the alternative "SAVE ME!

Kiribati_uk said:
Is this where i say all farmers are rich have lots of land live in big houses and get paid loads of money by the government to destroy the beautiful countryside oh and wear tweed and dubarrys!!HA
Im a farmers daughter 5th generation and im sick of the mainly city folk telling us how to run our farm, We have had our 1st ever TB breakdown and we have a closed herd and have lost over 25% of our cattle. So if our cows supposedly ave TB why do they have to be culled yet badgers who in our area defo have TB dont! Am I being thick?
KEEP THE BULL**** IN THE CITIES AND US COUNTRYFOLK WILL KEEP THE COW****!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Lets get one thing straight, farming is the most heavily subsidised industry in the land! Therefore as it is the people in the cities paying there taxes to bail farmers out of course they have every right to be involved in such welfare issues. Whether that be fox control or badger culling. Just because wildlife lives on your land or strays onto your land it does not legitimately become subject to your every whim!


In her statement to the Assembly on 13 January the Minister confidently announced that the proposed cull would yield a 9% overall reduction in cattle TB two years after the last cull took place. However, what emerged in evidence painted quite a different picture. In fact, the Minister conceded that:

• Bovine TB will increase dramatically on lands adjoining culled land;
• The best case scenario of a 9% ‘overall reduction’ in bovine TB in reality only amounts to a 6% decline in the rate of increase over all cattle herd breakdowns;
• Any benefits observed in the first years post-culling will dissipate as badger numbers increase;
• The longer term prognosis (that is, 30 months post-cull), is that there is in fact no ongoing benefit from culling;

So simple culling isnt the answer!
 
Scratchline said:
Lets get one thing straight, farming is the most heavily subsidised industry in the land! Therefore as it is the people in the cities paying there taxes to bail farmers out of course they have every right to be involved in such welfare issues. Whether that be fox control or badger culling. Just because wildlife lives on your land or strays onto your land it does not legitimately become subject to your every whim!



Really? I thought BANKING was the most heavily subsidised industry in the land.

So, farmers, I don't accept that statement (having read previous posts) so will be very interested to hear the response/understand exactly what percentage farmers are subsidised and for what. You dont need to respond to the "whim" comment. Think it doesn't actually merit an answer!
Click to expand...
 
rosiefronfelen said:
Crazyfriesian, ok, just hoping you are pro and not anti, if you are an anti then i have to respect your beliefs.
Click to expand...

As my point on the other thread really. I personally do not hunt although used to take my employers horses out when I was first studying horses (many years ago)

Not here to get into a confrontation, just a voice of reason. FWIW I do not appreciate the tone of some posters. It only confirms what others suspect. If they cant put their point across in a reasoned fashion, how can they expect anyone to take notice of them or take them seriously.

@ Scratchy - On the point of farmers being heavily subsidised - you have SOLID proof of the levels of subsidy then. I'm assuming that you have the figures in front of you and can back up your sweeping statement. Personally, having seen the figures of beasts going through the markets and knowing how much it takes to produce them, plus general running costs of a farm and the hours the farmers have to put in, the figures often do not stack up in the farmers favour. In the end the only true asset the farmer truely has is the land he farms and most of that aint worth a bean for anything other than farming because you would never be able to get stand alone planning permission.

SOMEONE has to feed the country!!!
 
farmers wouldn't have to be subsidised if they had a fair pay for the goods in the supermarkets and butchers- also cheap, rubbish, suspect meat is still being imported, why- because it IS cheap!! we in this country have top quality meat and dairy produce to feed everyone, without this **** coming in, bringing disease with it.
 
Scratchline, you are very aggressive and the tone of your posts comes across badly. And your comment about 'we don't need anymore' was really quite daft. Of course we do, and you shouldn't be so dismissive of your actions and ability to drive people away from your side of the debate.

It makes me sad whenever i see anti's like this, because i feel it is doing harm to our cause and adding to the belief that anti's are violent nasty people. Which most of us aren't.

I do think farmers get a tough deal, and i understand it can be hard to make a living. Something does need to be done, and careful planning needs to be undertaken to control the TB issues. I do not believe a solid cull will have the desired effect, but it should be considered as an option.
 
Scratchline said:
Lets get one thing straight, farming is the most heavily subsidised industry in the land!
Click to expand...


Subsidies to farmers are being phased out; subsidies to landowners are being phased in. Obviously farmers who are landowners will continue to receive subsidy, but the many tenant farmers will get nothing.
 
