RSPCA court controversy

10 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

So he is only unbiased when you want him to be I guess :lol: I think you will find he has been fare and honest in this article also, just he is not singing the tune you like

Not at all Blue. There was pieces in his first article I posted that I did not agree with, yet still posted the article. In that article he put forward a well balanced view of both sides, yet the second link you posted was exactly as Trev stated.
I don't agree, it is 100% accurate

10 Feb 2013

Quote by Bluefish2009
So he is only unbiased when you want him to be I guess :lol: I think you will find he has been fare and honest in this article also, just he is not singing the tune you like

Quote by starlightcouple
Not at all Blue. There was pieces in his first article I posted that I did not agree with, yet still posted the article. In that article he put forward a well balanced view of both sides, yet the second link you posted was exactly as Trev stated.

Quote by Bluefish2009
I don't agree, it is 100% accurate

Is this true or not Blue?

Quote by Trev
However I wouldn't call it unbiased seeing as it comes from an animal welfare consultant for the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations.

10 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

So he is only unbiased when you want him to be I guess :lol: I think you will find he has been fare and honest in this article also, just he is not singing the tune you like

Quote by starlightcouple
Not at all Blue. There was pieces in his first article I posted that I did not agree with, yet still posted the article. In that article he put forward a well balanced view of both sides, yet the second link you posted was exactly as Trev stated.

Quote by Bluefish2009
I don't agree, it is 100% accurate

Is this true or not Blue?

Quote by Trev
However I wouldn't call it unbiased seeing as it comes from an animal welfare consultant for the Countryside Alliance and Council of Hunting Associations.

I see what he has written as fare and unbiased, please feel free to point out anything you believe is not
Has fox welfare been improved since the ban, the answer is plainly no
Please point out to me the animal welfare gain from the current hunting ban

10 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV
I'd be interested in star's response too... Especially in regard to this bit...
"Why was the Act drafted this way? The answer is simple. It was not designed to improve animal welfare, but to create technical offences to get at a certain type of person, while all along fooling the public that some good would be done. I sat through every stage of the hunting bill, as it then was, and the ignorance of many anti-hunting MPs was astounding, but their prejudices were obvious."
Couldn't have put it better myself.

This is what make me so cross, Mr Barrington hits the nail on the head, fare and square. It had nothing to do with animal welfare, and much to do with prejudices, and the only thing to suffer because of this is the fox, bloody madness. They have done nothing for fox welfare and they know it, but have fooled many of the population into thinking they have

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I cant see it helping their cause
I think hunting has a place in this century and the next, but that is for another thread

I hope it won't help their cause at all, as I don't feel hunting has any place in a civilised country such as ours, but as you say that's for another thread.
I believe it does have a place in this century. I do understand why people may think this way, but believe they are wrong. The first thing many will ask me Is control required at all? I will try to answer this as best I can
Of coarse a lot of what drives my passion for the subject is my past. I grew up in a small village close to a local hunt. My grandfather, who was a farrier and farmer, was heavily involved in all matters of the countryside. Every Sunday morning I would be woken by the rhythmic tapping of hammer on anvil. My childhood best friend's father was the terrier man for the local hunt. This meant I grew up around people with vast knowledge of the countryside, hunting, and countryside matters. These were people from many generations before me, who have life experience and knowledge passed down to them. Just like when I started work as an apprentice engineer as a young man, a far more experienced person showed me the ropes and advised by way of his experience. I took his advice because he had experience in these matters, so when older generation's and trusted family members extolled the virtues of countryside management and fox hunting I had no reason not to believe them.
I know of coarse no one here will trust my word on this matter, but proof is not easy to show. But below are some examples that hold some weight.
During World War 2 there was much less hunting. The fox population soared and predation of lambs, piglets, chickens etc. became intolerable to many farmer's and land owner's. The Government offered a bounty for dead foxes and encouraged shooting to bring down numbers. Farmers took up their shotguns and "Fox destruction clubs" were formed. They used dogs to flush out foxes which were then shot at. Not dissimilar to what is happening now actually. Not all members of these Societies were accurate shots and many used shotguns. Many foxes were wounded rather than killed quickly. Not all wounded foxes were found by the dogs. Those that escaped often died slowly from their wounds. The Attlee Socialist Government faced pressures to remove the bounty and to rely on Hunting and shooting in a less unprofessional manner. However, the fact of a Socialist government had given more power to the Anti-Hunting Lobby and it pressed for a Ban on Hunting on the basis that it is cruel. Reasonably, the government set up an inquiry under two senior members of the legal profession. This has become known as the Scott-Henderson Inquiry
Their finding were clear, below, this sums them up for those of you with an interest

