LACS
Well-Known Member
silly little girl, you might want to come up with some better insult than "nonce".
Random...
- Thread starter endymion
- Start date
LACS
Well-Known Member
"My OH is also a terrierman. He has never baited a fox."
Terrierwork IS baiting. It's setting one animal onto another.
Terrierwork IS baiting. It's setting one animal onto another.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
IMO baiting would be immobilising/injuring the animal so it can't get away and leaving it to fight it out.
Hercules
Well-Known Member
LACS,
In accordance with your flawed reasoning, boxing, most forms of martial arts and wrestling are therefore considered baiting.
You must feel incredibly bitter that after 80 fruitless years of lies, terrier work has still not been banned.
In accordance with your flawed reasoning, boxing, most forms of martial arts and wrestling are therefore considered baiting.
You must feel incredibly bitter that after 80 fruitless years of lies, terrier work has still not been banned.
LACS
Well-Known Member
Wrong again - many aspects of terrierwork have been banned. For example, you commit an offence if you use more than one dog or don't have permission. But given the nature of the activity (i.e. in secluded areas) and, more to the point, the unpleasant recidivist nature of the people who do this, it's always likely to carry on despite the legislation. Similarly, dog fighting and badger baiting (ALWAYS carried out by terriermen) still goes on - doesn't mean it was wrong to outlaw them.
allijudd
Well-Known Member
LACS, it would be nice to have your views on my question to you regarding WW2. My point will become clear shortly, and no I am not going to criticise your pont of view, yopu are intitled to what ever views you may have. But an answer would be good.
LACS
Well-Known Member
WW2? I think WW2 was a bad thing.
Hercules
Well-Known Member
LACS,
I am fully aware of the limitations currently placed on terrierwork, however terrierwork has NOT been banned.
More sweeping generalisations.
Dog fighting and badger baiting were always carried out by people who owned terriers, but not necessarily terriermen. Due to the nature of the activity, that is obvious.
My next door neighbour is a 75 year old woman who owns two terriers. Would you class her as a terrierman?
I suggest that you think before you type. Your bitterness and ignorance is clearly clouding your reasoning.
I am fully aware of the limitations currently placed on terrierwork, however terrierwork has NOT been banned.
More sweeping generalisations.
Dog fighting and badger baiting were always carried out by people who owned terriers, but not necessarily terriermen. Due to the nature of the activity, that is obvious.
My next door neighbour is a 75 year old woman who owns two terriers. Would you class her as a terrierman?
I suggest that you think before you type. Your bitterness and ignorance is clearly clouding your reasoning.
allijudd
Well-Known Member
I agree WW2 was bad, and is what happens when a government decides to take away freedom from people (albeit on a HUGE scale). But my point is this...... hundreds of thousands of british men and women fought and died for their belief that we a free and our freedom must be defended. 58% of people polled believe hunting should continue..... but it was banned because of the minority of people (MP's generally) who dont understand the countryside wnated to ban it. If it was such an acceptable proposal why was the parliment act used to get the bill through? Even though Lords was created as a safeguard against laws which are either unjust or not in the country's interest.
My point is this: The views of the MINORITY should NEVER be put above the views of the MAJORITY. I think it is disrespectfull to all the people who died to protect our freedom, and if they could see what was happening in Britain today,i bet they would wonder wether the fight was worth it. I doubt it, but then respect is something this country is not well known for, especially when it concerns the majority on any subject.
My point is this: The views of the MINORITY should NEVER be put above the views of the MAJORITY. I think it is disrespectfull to all the people who died to protect our freedom, and if they could see what was happening in Britain today,i bet they would wonder wether the fight was worth it. I doubt it, but then respect is something this country is not well known for, especially when it concerns the majority on any subject.
LACS
Well-Known Member
Aspects of terrierwork have been banned. If you don't have the necessary permission, for example, it's banned. Due to the sort of people who become terriermen it's certain that illegal terrierwork is still being carried out. Carreg hides his forum from the public so that the members there can't openly incriminate themselves. Same goes for other hunting sites like huntinglife.
If a person uses his terriers to kill foxes he's a terrierman. Every single person convicted of badger-related offences during the last 20 years has been a terrierman. Same goes for dog-fighting.
If your neighbour doesn't use her dogs to kill foxes, I think it's safe to say that she's not a "terrierman".
