Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
RSPCA court controversy
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
All ready answered above, but to be clear, pics were not to further my cause and to be even clearer, I have no cause to further
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along
No, It was clearly a no
I have a strong opinion on hunting and the RSPCA, and on many other things, but no axe to grind, just a point of view I subscribe too.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Glad to see you back posting Blue
Nice to be back among friends
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
Not all city dwellers know nothing about the countryside !
True Nellie. Couldn't call it countryside really where I was brought up, pit village in greenbelt on the outskirts of Leeds. Still surrounded by fields though, mostly arable, some dairy farming, fair few horse breeders about. Some of the city dwellers round those parts know an awful lot about pest control. Badger population was pretty well eradicated from my area, had to go all the way to Devon to see my one and only live badger, and not because there isn't good habitat there for them. They just get dug up and chucked to a couple of staffies. Pretty good at foxing too, though they don't go in for all that dressing up on horses much. Couple of lads with some lurchers and a torch, that's how they do it round here. Completely illegal too that as it goes, apparently it's cruel. Few would advocate it shouldn't be illegal I think, there's no mass campaign demanding the right to lamp foxes with dogs AFAICS ( though it's still legal to lamp them with rifles, of course ). What's the diff?
This is probably the most interesting comment on this subject in a long time. Maybe some of the worst offenders of badger baiting and law breaking are from the towns and city's and not the poor Innocent country folk after all?
The lamping of foxes was a big thing and still continues now, along with lamping rabbits and hares
There was quite a campaign trying to save hare coursing which failed, still continues by certain types as indicated above
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along
No, It was clearly a no
I have a strong opinion on hunting and the RSPCA, and on many other things, but no axe to grind, just a point of view I subscribe too.
OK Blue, you can say you didn't post pictures of dead animals if you like, and I can say your a liar.
Sex God
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!
I'm not sure if you missed the point of the question. Why does seemingly noone argue that lamping for foxes with dogs should be made legal? Where is the mass campaign for it? If there isn't one, why is that? Pro-hunt lobbyists often try to make this a town v country or a class v class vested interests thing. What about the rights of the city-dwelling, working class individual to lamp with dogs? Should they have that right, or not? If not, why not? What difference is there as far as the end result being a fox being torn apart by dogs by way of, allegedly, pest control, as opposed to pure sport.
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!
Quote by neilinleeds
I'm not sure if you missed the point of the question. Why does seemingly noone argue that lamping for foxes with dogs should be made legal? Where is the mass campaign for it? If there isn't one, why is that? Pro-hunt lobbyists often try to make this a town v country or a class v class vested interests thing. What about the rights of the city-dwelling, working class individual to lamp with dogs? Should they have that right, or not? If not, why not? What difference is there as far as the end result being a fox being torn apart by dogs by way of, allegedly, pest control, as opposed to pure sport.
Actually that is a damn good point, and one that I would like to know the answer too.
Foxes can be baited into a cage, trapped and euthanised with far less effort than it takes to lamp them or hunt them with dogs.
The truth is that lamping, or hunting with dogs has an element of sport to it whereas cage baiting does not.
If you genuinely want to rid land of foxes humanely and efficiently, then set out 30 odd cages and bait the foxes in. Those cages that attract other animals can simply be opened and the animal set free, those with the animals in that need controlling are euthanised on the spot.
No dogs, horses, rifles or anything else, the truth is that there is an element of sport/fun/excitement in shooting or hunting with dogs and that is the reason it persists.
The truth is that lamping, or hunting with dogs has an element of sport to it whereas cage baiting does not.
If you genuinely want to rid land of foxes humanely and efficiently, then set out 30 odd cages and bait the foxes in. Those cages that attract other animals can simply be opened and the animal set free, those with the animals in that need controlling are euthanised on the spot.
No dogs, horses, rifles or anything else, the truth is that there is an element of sport/fun/excitement in shooting or hunting with dogs and that is the reason it persists.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along
No, It was clearly a no
I have a strong opinion on hunting and the RSPCA, and on many other things, but no axe to grind, just a point of view I subscribe too.