Nothing between now and then has changed, this view is as relevant now as then.
A more recent cessation of hunting took place from February 2001 to December 2001 due to foot and mouth disease, farmers across the UK reported a noticeable increase in fox numbers and the resultant predation took its toll. In a letter to the Federation of Welsh Packs, the Farmers Union of Wales said "All counties in Wales have reported an increase in fox numbers and predation since the Hunting Authorities commenced their voluntary ban on 22 February 2001. The Union's County Branches are receiving an increasing number of calls from farmers concerned at the effects of a protracted ban on fox control during the autumn period."
Make of that what you will, I know how I read it
Now as for the act of hunting its self, I see hunting with hounds as the best, in fact the finest method of fox control, not just for the farmer, landowner but for the fox and its long term well being as well. For me animal welfare is crucial.
Hunting with hounds is selective, by that I mean it will by its nature mainly catch the old, sick, and injured. Leaving the most healthy to escape and continue to pass on its genes. Most foxes hunted actually escape. This is good on many levels; firstly the most troublesome foxes are the old and sick, the ones who have been pushed out of there hunting territories by younger and fitter foxes. These displaced foxes are then often forced by hunger to look for the easy meal in the farmer's field or the keeper's pens. So hunting with hounds echo natures as close as we are ever likely to be able to get. So in summery, hunting with hounds is helping to maintain a healthy, genetically sound fox population. This can not be achieved by any other method of control.
Another important factor is hunting with hounds is none wounding, the fox is either caught, and killed swiftly, or escapes unharmed, again no other method can achieve this.(sertainly not shooting) Further more the hunt its self has a dispersing effect on the fox population leading to the many advantages of reducing areas of over concentration and renewing the gene pool.
There is of course a service that many hunts's provided to hill sheep farmers during lambing and other times. Often a farmer can experience a troublesome fox over several nights, in these cases the hunt would turn up early in the morning, take the hounds to the latest kill and then track the fox from that kill. Again no other method of fox control can do this.
Hunts also provide a service of removing fallen stock from the farmer, this is an excellent free service to the farmer and used to help feed the hounds.
As for the chase its self, the fox while being hunted is under no more stress than a rabbit being hunted by a fox, both are in comfortable surroundings and will not know death is approaching until the very last moment. I have read much academic work that has been done on this subject, rather than bore you all with that here, here is one of the most relevant papers written by persons of the Veterinary profession.

I will bore you all no further lol

12 Feb 2013

Well I will do you the honour of reading it all, including your links.
I thank you for going to great lengths to explain why you feel strongly its right.
I live in Devon, quite a rural area I think you will agree, and one which we don't hark back to nostalgia, through rose-tinted glasses.
If foxes are that much of a pest and I dispute that they are, then the quickest dispatch of any predator is by a gun. Professional hunters make more clean kills than bad and have a better clean up rate, as you admit that in most cases with hunting the fox gets away.
Now I have checked out further links which are in support of fox hunting with dogs and a very interesting statistic appeared. Since the ban there has been no increase in fox numbers. In fact it is static. This is because foxes are territorial and the land only supports a certain number for the acreage.
Hunting doesn't control foxes, the ban doesn't control foxes...nature controls foxes. This isn't subjective like your diatribe its objective from the statistics you have provided.
If you farm/small holding suffers fox or badger then I suggest you want to re-design your pen or coup. If you would like I can show you pictures and drawings of how mine are protected with steel mesh going 12" into the ground and extending 24" out to prevent digging.
We also make sure ours are couped before dark.

