RSPCA originally formed by pro hunt Conservative MP

Lizzie66 said:
You're right it is cruel but unfortunately that is what the Hunting Act allows. The more humane way is banned !
Click to expand...

Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO :mad: I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!
 
Nancykitt said:
Oh, right, sorry, I didn't realise we were going through a 'bedding in period'.
By 'daft loopholes', do you mean that the shooting, trapping, snaring and killing of foxes with birds of prey will be banned? Really??

I'm very surprised that even people like you can't see that to trap a fox - to take away its ability to run - is incredibly cruel. Yet how are the urban foxes to be controlled if trapping/caging is made illegal? Fox control is not just about the countryside.
Click to expand...

I think a Labour government will at least ban the use of birds and now trail hunting ( Avon Vale Hunt next victim of the RSPCA, no video evidence needed).
Yes you would of course happily release a fox from a trap so you could chase it with dogs no doubt :rolleyes: However many,many urban foxes are actually shot free running.
 
Nancykitt said:
Hang on, are you seriously suggesting that there are hunts taking out falconers with their birds of prey as some sort of cover-up exercise when actually they are killing foxes with hounds???

Your evidence, please? I can't think of one falconer who would consent to such a thing.
Click to expand...

One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.
 
SarahColeman said:
Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO :mad: I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!
Click to expand...

Which is why our professional falconer uses a knife to finish the deed rather than leaving it to the eagle.

The absurd loopholes in this law brings us back to the real reasons behind the passing of the Act. It has nothing to do with animal welfare and making a judgement that it is always wrong to kill foxes and other quarry with hounds or by other methods (the law after all allows 2 hounds to be used to catch quarry and also allows a variety of other methods). It was all about attacking people who hunt based on a completely false perception of the type of people who go hunting. The exemptions when examined carefully have been designed so as not to affect falconry or types of shooting activity such as shooting grouse over pointers.

That is why I have so many issues with the Hunting Act being allowed to remain on the statute books. If this act had anything to do with animal welfare then why is it okay to hunt rats and rabbits with hounds but not okay to hunt hare, deer and fox? Why is the American mink not exempt from the Act given the amount of damage it does to our native wildlife? Why is there no exemption for the deer casualty service on Exmoor to use more than 2 hounds so the injured deer can be found quicker and put down.

No wonder platitudes from the Antis about the Act being all about improving the welfare of animals is so sickening to hear when any fool can see that the life of no animal has been improved by the passing of this law.
 
Moomin1 said:
From what I read, he wasn't even on hunt land when the accident happened. The hunt supporter tracked him down.
Click to expand...

Morse chased him to the airport, frightening his passenger with his driving and aggressive manner. When angrily confronting the 'aircraft', Morse's passenger who had accompanied him onto private land backed away fearing trouble. Morse was warned many times to move away from the vehicle and stop preventing it from escaping him but he refused to move and stayed on his mobile phone ( recruiting others no doubt). How he died is also known and it was his own actions which followed that led to his sad death.
 
SarahColeman said:
One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.
Click to expand...

And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.
 
Alec Swan said:
Just a small point for you; He was "found" to be not guilty, there's a world of difference between that, and in "fact" being not guilty.

The pilot feared for his life, and through his stupidity, ignorance and negligence, he killed a man? Through his wanton use of an aircraft, another died, and he wasn't responsible? Whilst the Court wasn't able to "find" him guilty, are you honestly going to tell me that he wasn't responsible for the death of a complete innocent?

As with most of the rabid anti hunting campaigners, I'd suggest that a session with a psychiatrist may well be of benefit. ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.
 
combat_claire said:
And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.
Click to expand...

You and he should be ashamed of yourselves killing a fox in such a way but you are obviously not. Don't tell me. the law forces you to do this?! :rolleyes:
 
SarahColeman said:
One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey to hunt within a loophole is NOT a falconer nor welcome by real falconers. Any evidence of illegal hunting is a matter for the relevant authorities not a public forum.
Click to expand...

I'm speechless, really I am.
'One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey' - you talk about this as though it's no bigger a deal than getting a goldfish!!! To keep a golden eagle or eagle owl takes a fantastically experienced and skilful falconer. Falconry is an incredibly time consuming hobby, even keeping a relatively 'easy' bird as a hunter, such as a Harris Hawk, takes hours and hours of skill and devotion. Keeping a bird big enough to kill a fox is a matter for serious professional falconers, not 'one bloke from the hunt'.

