed, chased, flushed or abused. "

Do you have any practical suggestions for taking dogs out without flushing out wild mammals? Do you think it is cruel to do so?

What about rats? Do you think that they should be allowed to multiply until they exhaust there food supply?
 
"What about rats? Do you think that they should be allowed to multiply until they exhaust there food supply?"

Doubtful many would think this - all that plague nonsense back in 1665 put paid to those little rascals having carte blanche! *winks*
 
"What about rats? Do you think that they should be allowed to multiply until they exhaust there food supply?"

There are so many rats because we are dirty animals who leave so much around for them to eat, if we were cleaner there would be less rats. (Now the comments about keeping rats out of farms etc etc etc.)
 
Wrighty. You claim that you would never buy petrol from a petrol station that sold any meat products that were either non local or not free range. When you go on a journey that requires you to fill up your tank how do you manage this logistically? Do you plan your route to only take in welfare friendly petrol stations?

I reckon you are telling fibby winkies! ;)
 
A friend of mine was out walking on Exmoor yesterday and let his dog chase a deer, which easily outpaced it. Scarcely had he done this when a dozen SAS soldiers jumped out of the undergrowth, bound my friend's hands, shoved a firework up his backside and lit it with a slow-burning fuse. They then told him there was a stream ten minutes' run away and if he really went for it he might be able to put the fuse out in the water. As my poor mate started galloping away one of them shouted: "That'll teach you for breaking the law. Next time it'll be Guantanimo Bay!"
 
For all that you try and belittle it, people who chase deer and other wild mammals with dogs are criminals. It is very important that they are bought to book. People cannot be allowed to break the law in this manner.
 
What is perfectly clear is that whereas YOU do not take the issue of animal cruelty seriously WE and the Government do. People that chase wild mammals with dogs should be arrested and fined under the Hunting Act. They cannot be allowed to break the law.
 
"You are not funny Basil. This law should be taken seriously. We will not stop till all chasing of wild mammals by dogs stops."

Laws should be taken seriously - but surely only ones which make sense? If Laws make no sense to people, then living in a democracy allows the public to challenge these Laws. Laws are made and changed - this Law is one which many many people believe should be altered as it makes little or no sense.

As it was mentioned previously, Bounce_back; how do you feel about dogs ratting? Should anyone who has dogs stop their dogs from chasing and killing rats?
 
I oppose using dogs to hunt rats for the following reasons:

a) It offers an opportunity of pleasure for the participants.

b) As Wrighty quite rightly says rats only pose a problem because of the existence of humans.

c) It is a far less efficient method of killing rats than the large scale use of powerful pesticides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top