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Well I will do you the honour of reading it all, including your links.
I thank you for going to great lengths to explain why you feel strongly its right.
I live in Devon, quite a rural area I think you will agree, and one which we don't hark back to nostalgia, through rose-tinted glasses.
If foxes are that much of a pest and I dispute that they are, then the quickest dispatch of any predator is by a gun. Professional hunters make more clean kills than bad and have a better clean up rate, as you admit that in most cases with hunting the fox gets away.
Now I have checked out further links which are in support of fox hunting with dogs and a very interesting statistic appeared. Since the ban there has been no increase in fox numbers. In fact it is static. This is because foxes are territorial and the land only supports a certain number for the acreage.
Hunting doesn't control foxes, the ban doesn't control foxes...nature controls foxes. This isn't subjective like your diatribe its objective from the statistics you have provided.
If you farm/small holding suffers fox or badger then I suggest you want to re-design your pen or coup. If you would like I can show you pictures and drawings of how mine are protected with steel mesh going 12" into the ground and extending 24" out to prevent digging.
We also make sure ours are couped before dark.

The fox may be easy to keep from a small holding, much more difficult in large farms where and uplands where animals are not fenced at all, or from game birds who can not be fenced once released.
Yes the hunted fox is meant to get away, but the sick and old one will not, a bonus of hunting that is not available to the gun.
There is no real ban as such, fox hunting continues but with silly restricctions
Nature does not control the fox as such, firstly he is not native and has no preditor other than man, the only way nature will control foxes is through starvation
Further info on shooting;
with rifles.
It needs a high calibre rifle (i.e. over .22) used by a skilled marksman in ideal conditions. It is vital that the fox is visually identified as the target species; is stationary; that the marksman has sufficient time to take proper aim; and that he has an unobstructed view of the fox.
It is only practical for large scale control when carried out at night from a vehicle (hence vehicular access is necessary) with a lamp and whistle to “call up” foxes, but foxes soon become lamp shy. “At night” means anti-social hours, involving more than one person. Fox Control in the Countryside (GCT 2000) suggests a strike rate of “0.2 to 0.6 foxes per hour” which with 2 men equates up to 10 man hours per kill.
Suitability is limited because it cannot be used, even in many rural areas, due to the danger from stray bullets and ricochets (a high velocity bullet can kill at up to 3 miles). The dangers, whether on open moorland or where people, animals, cars or buildings may be concealed from view, are obvious.
A clean kill can never be guaranteed, even by a skilled marksman. Not all who use this method are skilled marksmen, and when unskilled marksmen use rifles, the risk of wounding is high. Skilled marksmen would have to be trained and paid for if other control methods are banned or restricted.
When wounding does occur, it can be assumed that the fox?s suffering is prolonged and intense, even if it recovers but the more so if it dies from its wounds or starvation.
with shotguns.
Wounding occurs frequently because the killing power of shotguns decreases exponentially at ranges above 20 yards. The risk of wounding increases correspondingly even for a well aimed shot.
Foxes are likely to be shot when moving which presents a more difficult target and less time to aim. When they are moving away from the shooter, which is frequently the case, foxes are especially vulnerable to being wounded as they will be shot at from behind.
“Wounding Rates in Shooting Foxes? peer reviewed and published in Animal Welfare (May 06) concluded that “there was no (shooting) regime that had no probability of wounding, a factor that varied dramatically with gun-type, ammunition and range. ” Wounding rates were much higher than previously claimed ? up to 50% in some cases.
Scott Henderson reported: “ It is significant that the RSPCA consider that the cruelty involved in shooting foxes is such as to make it an unsatisfactory substitute for hunting and that they would prefer hunting (to which they are naturally opposed on ethical grounds) if its abolition were likely to lead to an increase in the amount of shooting” and concluded “
We have no hesitation in saying that, unless very great care is taken, shooting may be an extremely cruel method of control”.
Following the Scott Henderson Report, the RSPCA issued its own policy statement on hunting which, after minor adjustment, was adapted at its 1958 AGM. The RSPCA?s position was that: “Control of foxes was necessary, hunting was the least cruel method, cruelty, not ethics, was the primary consideration”. Nothing has occurred since to justify any change in the RSPCA?s position. 50 years later Lord Burns: “We are less confident that the use of shotguns particularly in daylight, is preferable (to hunting) from a welfare perspective”.
The Phelps report 1997 (para.8.8.4) referred to the concerns of gamekeepers on “the increasing tendency for ‘illicit’ lamping carried out by irresponsible amateurs being a significant and rising source of cruelty due to the high proportion of foxes that are inexpertly shot and escape wounded”.
Shooting is often opportune and indiscriminate. It may occur at any time of the year and may cause young to starve when vixens are shot. No distinction is made between fit and less fit animals - all are equally likely to be shot. Intensity of control is dependent on random factors, such as the attitude of individual landowners. In many areas foxes could be wiped out by indiscriminate shooting if farmers and landowners are denied the free service provided by hunts.
I shall leave it at that, I suspect that you have your view and I mine and never the twain shall meat, as is often the case in these emotive dbates. I do thank you however for your reply, politness and taking the time to read my ramblings :thumbup:

