Question for Aegidius_Ahenobarbus

[Paul T]

I was glad to read you're concerned about animal welfare and think shooting is cruel. Perhaps you'd join with me in criticising the millions of pheasants that are bred as living targets and released into the countryside each year?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I certainly think that shooting the deer flushed out by my dogs when there is no reason to except to obey the Hunting Act is deeply cruel and also deeply absurd. It's cruel because it is totally unnecesary given that my intention is merely to disperse the deer, not to kill them.

I will continue to campaign for a sensible law regarding cruelty to wild animals rather than one not based on cruelty but which attempts to enforce the ignorant prejudice of one minority against another minority. The only law I could accept would treat all activities and people equally. All human activities that cause animals to suffer require the same standard of justification.

Why don't you join me in criticising the Government when they claim that flushed out animals must be shot to stop them being flushed out again?

 

[Paul T]

Oh Giles, stop your whittering on for a moment and answer the question, will you join with me in criticising the millions of pheasants that are bred as living targets and released into the countryside each year?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No, because I think on balance pheasant shooting has a positive impact.

However I would support a law that, if it could be shown to be sufficiently cruel and that that cruelty sufficiently outweighed any benefits allowed it to be banned. Provided all other human activities were treated equally.

That would give anybody an opportunity to have cruel activities stopped.

 

[Paul T]

So animal-loving Farmer Giles cares so much about deer that he claims he's prepared to criminalise himself for their welfare, but the welfare of millions of pheasants can go to hell.

How consistent.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"but the welfare of millions of pheasants can go to hell."

Not so, Karl. What I am proposing is a law that would give equal protection to ALL animals against cruelty.

That's not saying animal welfare an go to hell. It's actually suggesting we do something about it.

 

[LACS]

We've had the Moonies - now here's a member of the Loonies.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So LACS thinks that comprehensive animal welfare legislation would be lunatic. How absolutely typical of someone who actually couldn't give a damn about stopping animal cruelty.

I'm off to break the Hunting Act this weekend LACS. There is nothing you can do to stop me. The legislation is idiotic. It was passed by morons.

 

[Paul T]

No, you want a law which would protect bloodsports by not referring to any by name. By not specifying the act, and instead concentrating on the effects on the animal, each jolly jape devised by your friends would have to be tested in court (assuming monitors were allowed access to land to gather evidence, which in most cases they wouldn't be). I'm sure they could think up any number of ways for dogs to be used against foxes, deer, hare and mink - each slightly different than the previous one tested in the courts. The net result would clog the police and courts or (much more likely) lead to a lack of cases due to insufficient resources.

As it stands your mates are trying their hardest to dodge the law, but it's much more straightforward for the courts to determine whether what they were doing is illegal hunting.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So you actually oppose a law against cruelty to animals.

 

[Paul T]

No I don't, I've told you before I believe the Hunting Act would supplement wider legislation aimed at protecting all animals (not just domestic) from cruelty.

 

[LACS]

I've got no problem with an anti-cruelty law. I'd have a big problem with any law of this type which you approved of, given that you don't find the treatment of the stag in the video linked above cruel. In other words, when it comes to talking about preventing cruelty to animals you have no credibility.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

An anti cruelty law wouldn't necessarily allow the practice which is shown in that video.

Any benefots would have to be weighed against the suffering of the animal, just as with vivesection, livestock rearing, rat control etc. etc.

How do you know what I approve of and what I don't.

My main interest is in a sensible equitable law.

It's blindingly obvious that it is is perfectly possible to break the Hunting Act without being cruel at all.

 

[buckybee]

Karl - are you a vegan? I don't like the shooters I know very much, so don't like to stick up for them, but I think given the choice of being a battery hen, a milk cow, a fox or a phesent, I'd pick one of the latter two any day.. What about you? Would you be non of them, but a pretty dove, floating in the sky? thought so.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I can't answer for Karl, but if I was a fox and had to be controlled in some way, I'd definitely go for a little more fox hunting and a lot less snaring, poisioning and shooting.

I'd like to see fox hunting that was as competitive as possible, giving me a good chance of survival until I became old or ill.

I'd be very suspicious of people who thought that once I had been flushed out by a pair of hounds and was escaping it was somehow in my interests to be mown down by a line of guns. Ie The pro shooting League Against Cruel Sports.