Thank you Karl...

[combat_claire]

Although the research was presented by pro-hunting veterinary group - it drew on post-mortems conducted by vets who were as independent as those cited by the Burns Report.

I quote from paragraph 6.46 of the Burns Report:

Because the fox’s carcass is usually “broken up” by the hounds it is bound to be difficult to obtain conclusive evidence on this matter.

 

[Paul T]

"Its a well known fact that half of that inquiry was bent by the government."

Yes it is. Jack Straw (the pro-hunting Home Secretary at the time), appointed Lord Soulsby - you know, the silly old duffer who offered his services free to the BFSS/CA to discredit Bateson, while Winter, Marsh & Edwards were linked to the Royal Agriculture College (I'm sure your mate Claire could tell you a thing or two about the pro-hunt bias of that place). Marsh was a governor of the college, which owns a beagle pack.

 

[combat_claire]

That never seems to stop Professor Stephen Harris!

 

[Paul T]

But the balance of probability should be acceptable, especially when there are no terminal injuries to either the throat or back....

 

[severnmiles]

And the vets you mention were completely and utterly unbiased? Of course not.

I refuse to even view someone's post who calls me thick, a dunce, e.t.c. You cannot debate therefore you resort to personal insults. Take a leaf out of LACS, Flying_Change, Endymion e.t.c book.

I don't wish to communicate with you any longer.

 

[combat_claire]

Hardly a pro-hunt bias. The reports by Winter, Manley, Hallett and all are academically rigorous, based on solid surveys of large samples. The study in the Quantocks was a case in point, the Wiltshire Farms study was flawed in that there was analysis problems although the methodology was sound. Indeed Manley et al were commissioned by the Burns report to conclude on drag hunting as a possible substitution: http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/research/rac/manleyfinal.htm

Yes there is a beagle pack, yes there is a good deal of pro-hunting sympathy amongst the students..but to suggest that this has in anyway affected the quality of research produced by our academic staff is an unwarranted and unproven slur on the college.

 

[flying_change]

I'll upbraid him for it next time he posts something on here.

RS

 

[Paul T]

Ah didums. You've dished out enough insults in the past but you're obviously not able to take them, especially when they're rather close to the truth.

 

[Paul T]

Didn't say it they weren't academically rigorous - just that their backgrounds were a bit suspect, and it wasn't me who raised the fixed nature of the inquiry team.

As it turned out I was extremely pleased with the outcome of the Burns Report and the associated research it commissioned - I quote from it enough.

 

[LACS]

"Yes there is a beagle pack, yes there is a good deal of pro-hunting sympathy amongst the students..but"

 

[combat_claire]

I'm not quite sure what the relevance is of you pulling a quote relating to RAC students from my post and attempting to use it as a way of discrediting the research conducted by RAC Academic staff.

Presumably you wouldn't argue that research coming from the University of Birmingham in urban decay was any less valid because it is based in a former industrial city with its links in engineering education..so I fail to see why the rural roots of the RAC should have any slant on the findings that peer-reviewed academic staff have published in respected journals and reports.

 

[brighteyes]

My terrier killed two rats - one I didn't even realise was there until she had dispatched it as she got it from behind some bales. It was VERY quick and she got it by the neck. It has to be nature. Any predator grabbing 'predator' prey surely has to be aware of the danger of getting bitten back? The second rat was not healthy and half dead already. Still, she went for the neck....

 

[Hercules]

Bright eyes, Cleire, Severnmiles,

You know what happens, I know what happens, we all know what happens having seen a number of kills (I presume). Karl, LACS, etc base their opinions solely on what they read. There is a huge difference, especially when they don't want to hear or believe the truth.

They will never listen or understand and are probably very scared of reality.

 

[severnmiles]

La, La, La! Sooo very nice to finally not read the bullsh#t that comes out of your mouth...

 

[Doreys_Mum]

Common sense, my dear antis.

If a predator goes for the leg, the prey, which usually has teeth/antlers/three other feet will lay into the predator and kick/butt/bite hells bells out of it.

Get your prey by the neck, and it's dead too soon to fight back.

The occasional youngster may grab a leg in excitement, MAY, but generally ANYTHING which kills an animal for it's tea will go for the neck to ensure minimal injuries, whether they hunt by scent or sight.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Karl/Combat Claire/Severnmile and the rest,


Why give a toss about how a fox is killed? As long as the majority of times its quick, no problem.

Cheers

Nigel

 

[combat_claire]

Well if we are to sustain an argument on welfare grounds then we need to look at other factors besides speed of death. Scientific evidence is always good to back up an argument, rather than just saying that a 'kill I saw back in 2002 was quick' and basing a whole argument on what we know to be true from our personal experiences.

 

[LACS]

I'm sure any research on hunting carried out by a beagle pack-owning pro-hunting college is bound to be unbiased.

 

[severnmiles]

Just because it is a pro-hunting college does not make every student pro.

 

[combat_claire]

Well lets have a look at some of the reports. You clearly haven't looked further than the front cover, if indeed you got that far:

Impact of foxes and fox hunting on the management of Wiltshire County Farms Estate / by Richard Baines ... et al - this was a joint study by academics at University of Oxford, Centre of Rural Studies (University of Exeter) and the RAC. All solid institutions...but no doubt because their findings do not suit your argument you will continue to discredit them, despite them showing sound methodology in their research.

Whilst again the Economic and social aspects of deer hunting on Exmoor and the Quantocks / by M WINTER et al was a co-authored report between the Centre for Rural Studies, the RAC and the National Trust.

Silly me of course the National Trust is biased towards the pro-hunting point of view...*rolls eyes*

 

[combat_claire]

It certainly doesn't make every member of staff biased towards pro-hunting causes. I think that the impressive array of academic qualifications from respected institutions that was on show in my school (Rural Economy & Land Management) should seek to dispel any myths of academic bias that still exist in your head.

They reported the facts that they found, maybe LACS you should go away and read these reports before you criticise.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Karl,

“As it turned out I was extremely pleased with the outcome of the Burns Report and the associated research it commissioned - I quote from it enough”

Bullshit, You only leant on it to give the impression it supports your view, sorry chum it does not.

Cheers

Nigel

 

[Clodagh]

When my lurcher and terrier play the lurcher always grabs the terrier by the neck.
When my lurcher used to kill hares they were undamaged bar a broken neck or massive biting around the neck area (shes only diddy)
In Australia the only long lived roo dog was one which killed the roo by breaking its neck.
Pig dogs grabbed the boar in the neck area.
Foxes are killed mainly by neck bites, bar the odd mistake, as S of D says, puppies or learner hounds. As assistant terrier girl, I have handled a lot more fox carcasses than anyone on Mr Burns report.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Karl,

"The post-mortems conducted on coursed hares make even more unpleasant reading"


And if I compared the Post Mortems to ones that had been shot, I bet they would make similar reading. Did you think of that?

Cheers

Nigel

 

[LACS]

"And if I compared the Post Mortems to ones that had been shot, I bet they would make similar reading. Did you think of that?"

No, you did.

 

[Nigel]

Hi Lacs,

Chuckle, Nice one.

Cheers


Nigel

 

[Paul T]

No need to lose your temper just because Burns didn't come out the way you wanted it to.

BTW, I am not and never will be your chum.

 

[Hercules]

''No need to lose your temper just because Burns didn't come out the way you wanted it to.''


Karl,

No need to lose your temper just because 'the ban' doesn't do what it says on the tin.

We are still laughing at you.