RIP Socks

MisterMole

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
56
Visit site
"Bert is a lovely and affectionate dog but terriers were bred to catch rats, rabbits and similar animals."

In other words, the breed is man-made and artificial - just like fox hounds.
 

severnmiles

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 November 2005
Messages
10,261
Visit site
Sweetheart dogs kill, its their instinct. Deal with it.

What excuse do you make for my two GSD's who go crazy after rats? They weren't 'bred for it'!
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
In other words, the breed is man-made and artificial - just like fox hounds, all other domestic dogs cats, cows, sheep, chickens, geese, goats, horses, ponies,
etc.
 

MisterMole

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
56
Visit site
But I don't have to make an excuse. They're dogs: that's what they do. The problem about "excuses" only occurs when the killing is carried out or caused by humans. In those circumstances I feel we owe a duty of care to the animals which are culled. In other words, we should kill them in the most humane way possible.

At this point I start to disagree with you and your pals Aegit and Tom and Claire. The four of you insist that the most humane way to kill a deer is to chase it for seven or eight hours until exhaustion forces it to stop and then shoot it. I, on the other hand, believe that it should just be shot (with dogs on hand to track it if it escapes injured).

It is on this vital and deeply significant point of divergence that all four you have refused to enter into a debate.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
Persi=onally I'd rather see lots of people expending a lot of effort on killing fewer deer.

I'd like to see them do it in public.

I also think there are benefits to the deer population if it is a quarry rather than a pest.
 

MisterMole

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
56
Visit site
Why do you think it's more humane to chase a deer for seven/eight hours and shoot it when it's exhausted, as opposed simply to shooting it?
 

severnmiles

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 November 2005
Messages
10,261
Visit site
Why? Humans are animals, its what we've evolved from. Don't forget your roots :)

Take a look out of your city flat window of a Saturday night, are the alchohol filled plonkers acting like animals?

As for the Deer theory, I've not passed comment so don't presume.

Would you prefer the D&SSH to adopt the LACS's method earlier this year?
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
"Why do you think it's more humane to chase a deer for seven/eight hours and shoot it when it's exhausted, as opposed simply to shooting it? "

As I've said I'm not sure it is necessarily more humane.

There might be situations however where it is more practical to flush out deer with dogs. Dogs also have a useful role in dispersing deer which is now illegal even if the deer aren't killed.

My position is that if Hunting is to be regulated on the basis of animal cruelty then such a regulation should apply equally to all human activities. Hunting should not be singled out. I have the impression that your interest is mainly in getting at 'the hunting fraternity' who you obviously despise. To a large extent it is attitudes like yours which I perceive to be highly narrow mided and prejudiced that have driven me and I suspect many others to favour the 'pro' side of the argument.

With respect to deer my view is that the status quo is preferable to a situation where the population get's out of control, either by over or under population. Don't forget that it is the 'hunting fraternity' who shoot them as well.

If red deer become a pest rather than a quarry they could be decimated on Exmoor.

Deer control is not regulated. There's nothing to stop large landowners taking all of the deer out on their estates.

With respect to fox hunting I beleve that it naturally selects weakened animals, mirroring natural selection and therefore helps to keep the population healthy.

It is often argued that Hunting is not 'efficient ' enough. That's why I favour it, it takes more time, more people and kills less animals. I think it is a good thing that communities can be involved as a whole in the process of controlling animals rather than just 'specialists' who pull the trigger.
 

MisterMole

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
56
Visit site
"Dogs also have a useful role in dispersing deer which is now illegal even if the deer aren't killed."

From the Burns report:

"5.63 It is also commonly argued that a secondary contribution made by the hunts to deer management is in dispersing groups of red deer which may be causing particular problems to a farmer or landowner.[295] However, census work and observation of deer suggest that any dispersal effect is only very temporary, although this may be affected by the frequency of disturbance and the extent of nearby cover."

Why are you so fanatically in favour of a type of hunting which you don't appear to think is the most humane way to kill the creature?
 

wurzel

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 November 2005
Messages
695
Location
Robbers Bridge, Exmore Forest
Visit site
Believe me, the hunt disperse the deer.

We tolerate the deer because we enjoy hunting.

I could, in theory, shoot every one that comes on my land.

But I quite like to see some. Just not 50-60 in a field.

Hunting means I tolerate the deer.

If we just want to talk efficiency.......shoot the lot of them !!!
 

Polkadot

Member
Joined
23 November 2005
Messages
16
Location
South Scotland
Visit site
The breed is man made and artificial? Aren't they all? But at least some inherit at least the characteristics that a dog should have and arent furry handbag accessories, now that is man made and artificial. Soz to anyone with furry accessories just making a point.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
"Why are you so fanatically in favour of a type of hunting which you don't appear to think is the most humane way to kill the creature? "

If I'm fanatically in favour of anything it's for a law that safeguards animal welfare interests against all human activities equally.

As I have also stated above deer hunting may well have benefits for the herd as a whole, fox hunting definitely does. What can harm the welfare of one animal can benefit the species and the environment as a whole.

I am against singling out one particular group of people.

As the Burns report quote states, my activities are effective because they regularly disperse deer. They are illegal but not cruel.

The only legislation I could accept would prohibit activities on the grounds of cruelty. Hunts as well as all other activities would have to justify themselves under such legislation.

The Hunting Act is an unjust law.

My neighbour shot forty foxes last year, no doubt several of these died horrible agonizing deaths from their wounds. I didn't kill any deer. What he does is perfectly legal, what I do is totally illegal. What I do does not causze animals pain, what he does causes great pain. The law is an ass, it is not based on animal welfare or cruelty.
 

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,776
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
A further point is that I would very much like the Stag hounds to be legally allowed NOT to shoot some of the deer they flush out as soon as possible. As you know they are currently obeying the law by following them up and shooting them as soon as they get them to stand still.

It used to be a feature of stag hunting that they could choose to let certain specimens go.
 

MisterMole

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 August 2006
Messages
56
Visit site
The bottom line is whether you agree with me (and most other people) that if an animal has to be culled, it should be killed in the most humane way possible.

By supporting staghunting, you - and indeed Tom, severnmiles, Claire etc. - obviously do NOT agree with this. It is this which divides us.

As for your other points:

1. You say: "The only legislation I could accept would prohibit activities on the grounds of cruelty." Yet you support staghunting which you concede is not the most humane way to kill the creatures! Even Tom says it's "cruel".

2. You say: "As the Burns report quote states, my activities are effective because they regularly disperse deer." What Burns actually concluded is paragraph 5.63 is that the dispersal effect of hunting is "only very temporary".

3. You say: "As I have also stated above deer hunting may well have benefits for the herd as a whole." (I note the equivocal "may well have".) But 85% of deer culled in staghunting country are stalked and shot. Burns states: "As already noted, shooting/stalking is by far the most important method used to reduce red deer numbers in England and Wales, as in the rest of Europe,[298] and accounts for the great majority of deer killed in the staghunting area." Why not attribute the state of the herd to this far more widely-used form of culling?

4. You say: "What I do does not causze animals pain." This is a moot point, but let's accept it. The fact remains, though, that you fanatically support a form of hunting which does cause animals pain.
 

severnmiles

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 November 2005
Messages
10,261
Visit site
They aren't bred to kill rats. Maybe to guard and work as sniffer dogs. She'll even chase a fox if she see's one, she's far to heavily boned to ever be quick enough to catch one though.
 
Top