If a person uses his terriers to kill foxes he's a terrierman. Every single person convicted of badger-related offences during the last 20 years has been a terrierman. Same goes for dog-fighting.
If your neighbour doesn't use her dogs to kill foxes, I think it's safe to say that she's not a "terrierman".
allijudd
Well-Known Member
LACS do you class flying a bird of prey as baiting? I mean deliberately setting an animal to seek out and kill another? That is your defination of baiting is it not?
Paul T
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't have thought that would be baiting. According to the online Encyclopaedia Britannica bait is: "to harass (as a chained animal) with dogs usually for sport b : to attack by biting and tearing."
Not only would terrierwork fit this description, but aspects of hunting (pre ban) would as well.
Not only would terrierwork fit this description, but aspects of hunting (pre ban) would as well.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
Wheres Endy gone? Turns up, opens a can of worms, vanishes. There never was a reliable anti...lol!
allijudd
Well-Known Member
And how doea a Bird of prey kill????
Oh by tearing and biting. How else can they kill anything? By looking at it?
By your definition allowing a bird of prey to hunt ( which is what it does naturally) its baiting. Are you suggesting that millenia of evolution of these birds is now wrong because the "superior intellect of the human race" says so. I dont. Check your arguments they are still very very flawed.
Oh by tearing and biting. How else can they kill anything? By looking at it?
By your definition allowing a bird of prey to hunt ( which is what it does naturally) its baiting. Are you suggesting that millenia of evolution of these birds is now wrong because the "superior intellect of the human race" says so. I dont. Check your arguments they are still very very flawed.
Hercules
Well-Known Member
I would be suprised if you could find any wild carnivore which does not attack by biting and tearing.
More ridiculous comments from the misguided.
More ridiculous comments from the misguided.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
I didn't know humans played a part in setting wild carnivores on other animals in nature.
More obtuse comments from the bumpkin brigade.
More obtuse comments from the bumpkin brigade.
allijudd
Well-Known Member
So no one who keeps and flies BOP (ie a falconner) has ever set a wild carnivore on another? Good job you dont live in Dubai, disagreeing with the roay family could be a mistake. But then I suppose all lords and royalty through the ages from about the 12th centure are all totally wrong?????
I think a seive has more chance of holding water than your argument at the moment.
I think a seive has more chance of holding water than your argument at the moment.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
The usual use of the word 'bait' implies confinement in some way (ie when a fox is confined in its blocked earth or cubs are confined within a covert during cubbing). Not sure many quarry species in faconry are confined but if you're happy to make the case for falconry=baiting I'm game.
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
allij
re your earlier post... I think the stats on whether a majority support hunting are unreliable and the outcome of any survey very much depends on what question you ask.
If you ask the question 'do you support hunting' a majority of UK public would say no (as previous surveys have proven), as in its not something they'd ever want to do themselves.
But if the question is 'do you support a hunting ban' the outcome seems to be a narrow majority say no, some because of civil liberties but most just because they believe there are more important uses of the law, police and parliament time.
re your earlier post... I think the stats on whether a majority support hunting are unreliable and the outcome of any survey very much depends on what question you ask.
If you ask the question 'do you support hunting' a majority of UK public would say no (as previous surveys have proven), as in its not something they'd ever want to do themselves.
But if the question is 'do you support a hunting ban' the outcome seems to be a narrow majority say no, some because of civil liberties but most just because they believe there are more important uses of the law, police and parliament time.
LACS
Well-Known Member
allij, I respect your general point about men and women dying for freedom in WW2, but I'm afraid that if you live in a society part of the cost of that is that the society restricts your freedom on almost every level. (In fact only in a dictatorship can you find anything approaching unfettered freedom and that's only enjoyed by the dictator.) That's why there are restrictions on drink driving, or speeding. There's legislation prohibiting animal cruelty. I see the Hunting Act as an extension of that legislation. If you disagree you can campaign to have the Act removed: that's how democracy works.
This democracy doesn't operate on the basis of polls (and I could cite a number of polls which indicate an overwhelming majority of people opposed to hunting with hounds) but through Parliament.
I would have preferred the House of Lords to approve the Hunting Bill, but given that they rejected it three times the Speaker had every right to invoke the Parliament Act to see that the will of the only elected chamber was followed. I think it's a going a bit too far to see this as an afront to the freedom fought for by WW2 heroes. The Act has only been used five times, four times in recent years. On one occasion it was invoked to repeal Section 28 and bring equality to age of consent for gays - hardly the sacred territory of the Nazis; on another it was used to pass the War Crimes Act 1991.