I Think Scratchline needs to live on a farm for a bit and see how bloody hard farmers work, No nine 2 five, weekends off, bank holidays or even holidays for that matter!!!
Most townies(NOT ALL) have issue with size they think the bigger something is the more money you got, but the is hell of a difference with being asset rich and liquid rich, Itchyandscratchy(scratchline) got fleas me thinks!! Will say well why not sell some land but its near impossible to make any farm be livestock or arable pay without diversifying( And the miserable arsewipes dont like us doing that either!)So by reducing the acreage its more unlikely.
So Scratchline when you got rid of your fleas and been house trained you can come to my farm and show us all how to farm, cos by reading your posts you have forgetton more than the rest of us will ever know!!!!
 
Subsidies - we get £400 a year to save a pond on our land, about £200 per acre of 'set aside' land per year, we would get subsidies for planting trees, we get 40% off fencing and eco barns (hedging I believe is fully subsidised to encourage it). None of the subsidies are about farming, they are about sustainability and maintenence of the countryside. Something that the hunting fraternity used to pay quite a bit towards... I'm not pro-hunting but they did do a lot for the countryside :)
 
Kiribati_uk said:
I Think Scratchline needs to live on a farm for a bit and see how bloody hard farmers work, No nine 2 five, weekends off, bank holidays or even holidays for that matter!!!
Most townies(NOT ALL) have issue with size they think the bigger something is the more money you got, but the is hell of a difference with being asset rich and liquid rich, Itchyandscratchy(scratchline) got fleas me thinks!! Will say well why not sell some land but its near impossible to make any farm be livestock or arable pay without diversifying( And the miserable arsewipes dont like us doing that either!)So by reducing the acreage its more unlikely.
So Scratchline when you got rid of your fleas and been house trained you can come to my farm and show us all how to farm, cos by reading your posts you have forgetton more than the rest of us will ever know!!!!
Click to expand...

My grandparents were dairy farmers thanks and I worked on farms from the age of 12 until sixteen when I joined the army, every spare hour I had!
 
somethingorother said:
Scratchline, you are very aggressive and the tone of your posts comes across badly. And your comment about 'we don't need anymore' was really quite daft. Of course we do, and you shouldn't be so dismissive of your actions and ability to drive people away from your side of the debate.

It makes me sad whenever i see anti's like this, because i feel it is doing harm to our cause and adding to the belief that anti's are violent nasty people. Which most of us aren't.

I do think farmers get a tough deal, and i understand it can be hard to make a living. Something does need to be done, and careful planning needs to be undertaken to control the TB issues. I do not believe a solid cull will have the desired effect, but it should be considered as an option.
Click to expand...

If you want to be all nice to those that are cruel to animals and wish to return to their abhorant sport then carry on but do not expect others to do the same. Thankyou
 
My views on it are this...

I used to be anti, not horrendously so, but recently I have been swayed. I have moved to Caithness where the foxhunting ban has been in place for longer than in England. I have lived here 12 months and have never seen a fox. Moving from rural Cheshire this has really stunned me and one day I happened to mention it while chatting to a farmer. His response was something like this:

"In the days before hunting was banned it was up to the hunt to cull the foxes. Due to the time of day of the hunt it was only weak/injured and old that were killed (healthy foxes aren't around during the day). It sustained the population because it removed competition for food and thus reduced the numbers turning to livestock. Now the ban has been introduced we have to cull the foxes ourselves to protect our livlihoods. Foxes are now shot indiscriminitely and numbers are seriously dwindling. Foxes will go the way of wolves which is a great shame"

And I can see that - there are simply no foxes around here...

I think I may have been swayed to the pro simply for wanting to preserve this magnificent creature in the wild rather than in zoos :(
 
Inky_and_Sunny said:
Due to the time of day of the hunt it was only weak/injured and old that were killed (healthy foxes aren't around during the day). It sustained the population because it removed competition for food and thus reduced the numbers turning to livestock. Now the ban has been introduced we have to cull the foxes ourselves to protect our livlihoods. Foxes are now shot indiscriminitely and numbers are seriously dwindling. Foxes will go the way of wolves which is a great shame"
Click to expand...

Healthy foxes arent around during the day??? lol lol As soon as he said that you should have laughed in his face and told him he was a liar. Foxes are not nocturnal many choosing to hunt at dawn and dusk and many others choose to hunt during the day.
 
Hi Inky. THinking once more about your 'farmer', dont you think he was just making LAME EXCUSES as to why fox killing by ripping them to shreds should return for the fun of it?

Talking about LAME EXCUSES perhaps you might like to discuss this with your farmer friend.