12 Feb 2013

The trouble with a debate on fox hunting is not just the emotive nature, but there is very little in the way of an unbiased view from the middle ground.
People will often have there views from one of the two entrenched sides of the debate. As an example, in this case blue you have quoted from the 'Masters of foxhounds association' website, so it is hard for people to not see that in an unbiased way.

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Bluefish2009
Nature does not control the fox as such, firstly he is not native and has no predator other than man, the only way nature will control foxes is through starvation

I just had to take you to task on this one sentence...the fox has been here so long he is a native species. He is a territorial animal and it takes a certain number of acres to support one animal.
There can not be two animals in the same area only one. Nature controls through starvation is fine. Nature does that to every predator. This is why predators are fewer in number than their prey.
Simple maths really. Nature is a balancer. We should leave it at that and stop meddling.

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
The trouble with a debate on fox hunting is not just the emotive nature, but there is very little in the way of an unbiased view from the middle ground.
People will often have there views from one of the two entrenched sides of the debate. As an example, in this case blue you have quoted from the 'Masters of foxhounds association' website, so it is hard for people to not see that in an unbiased way.

Maybe so, and I do see you point, but the facts they quote on shooting are not there own facts and can be found in government reports and peer reveiwed papers if you wish

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Nature does not control the fox as such, firstly he is not native and has no predator other than man, the only way nature will control foxes is through starvation

I just had to take you to task on this one sentence...the fox has been here so long he is a native species. He is a territorial animal and it takes a certain number of acres to support one animal.
There can not be two animals in the same area only one. Nature controls through starvation is fine. Nature does that to every predator. This is why predators are fewer in number than their prey.
Simple maths really. Nature is a balancer. We should leave it at that and stop meddling.
I dont agree, I firmly believe a hands of approach to countryside management is a thing of the past and due to human intervention impossible to achieve

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Bluefish2009
I dont agree, I firmly believe a hands off approach to countryside management is a thing of the past and due to human intervention impossible to achieve

I agree that hands-on management is important, but only in some respects. Foxes do not need management by huntsman with dogs.

12 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I dont agree, I firmly believe a hands off approach to countryside management is a thing of the past and due to human intervention impossible to achieve

I agree that hands-on management is important, but only in some respects. Foxes do not need management by huntsman with dogs.
I guess that where we must differ then :thumbup:

23 Feb 2013

Quote by Bluefish2009

Blue what is your point exactly? You have posted links like this before knowing full well the implications this causes and to be honest it is now fecking boring.
The headline screams....' The RSPCA has been accused' !!
By who exactly? Last time it was a wanker Judge that stated that, and then we know most Judges come from the planet Zanussi, and have agendas of their own where thier mates the huntsmasters are concerned. So who exactly are doing the accusing Blue???
It surely ain't from the very people that keep this charity alive as in the donators to this charity.
And you say Blue you have not got any issues with the RSPCA?? Then why the fuck do you constantly look for these headlines?

23 Feb 2013

So is that what we do know?, simply post links with absolutely no comment on it whatsoever? Wow, seems strange to me.

