Justification

[severnmiles]

Do LACS ever listen?

Yes...to the McCartneys

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I have in the past made an art form out of making statements to highly prejudiced people. It's amazing how it is completely impossible to get them to even recognise what you are saying.

I've been accussed of enjoying killing deer hundreds of times when I've never killed a deer in my life and explain that frequently.

 

[severnmiles]

I have in the past made an art form out of making statements to highly prejudiced people. It's amazing how it is completely impossible to get them to even recognise what you are saying.

I've been accussed of enjoying killing deer hundreds of times when I've never killed a deer in my life and explain that frequently.

F_G, it makes me laugh alot when people call you a murderer and say that you kill deer, do they not understand the concept of flushing?

Just shows how little knowledge they possess.

 

[endymion]

Well there has to be a line. Nature is cruel place and animals often die through starvation and disease. I don't think it's our place to interfere. Where would it stop? To justify that excuse those that hunt foxes would have to go out hunting all kinds of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles - in fact EVERYTHING in the countryside to piously save it from a natural death.

If the injury has been inflicted by man then I feel that man has a duty to rectify it. So if a person inflicts a lethal injury on a fox, if that fox escapes, if that fox goes to ground, if that fox cannot be flushed to guns then the use of dogs will be the best possible thing to do. However, that is a LOT of if's!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"you a murderer " I think they find it hard to cope with people not agreeing with them so they have to characterise them as evil.

I really don't think I'm evil at all. Criminal, maybe, but I'm not actually doing anything wrong at all.

That's another preconception that people have. That crime is wrong. Crime's only wrong when you have sensible laws. If the law is wrong then the crime is right, as is clearly the case with the hunting act.

I, a criminal have the moral high ground.

 

[endymion]

I don't agree with terrierwork. As a 'sport' it's despicable. However, there may be uses for it in a minority of instances but these are not consistant with the current practices of hunting with hounds.

 

[endymion]

Good point but these practices, such as the mass farming of birds, inflict pain and cruelty on millions of animals every year. Where is the outcry from those that shoot? Industry regulators have quietly disagreed then shut-up and no-one at ground level seems to give adamn about sorting it out.

People complain about animals rights groups like LACS but if they can't sort out animal cruelty within their own sport which they themselves say they oppose then what do they expect?

 

[severnmiles]

I don't agree with terrierwork. As a 'sport' it's despicable. However, there may be uses for it in a minority of instances but these are not consistant with the current practices of hunting with hounds.

So you want us to shoot foxes, track them with dogs/hounds but then ignore the fact that they could well starve to death or die from infection/gangrene just because Charlie chose to go to ground injured and you don't agree with terrierwork?

Sensible!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Terriorwork IS a form of hunting with hounds. So is using dogs to track shot animals.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Animals that are starving or diseased generally get picked off by predators, as would foxes if they had any left.

just because I think we should put animals out of their misery doesn't really mean that I think we should start hunting everything does it? I don't understand your logic here.

 

[endymion]

No. I don't think people should hunt foxes at all, shooting OR hunting with hounds. If someone decides to go shooting then the most responsible thing to do is to take dogs to ensure the death of the animal. It's the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

 

[severnmiles]

No. I don't think people should hunt foxes at all, shooting OR hunting with hounds. If someone decides to go shooting then the most responsible thing to do is to take dogs to ensure the death of the animal. It's the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

Well I doubt you'll ever stop hunting alltogether.

So what happens when Tom, Dick and Harry are out shooting with two tracking dogs (lurchers/hounds whatever you wish) and they track the injured fox to an earth?

 

[endymion]

If u want to hunt foxes in order to spare them a natural but cruel death through starvation or disease then why dont you extend that consideration to other animals? Is it just foxes and deer you think we should put out of their misery? Isn't it a strange coincidence that the animals you are so intent on helping are ones used as quarry? Eusthanasia for wildlife is a strange concept!

You are right not to understand the logic of it because it makes no sense. I can understand someone killing a mixi rabbit or a sick fox if they stumble upon one but to claim that they go out every saturday on some kind of mercy mission to help naturally sick and dying foxes out of their misery is crazy.

 

[endymion]

Flush to guns if poss.

 

[severnmiles]

Flush to guns if poss.

That doesn't answer my question...lets try again...

 

[endymion]

......?

 

[severnmiles]

They've flushed to guns, unfortunately a bird flew out as Dick pulled the trigger, one injured fox! Don't worry Wishful and Bluebell are hot on its heels, they've tracked it to an earth....

You have two options...

A) Leave it to die?

B) Enter a terrier?