I'm also intrigued by your comment about urban foxes being shot 'free running'. Really? I do know someone who regularly dispatches urban foxes and not one has been shot 'free running' - presumably you mean with a rifle? - due to the obvious potential to kill a human being. Even a .22 will wipe someone out, and at quite a distance. What you don't have is people running around housing estates with rifles firing free bullets at foxes!

Janet George is most certainly not a blatant liar but a hugely experienced horsewoman who knows her stuff.
Combat_Claire, you put it beautifully.
 
SarahColeman said:
Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.
Click to expand...

You are a piece of work, you really are.

You've never been near a hunt have you? All you have is Google and some Facebook 'friends'.

So obsessed are you with your second-hand, misinformed, oft-repeated, propaganda that you really can't see the wood for the trees.

I suspect that you don't have a clue what's happening with the RSPCA so it's pointless discussing it with you, or anything else for that matter.
 
If you notice, they answer every single post, usually with wild accusations.

Equally, as proven in their ability to argue with most posts, they clearly can't have much of a life either lol..
 
combat_claire said:
And as I keep telling you our falconer is a professional falconer of many years standing who was employed by us following the passing of the Act to use a Golden Eagle as purchased by the hunt.
Click to expand...

As I will keep telling you a fox is too big for an eagle to kill and a fox is not natural prey for a bird of prey. Your hunt is ignoring/accepting cruelty merely to continue using hounds to hunt with. The sooner this barbaric loophole is closed and you lot are stopped the better.
 
SarahColeman said:
As I will keep telling you a fox is too big for an eagle to kill and a fox is not natural prey for a bird of prey. Your hunt is ignoring/accepting cruelty merely to continue using hounds to hunt with. The sooner this barbaric loophole is closed and you lot are stopped the better.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to look it up on Youtube and see the videos? No, thought not! A golden eagle has a 6' wing span and talons bigger than my hand. It is capable of catching and killing a fox in the wild and as part of organised falconry activity. We have taken measures to ensure that the kill is as humane as is possible. It has been practised for centuries in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.

Remember it wasn't us that campaigned for this abortion of a law. As the famous folk song goes 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'. Ye Gods we have been proved right on that score...
 
Nancykitt said:
I'm speechless, really I am.
'One bloke from the hunt taking on a bird of prey' - you talk about this as though it's no bigger a deal than getting a goldfish!!! To keep a golden eagle or eagle owl takes a fantastically experienced and skilful falconer. Falconry is an incredibly time consuming hobby, even keeping a relatively 'easy' bird as a hunter, such as a Harris Hawk, takes hours and hours of skill and devotion. Keeping a bird big enough to kill a fox is a matter for serious professional falconers, not 'one bloke from the hunt'.

I'm also intrigued by your comment about urban foxes being shot 'free running'. Really? I do know someone who regularly dispatches urban foxes and not one has been shot 'free running' - presumably you mean with a rifle? - due to the obvious potential to kill a human being. Even a .22 will wipe someone out, and at quite a distance. What you don't have is people running around housing estates with rifles firing free bullets at foxes!

Janet George is most certainly not a blatant liar but a hugely experienced horsewoman who knows her stuff.
Combat_Claire, you put it beautifully.
Click to expand...

You are not speechless you are merely ignorant. The very issue addressed by the Hawk Board was that any old bloke from the hunts was going on a little training course and the hunts would buy a bird of prey to get around the hunting ban. Jim Chick, chairman of the Hawk Board said "This is bringing the sport into disrepute,"

Now you are intrigued about shooting urban foxes with a rifle. It is done on a regular basis, they even made an interesting TV programe about one such marksman not so long ago. Oh, and Janet George might be great on a horse rider but is a liar according to her posts.
 
Fellewell said:
You are a piece of work, you really are.

You've never been near a hunt have you? All you have is Google and some Facebook 'friends'.

So obsessed are you with your second-hand, misinformed, oft-repeated, propaganda that you really can't see the wood for the trees.