This democracy doesn't operate on the basis of polls (and I could cite a number of polls which indicate an overwhelming majority of people opposed to hunting with hounds) but through Parliament.
I would have preferred the House of Lords to approve the Hunting Bill, but given that they rejected it three times the Speaker had every right to invoke the Parliament Act to see that the will of the only elected chamber was followed. I think it's a going a bit too far to see this as an afront to the freedom fought for by WW2 heroes. The Act has only been used five times, four times in recent years. On one occasion it was invoked to repeal Section 28 and bring equality to age of consent for gays - hardly the sacred territory of the Nazis; on another it was used to pass the War Crimes Act 1991.
Paul T
Well-Known Member
I assume Hercules was referring to nature where a carnivore hunts down its prey, it an attempt to challenge the Encyclopaedia Brittanica defintion of 'bait', which is why I responded in the way I did - I'm not sure the word has any meaning without human involvement.
Anyway, not too sure about your point. I thought falconry was the 'sporting art of flying trained birds of prey at quarry in its natural state and habitat.' If they're trained they can hardly be wild.
Anyway, not too sure about your point. I thought falconry was the 'sporting art of flying trained birds of prey at quarry in its natural state and habitat.' If they're trained they can hardly be wild.
allijudd
Well-Known Member
You mention drink driving and speeding..... both carry serious risk to HUMAN life. I am well aware of the limitations placed on members of society, not saying that some are not reasonable, but some are unreasonable. I have a right to protect my crops and livestock, and I own a rifle but it doesn't mean I am a good shot. For your info I am a good shot but there are people who are not. Personally I think a gun in the hands of a poor shot is far more dangerous and cruel than any pack of hounds. Restrictions on society are acceptable to reduce harm or death to humans, but the welfare of an animal should not be put above that of a human.
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
"But then I suppose all lords and royalty through the ages from about the 12th centure are all totally wrong?????"
They also executed wives, cousins, children, subjugated their subjects, stole, raped and pillaged - not good role models or people to base value judgments on at all
They also executed wives, cousins, children, subjugated their subjects, stole, raped and pillaged - not good role models or people to base value judgments on at all
allijudd
Well-Known Member
I forgot to ask LACS, do you eat fish?
LACS
Well-Known Member
"Restrictions on society are acceptable to reduce harm or death to humans"
So outside these conditions you don't agree with restrictions? You don't agree with laws prohibiting the sale of watered-down beer? It's hardly likely to cause harm or death to humans. How about restrictions on Sunday opening hours?
So outside these conditions you don't agree with restrictions? You don't agree with laws prohibiting the sale of watered-down beer? It's hardly likely to cause harm or death to humans. How about restrictions on Sunday opening hours?
allijudd
Well-Known Member
Maybe they did and maybe they didnt, but the figures from teh past made this country and the world the way it is today. Their actions have helped create some of the laws in force today, so their actions have, in some aspects, had a positive impact on society today.
LACS
Well-Known Member
I'd prefer not to discuss my sex life here.
allijudd
Well-Known Member
I dont drink alcohol so i couldnt care less about watered down beer, I would prefer market forces prevail with regards to opening hours. If the public want to shop on a Sunday then, if the shops want to, let them open.
What has eating got to do with your sex life???
What has eating got to do with your sex life???
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
"Maybe they did and maybe they didnt, but the figures from teh past made this country and the world the way it is today. Their actions have helped create some of the laws in force today, so their actions have, in some aspects, had a positive impact on society today"
Sadly what our royalty and aristocracy have done in the past isn't in question. Yes some of our history has a positive affect on the modern world but there's a much that has had a very negative affect. Colonialism for one is the direct cause of a huge amount of suffering in the world today - from Africa to the Middle East. The Great in Great Britain is historically very tainted...
Sadly what our royalty and aristocracy have done in the past isn't in question. Yes some of our history has a positive affect on the modern world but there's a much that has had a very negative affect. Colonialism for one is the direct cause of a huge amount of suffering in the world today - from Africa to the Middle East. The Great in Great Britain is historically very tainted...
LACS
Well-Known Member
How about selling bottled water which advertises itself as coming from a spa whereas it's just tap water?