The Lame Claims File
The fox-lovers’ handbook of answers to lame claims – as to why it’s acceptable to torture foxes to death.
Lame Claim Answer
1. “It’s a BAD law... Baa-aad! Unenforceable... confusing... we don’t understand it.” Read it more carefully! Improve it, tighten it up, monitor violations more rigorously, enforce it more diligently. If the law against child molestation was found to be unenforceable, what would we do? Repeal the law? I don’t think so.
2. “It took up too much parliamentary time.” No it didn’t. This law was introduced by proper parliamentary process – in accordance with the will of the majority of the British public, who consider hunting with dogs barbaric and unacceptable, and see this law as a flagship move towards better treatment of ALL animals –wild animals, farm animals, and laboratory animals. The fact that Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance boasts that the Tories could smash this law “in a day” is proof that these people care nothing for the will of the people. God help us all if they seize power.
3. “Foxes are vermin; if we didn’t hunt them, we’d be overrun with them.” So... how come the Hunts construct artificial earths to encourage the breeding of foxes, and, when foxes become scarce in a particular area, the hunts re-introduce them? Hunt supporters have elsewhere actually claimed that if there were no foxhunting, foxes would have been extinct by now. Surely there must be more humane ways to save an endangered species?

By the way... DEFRA defines which animals are classed as vermin in the UK. The fox is not among them. Foxes are NOT vermin. This is in fact a very old argument – only now heard from hunting advocates who have not kept up. It’s so obviously a lie, that it has been replaced in the mouths of most Countryside Alliance members with this next (pretty much opposite) argument.
4. “We don’t persecute foxes - we love them... we conserve them... we preserve a balance - we even ‘enoble’ them by hunting them - and we strengthen the breed by picking off the weakest.” Well, make up your minds - just now, they were ‘vermin’ - pests - to be controlled. Now suddenly they are precious - and I bet they enjoy being ‘enobled’ by being pursued and dismembered alive by dogs. Yes, folks, if there were no foxes, the foxhunters would have no fun. So they make sure there are enough to hunt – and the numbers go down in a particular area, they import them. (Oh, and by the way, if being hunted is good for the species... perhaps we’d better instigate the hunting of humans... it’ll improve the strength of our species too... goody!) If we really want to get technical, my ecology advisor adds, “This whole ‘savannah’ theory of maintaining balance by removing predators only applies when those species have coevolved together and are infact in a delicate balance. We did not co-evolve predating foxes in this manner, so this argument is ecologically unsound.”
5. “It’s traditional - traditions are good - they are our birth-right.” Oh, really? So the traditions of wife beating, bear baiting, slave whipping, burning of supposed witches, birching of schoolchildren (and so many more atrocities)... were all traditions that ought to have been preserved... right?! Just because something has been done for years does not make it right. If traditions were always upheld, women would still not have a vote. Traditions my ass.
6. “Foxes are vicious and cruel - haven’t you seen what they do to a chicken coop if they get in? They kill all the birds for pleasure.” Not true - it’s another bit of outdated propaganda. If a hungry animal suddenly finds food, it will eat it... just like we do... but the foxes kill extra chickens with the purpose of burying them for future use, when the pickings are slim. Left to themselves they will come back and bury those chickens... but they are not completely stupid; if there is a farmer with a gun waiting to shoot him, Mr. Fox is not going to come back and collect the food supplies. Killing for pleasure? Make no mistake... there is only one animal that does this... MAN.
7. “Foxes are dirty.” Nope - they’re not... our rescued foxes spend at least as much time grooming themselves as the average domestic cat; in fact they are very cat-like in many ways... this is something I never realised until I spent time with these delightful animals. They don’t cover up their poo, but neither do any of our domestic dogs. It’s not the end of the world, and certainly not a good enough reason to persecute them.
 
8. “It’s NATURAL for men to hunt foxes, just like Lions hunt antelope.” Well, the flaw in this argument is blindingly obvious. Lions kill for food... but humans do not eat foxes. There is only one reason to hunt down and murder a fox... for fun... for ‘sport’. It’s not in any way justifiable. It’s barbaric, and it’s cruel - it’s also clearly a crime, as defined by the 1909 Cruelty to Animals act. By the way, have we not noticed that it is NOT the hunters who manage to pull off this great ‘sporting achievement’ - it’s the hounds?
9. “Ah well, yes - it's natural for DOGS to kill foxes.” Rubbish. It is in no way natural. We’ve already published pictures of our local dogs playing with the rescued foxes... along with deer and various birds. The fox is a naturally, delightfully gentle creature – timid, and built for running. The average dog, when decently looked after, is also playful, gentle and peaceful. The only way to make dogs vicious - ready to tear apart Foxes, Stags, Hares, or even Humans - is to brutalise them - half-starve them - deprive them of affection, and house them in such wretched conditions that they go berserk when allowed out to run. The Hunts test the hound puppies on fox cubs. It’s the charming practice of ‘cubbing’, wherein, once the parent fox has been slaughtered, the tiny fox-cubs are poked out or dug out from their homes, and forced into the path of the young hounds - already ‘toughened up’ and ready to mutilate. The young hounds eat the fox pups alive. If the young dogs are not vicious enough, the Huntsmen shoot them - another nice piece of ‘natural selection’ designed to make the pack not only healthy but also as vicious as possible. Even leaving aside this abhorrent cruelty to foxes, in a decent society it ought to be illegal to raise a dog for the sole purpose of killing. (In fact, as noted in LC 11, currently it IS illegal to breed dogs for dog-fighting... we logically we need to bring things into line... so that what is law for the yobs is law for the toffs too.