I suspect that you don't have a clue what's happening with the RSPCA so it's pointless discussing it with you, or anything else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Do not start with the insults already! Facebook would not be my cup of tea I suspect and I am more than very close to my local hunt and its members thank you. YOU obviously can not argue with the points raised so resort to a personal attack. I certainly know enough to combat any false allegations about the RSPCA so if you care to actually post on topic for once I will happily deal with any issues you raise?
 
combat_claire said:
Did you bother to look it up on Youtube and see the videos? No, thought not! A golden eagle has a 6' wing span and talons bigger than my hand. It is capable of catching and killing a fox in the wild and as part of organised falconry activity. We have taken measures to ensure that the kill is as humane as is possible. It has been practised for centuries in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.

Remember it wasn't us that campaigned for this abortion of a law. As the famous folk song goes 'they will only end up breaking what they do not understand'. Ye Gods we have been proved right on that score...
Click to expand...

Well we can always rely on those in Kazakhstan and central Asia to be humane ( have you listened to yourself Claire??). And like I suspected, last paragraph consists of 'they make us do it'. All you prove is what those against you always claimed!
 
SarahColeman said:
Just because something is presently legal it does not mean any of us are forced to take part in the activity. Anybody who uses or watches/encourages the use of birds to kill foxes has serious issues IMHO :mad: I would never kill any animal inhumanely whether I could or not!
Click to expand...

What I was trying to get across (note to self spell it out rather than assume that other person can connect threads) is that the hunting act is not an animal welfare piece of legislation. It does not improve animal welfare, in fact it specifically allows hunting in less humane methods than were previously practiced.

The RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation, any prosecutions that it brings should be in relation to animal welfare. At the time of the Burns report the RSPCA believed the scientific evidence showed that hunting foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. It supported the drafting of legislation to protect animal welfare with regard to hunting with hounds, it did not support the hunting act. The RSPCA has now changed its stance, it has changed it purely because the people at the top have changed and those people have a different outlook, it does not have any further evidence to support the change in its stance.

Their prosecution of the Heythrop hunt was not related to animal welfare. It was to gain publicity at great expense by bullying people into pleading guilty to a minor offence, the risk of the Heythrop losing was small but the cost of defending would have been great, whatever the verdict.

There are at least two former executive directors of LACS that whilst investigating hunting, came to the conclusion that although they personally found it abhorrent that people got enjoyment out of hunting and then killing a fox, that the actual act of hunting foxes with hounds was more humane than most other methods.

I respect their views and them as they looked at the facts, they didn't like hunting and would never partake, but they did look at the evidence and make a decision based upon it.

I respect your right to hold a view but I do not respect the vile diatribe and insults that you are peddling on this forum.
 
SarahColeman said:
Just a small point. If the hunt had not planned to 'get the pilot'. If Morse had not followed the copter. If Morse had not trespassed on the airfield. If Morse had not charged toward the grounded copter. If Morse had not stood right at the nose of the copter. There are a lot of if's before the poor pilot is even involved.
Click to expand...

How much "Planning" do you think was possible? The pilot landed, he was approached by a hunt supporter, he panicked, without need, and he killed an entirely innocent man.

"The Poor Pilot"? Are you being serious? Through his rank stupidity, his ignorance and his lack of care and attention, he will carry the death of an innocent man with him, for the rest of his days. If he doesn't, then he should.

Mind you, if he is as ignorant and displays the lack of caring which the rest of your curious bunch seem to do, then he probably couldn't care less. Justifying the pilots actions, and vindicating him, as you are, displays a level of inhumanity which has parallels, but rarely in this country. To glibly claim that the pilot was not at fault sets you apart from the average human being. You really are an embarrassment. I'd suggest that you should be ashamed, but I'd doubt that you'd understand the concept of shame.

As an aside, is CAA authority needed for those who fly gyrocopters? Does anyone know?

Alec.
 
Last edited:
SarahColeman said:
As much as I hate to say this Janet George is a blatant liar and is choosing to mislead this forum.

.......
Click to expand...

You are quite wrong on both counts, and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice. I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected, on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational, and your argument ever more laughable. Being offensive and clearly disturbed, is no way to debate. I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. ;)

Alec.
 
Lizzie66 said:
What I was trying to get across (note to self spell it out rather than assume that other person can connect threads) is that the hunting act is not an animal welfare piece of legislation. It does not improve animal welfare, in fact it specifically allows hunting in less humane methods than were previously practiced.

The RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation, any prosecutions that it brings should be in relation to animal welfare. At the time of the Burns report the RSPCA believed the scientific evidence showed that hunting foxes with hounds was less cruel than the majority of other methods. It supported the drafting of legislation to protect animal welfare with regard to hunting with hounds, it did not support the hunting act. The RSPCA has now changed its stance, it has changed it purely because the people at the top have changed and those people have a different outlook, it does not have any further evidence to support the change in its stance.

Their prosecution of the Heythrop hunt was not related to animal welfare. It was to gain publicity at great expense by bullying people into pleading guilty to a minor offence, the risk of the Heythrop losing was small but the cost of defending would have been great, whatever the verdict.

There are at least two former executive directors of LACS that whilst investigating hunting, came to the conclusion that although they personally found it abhorrent that people got enjoyment out of hunting and then killing a fox, that the actual act of hunting foxes with hounds was more humane than most other methods.

I respect their views and them as they looked at the facts, they didn't like hunting and would never partake, but they did look at the evidence and make a decision based upon it.

I respect your right to hold a view but I do not respect the vile diatribe and insults that you are peddling on this forum.
Click to expand...

"vile diatribe and insults"?? please do man up so to speak. Powa monitors took video evidence of illegal hunting directly to the RSPCA. The RSPCA hands were tied, when provided with evidence of illegal activity involving animals they ALWAYS investigate. End of. Enough nonsense now please!
 
Alec Swan said:
How much "Planning" do you think was possible? The pilot landed, he was approached by a hunt supporter, he panicked, without need, and he killed an entirely innocent man.

"The Poor Pilot"? Are you being serious? Through his rank stupidity, his ignorance and his lack of care and attention, he will carry the death of an innocent man with him, for the rest of his days. If he doesn't, then he should.

Mind you, if he is as ignorant and displays the lack of caring which the rest of your curious bunch seem to do, then he probably couldn't care less. Justifying the pilots actions, and vindicating him, as you are, displays a level of inhumanity which has parallels, but rarely in this country. To glibly claim that the pilot was not at fault sets you apart from the average human being. You really are an embarrassment. I'd suggest that you should be ashamed, but I'd doubt that you'd understand the concept of shame.

As an aside, is CAA authority needed for those who fly gyrocopters? Does anyone know?

Alec.
Click to expand...

The accosting of the pilot/copter was pre-planned before the days hunting. Yes, the poor pilot who will always suffer following that day and should never have been forced into any actions by Mr.Morse. Regardless I have no further wish to discuss this particular incident that you pro hunters repeatedly bring up as when then actually discussed you all get rather over-emotional!
 
SarahColeman said:
"vile diatribe and insults"?? please do man up so to speak. Powa monitors took video evidence of illegal hunting directly to the RSPCA. The RSPCA hands were tied, when provided with evidence of illegal activity involving animals they ALWAYS investigate. End of. Enough nonsense now please!
Click to expand...

You really do pick the bits you respond to don't you !

Shall I try again - the RSPCA deal with Animal Welfare if they are handed evidence of an offence impacting on animal welfare then they should consider whether they or the CPS should bring a prosecution. If they are handed evidence of something not related to animal welfare then they should pass it straight over to the Police/CPS for further evidence gathering and potential prosecution.
 
Alec Swan said:
You are quite wrong on both counts, and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice. I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected, on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational, and your argument ever more laughable. Being offensive and clearly disturbed, is no way to debate. I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

Skating on thin ice? My god who on earth do you think you are? Again, I have no wish to continue about the case but Janet claimed Morse was out to identify the pilot. He already new who the pilot was and had the pilots details in his possession as revealed in court. Far from my being rabid or irrational we appear to have reached the point were the truth can not be handled by you and some of your friends anymore without personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
You are quite wrong on both counts, and I would caution you that you are skating on perilously thin ice. I would also advise you that the target for your bile is highly respected, on here and in the wider field.

Your posts are becoming ever more rabid and irrational, and your argument ever more laughable. Being offensive and clearly disturbed, is no way to debate. I'd suggest that you have a break for a day or two. ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...

Hey, hang a minute, I know you're direct but don't think I've ever heard you so rude.

I'm opting out of this because reason and debate has left the building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top