23 Feb 2013

So what's ya point Trev? rotflmao

:rascal:

15 Mar 2013

Sorry to drag this one back up but after recent events (that I have been involved in) I just wanted to reiterate how useless the RSPCA are...
On a well known social networking site I am a member of a group that is frequented by rabbit owners...
It's very useful for getting advice,hints and tips etc...
A woman posted in the group that she had been in contact with the RSPCA regarding her rabbits...
She had 72.....Living inside her house....
The RSPCA had advised she look to rehome them as she obviously could not cope..
A number of group members rallied round and all chipped in and all but about 6 have now been taken from her and will be cared for/nursed back to health/put to sleep by the group as a whole and eventually rehomed...
Many of these animals were in such poor condition it is unbelievable ....
A few of them will ,we suspect, be put to sleep to end their suffering as they are in such dire condition...
All this from a woman who has done this (hoarding animals) before and was known to the RSPCA ...
And the reason the RSPCA did not step in and remove the animals the instant it was known they were in very poor condition ??
They had the tiniest amount of food and water in their hutches !!!
It was allowed to continue by an organisation that claims to exist to prevent cruelty to animals...
Having seen the (very graphic) pictures of what those poor animals looked like when they were rescued I have found it nigh on impossible to sleep....
I only hope the RSPCA inspector(s) who allowed this to happen have the same problem for a long time to come....

15 Mar 2013

Any chance of a media link to this story?
I would be interested to hear the other side of the story though, as there are always two sides.
You have your side and now I will try and find the other side if at all possible.
But your link would be good for me to look at.

15 Mar 2013

I looked on the internet for stories of wonderful work the RSPCA does, and came up with this heart warming story in two seconds.

Now look at the twp pictures and tell me the RSPCA does not do wonderful work, and that animals in general would be better off if this charity did not exist.
I shall continue to find stories such as this every time someone posts a negative on this charities work.

15 Mar 2013

There is no media link as such as all this was done through social networking ..
And you can continue to find heart warming stories of the good that the RSPCA do until the cows come home for me as it's all undone by incidents like the one I posted unfortunately...

15 Mar 2013

Quote by Steve
There is no media link as such as all this was done through social networking ..
And you can continue to find heart warming stories of the good that the RSPCA do until the cows come home for me as it's all undone by incidents like the one I posted unfortunately...

Social networking Steve? What like word of mouth kind of stuff? What like Facebroke and twitsers ?
So there is no actual media coverage of this then?
So Stevie...............Would you rather there be no RSPCA, and if not what would you put in it's place?
Remember also that Social networking can sometimes be an over exaggeration of how one sees things. wink

16 Mar 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
There is no media link as such as all this was done through social networking ..
And you can continue to find heart warming stories of the good that the RSPCA do until the cows come home for me as it's all undone by incidents like the one I posted unfortunately...

Social networking Steve? What like word of mouth kind of stuff? What like Facebroke and twitsers ?
So there is no actual media coverage of this then?
So Stevie...............Would you rather there be no RSPCA, and if not what would you put in it's place?
Remember also that Social networking can sometimes be an over exaggeration of how one sees things. wink

I have seen the photo's taken of the appauling condition these poor animals are in...
It is very upsetting ....
I personally know the people involved in rescuing these animals (in fact 1 of them I know VERY well) so don't try to make out because it has no media coverage it isn't real...
Just because something isn't in the papers or on tv doesn't mean it isn't happening...
I have no answer as to what I would put in place of the RSPCA but I can say that I have knowledge of several instances where they have done little or nothing to help animals in danger....
The woman who had all these animals taken from her has done this before and still they allowed her to have more animals....

16 Mar 2013

Quote by Steve
I have no answer as to what I would put in place of the RSPCA but I can say that I have knowledge of several instances where they have done little or nothing to help animals in danger....
The woman who had all these animals taken from her has done this before and still they allowed her to have more animals....

They??? they aren't an enforcement agency...look to your Police for that. They are a charity who enforce through bringing prosecutions on behalf of the public.
I would rather that we had them than not. For every bad case you bring to the debate, we could produce 20 good ones.