It’s interesting that perhaps the foxhunting community of people have been in a sense brutalised, too – brought up in a way that has desensitised them to the cruelty around them.
10. “By hunting we eliminate the weakest animals, so we strengthen the species. The foxes are either killed, or get away if they are strong. Just like in Africa.” Good try. But this is just another sly (yes, it’s the humans who are sly – not the dear old foxes) attempt to bend the truth. In fact, the appallingly cruel methods used in the Hunt ensure that the chances survival of a fox in no way depend on its natural strength. Foxes are routinely imported, kept in bags so they are weakened and disoriented when they are let out in front of a pack of brutalised hounds. And the truth is that the occasional fox who actually does manage to elude the dogs is usually ‘accounted for’, by digging out and being shot anyway. No-one should be allowed to treat animals this way.
11. “It’s all about class! The middle and working classes are jealous of the toffs, and want to deprive them of their rights - among them, the right to treat any animal on their land any way they see fit.” Nonsense. It is nothing to do with class. Decent people are equally outraged if a young thug in Yorkshire goes out with his pit-bull terrier and encourages it to savage wild animals, or if a rich land-owner in Berkshire goes out with HIS brutalised dogs and commits an atrocity on a fox, or rabbit, or otter. None of us care a jot about class. We care about animals. Brutal behaviour is brutal behaviour. There is no excuse.
12. “You people who live in towns don’t understand the ways of the countryside. Leave us alone and mind your own business!” This is a good one... so glib... so ALMOST convincing. The Countryside Alliance is very keen to tell the ‘townie’ politicians how to run the whole of Britain - and has managed to make farming the most heavily subsidised industry in the land. Yet these same people deny the towns people the right to protect animals in the countryside... as if ‘country people’ OWNED our wildlife. Imagine land-owners insisting that, if child-abuse happened on their land, nobody in town had the right to try to stop it. We’d all say... ‘these children might be on your land, but they still have rights - we reserve the right to monitor your behaviour and stop the cruelty where we find it.’ Yet these Countryside Alliance stalwarts would have us accept that wild animals straying on to their land legitimately become subject to their every whim. It’s a vile conceit.
13. “You are taking away our human right to socialise in our traditional way.” Not at all. We absolutely defend your right to meet up on a crisp country morning, dressed up in pinks, and scamper about on your horses. What we dispute is your right to trample everything in your path, endangering people’s property, children, pets and livestock. And we dispute your right to kill animals for your pleasure, in a hideously cruel manner.

Drag hunting, with the hounds following a scent other than fox, gives you all the socialising you need, and all the exercise; and it has the huge advantage that the path of the hunt can be pre-planned, so that your neighbours are not threatened by invasion. If you refuse to accept this as a decent alternative, it can only be that you need the thrill of killing, and that you actually crave the feeling of wanton disregard for anyone around you... that feeling of superiority, perhaps – “Lords of the Manor” and all that? It’s time to come into the 21st century.
14. “If we are prevented from killing foxes using dogs, farmers have to control these pests by shooting them. Farmers are poor marksmen, so many foxes die a lingering death from gunshot wounds - which is inhumane.” Inhumane? Excuse me?!!! Given the choice of being pursued until your muscles are paralysed and then ripped apart by hounds; or shot with a bullet, with the chance of an instant death, which would you choose? I asked this question to the man who would be the new head of DEFRA (the Department of the Environment and Farming and Rural Affairs) if the Tories were elected in May. He at least had the decency to say he wasn’t entirely sure. But many of the Countryside Alliance propagandists continue to insist that being killed by hounds is a desirable option. Sorry, but... simply not believable. We always come back to the same conclusion... the only reason to be indulging in this filthy blood sport is that you enjoy causing unnecessary pain to animals.
Own up, guys. You are cornered – and about to be run to Earth!

Written by Brian may of the SAVE ME campaign. Well done Dr.Bri, we all support you.
 
I was just thinking the same thing. To much time,obsessive would also seem to aply. And like a lot of obsessive people,seems to have lost a sense of ballance.
 
Mike007 said:
I was just thinking the same thing. To much time,obsessive would also seem to aply. And like a lot of obsessive people,seems to have lost a sense of ballance.
Click to expand...

"Written by Brian may of the SAVE ME campaign. Well done Dr.Bri, we all support you." For anyone else who cannot read!
 
that poor thing resembling a chicken would have been reared on mass, seeing no daylight never mind grass- anti should put their efforts into banning that, and this has nothing to do with subsidies, this thread is for signing up to help livestock against predators, so i suggest you go onto Mays Save Me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top