 

[endymion]

Dick, Wishfull and Bluebell? It's like a b*stardised Enid Blyton story!!.....and I'd love to meet the effeminate terrierboy who named his dogs that, haha

Didn't I already say flush to guns? If not possible then terriers. However, this is a secondary measure for shooting purposes and only would be used in a minority of cases which is different to intentionally inflicting death by dogs as is the case in fox hunting or terrier work on it's own. Remember I'm not pro shooting so I don't agree with any of this, I'm just giving my opinion in a hypothetical worst-case scenario....

.....and I never liked Dick anyway

 

[severnmiles]

Dick, Wishfull and Bluebell? It's like a b*stardised Enid Blyton story!!.....and I'd love to meet the effeminate terrierboy who named his dogs that, haha

Bluebell and Wishfull were hounds :-( Terriers have masculine names!!!

Didn't I already say flush to guns? If not possible then terriers. However, this is a secondary measure for shooting purposes and only would be used in a minority of cases which is different to intentionally inflicting death by dogs as is the case in fox hunting or terrier work on it's own. Remember I'm not pro shooting so I don't agree with any of this, I'm just giving my opinion in a hypothetical worst-case scenario....

.....and I never liked Dick anyway

So you would enter a terrier to be able to flush it from the earth?

 

[severnmiles]

Sorry, getting caught up in the flushing! I meant bolt it from the earth!

 

[endymion]

ah I see! I thought you were already talking about terriers.

Ok so lets say the wounded fox has gone to ground and Dick is there with, er, Grizzle and Nuthouse and the fox is refusing to surface and so shooting is out of the question. If the hunter is confident the wound inflicted would be fatal then I think anyone would agree the fox needs to be dispatched by the quickest means possible. If that happens through the use of terriers then it is the kindest, or to rephrase, not as bad as letting it suffer a long lingering death.

At the end of the day it is still inflicting pain and suffering on an animal for human pleasure and as I stipulated above, I dont agree with any of it and don't think Dicky should be out shooting foxes at all.

 

[severnmiles]

But how can terrierwork be inflicting pain on the fox?

 

[endymion]

U never seen a fox or terrier hurt as a result of terrier work?

 

[severnmiles]

U never seen a fox or terrier hurt as a result of terrier work?

Yes..fox usually ends up dead...that classed as hurt?

 

[endymion]

A lot of the terrierwork I have witnessed has been with the hunt where the fox is bolted to hounds/guns/spade. I've seen a few ripped up terrier muzzles. I would never put my terriers down after a fox for their own welfare. I've also seen the hunt put terriers down a sett once after a fox which is out of order as a badger will take a terriers scalp if it feels like it......and ive seen them shove dogs down old pipes ect

So there's more reasons why i dont like it if the previous ones were not enough for u!

 

[severnmiles]

Yes terriers get a few minor nicks but if you are going to ban every sport that causes a few minor cuts to an animal then you'd better start on NH racing and upper level eventing too. Any minor cuts are treated appropriately.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"but to claim that they go out every saturday on some kind of mercy mission to help naturally sick and dying foxes out of their misery is crazy. "

It would be ridiculous to say the moon is made of cheese, but I haven't said that either.

The 'natural' death for a sick or diseased animal is to be caught and eaten. Weakened foxes in the presence of larger predators would be likely to be killed by them before they died of starvation/wounds/disease. Being killed by a larger animal is a more welfare freindly death than dying of wounds/disease. It is also far more ecologically sound as sick animals spread diseases.

You will not fin sick animals in african herds, because of the lions.

 

[celt]

Now to try and bring this thread back on line (remember the poor pheasants), I am still waiting for someone to try and give a good valid reason for the existence of this so called sport.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Maybe the better thing would be to engage with the reasons that we have given.

Just saying they aren't good reasons and I'm waiting for a good reason isn't really very interactive is it?

 

[celt]

Ok let’s look at one of the reasons put forward in support of shooting reared semi tame pheasants namely that shoots do a great deal of conservation work that assists other forms of wildlife.
Shoots are only concerned about how best to keep the pheasant’s within the boundary of the shoot and to keep all forms of vermin to a minimum, any fringe benefits that may result are on the whole an unintentional by-product. The practice of introducing a large number of any species on to a section of land is completely unnatural; they are semi tame and easy prey for any predator. All natural predators suffer greatly on any shooting ground but it’s a vicious circle isn’t it, you put prey down which encourages predation, you kill said predators thus creating a void for more predators and on and on it goes, so to say that they benefit other wildlife it all depends on what sort of wildlife you are talking about really.
The vast majority of the land within the British Isles is not shot over yet it boast a vast diversity of natural wildlife that has found its balance in nature.