OK Blue, you can say you didn't post pictures of dead animals if you like, and I can say your a liar.
As you well know, I have never denied posting the pictures, it is your inaccurate assumption of motive that is in dispute
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!
I'm not sure if you missed the point of the question. Why does seemingly noone argue that lamping for foxes with dogs should be made legal? Where is the mass campaign for it? If there isn't one, why is that? Pro-hunt lobbyists often try to make this a town v country or a class v class vested interests thing. What about the rights of the city-dwelling, working class individual to lamp with dogs? Should they have that right, or not? If not, why not? What difference is there as far as the end result being a fox being torn apart by dogs by way of, allegedly, pest control, as opposed to pure sport.
I would suggest that 90% of the lamping you refer to was already being done illegally before the ban. IE, without the land owner/famers permission. Difficult to mount a campaign for such I would think. However, as it happens I would support those who wish to pursue this form of sport/pest control
Sex God
Quote by HimandHer
Foxes can be baited into a cage, trapped and euthanised with far less effort than it takes to lamp them or hunt them with dogs.
The truth is that lamping, or hunting with dogs has an element of sport to it whereas cage baiting does not.
If you genuinely want to rid land of foxes humanely and efficiently, then set out 30 odd cages and bait the foxes in. Those cages that attract other animals can simply be opened and the animal set free, those with the animals in that need controlling are euthanised on the spot.
No dogs, horses, rifles or anything else, the truth is that there is an element of sport/fun/excitement in shooting or hunting with dogs and that is the reason it persists.
There are many things against trapping the first in my view is the extreme cruelty and unnaturalness of the act. There could be many hour of very unnatural stress for animals trapped. Also who then pays for this? As it stands, hunting and shoot are provided to the land owner as a free service. Where do we find these trappers to take the place of hunting shooting.
As for some one gaining job satisfaction from hunting or shoot I see no problem in this, no more than that of the man working in a slaughter house who does his job well.
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
As you well know, I have never denied posting the pictures, it is your inaccurate assumption of motive that is in dispute
So what exactly was the motive behind posting those pictures, if not to support your argument for fox hunting?
Sex God
I know they were a reply. But if they weren't in support of Blue's argument, as he say's they weren't, then why post them?
Sex God
Quote by flower411
I know they were a reply. But if they weren't in support of Blue's argument, as he say's they weren't, then why post them?
To show that the posting of emotive pictures is not a way to support an argument because anybody can trawl the Internet to find pictures that could be used to support any argument making the whole process pointless.
I have answered the question several times now, they were in answer to other emotive pictures.
For me the whole point of this thread was that the RSPCA created their pictures and then used them to bolster their agenda. They killed the sheep, some how got blood all up the walls which I have never seen achieved else where with bolt guns, then took pictures of their deed to post on there website!
Even if you find it impossible to believe my motives for posting the pictures, I did not create a situation or take the picture, in my view vastly different and not comparable
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
For me the whole point of this thread was that the RSPCA created their pictures and then used them to bolster their agenda. They killed the sheep, some how got blood all up the walls which I have never seen achieved else where with bolt guns, then took pictures of their deed to post on there website!
I too have never seen such a mess made with a bolt gun, however I wasn't there and so I can only guess at the full circumstances behind the blood splatters. Maybe it was innefective use of the bolt gun, maybe it was arterial bleeding from one of the broken legs. I have no idea, and even your original Daily Mail article speculates.
What I do have an idea on is why the RSPCA took and used the photo's. They used graphic images to shock and grab attention to their campaign against transporting live animals through Ramsgate to the continent for slaughter. To that end they have succeeded.
Ironically, I was not aware of this RSPCA campaign until you raised the subject. They want the government to change the Law to ban live export, allow port authorities to turn down live export, and to place the liability for the full costs of veterinary and animal health regulatory inspections, lairage and emergency facilities on the hauliers, rather than by the taxpayer. I have now signed their and have provided a link in case anyone else would like to.
Quote by flower411
I know they were a reply. But if they weren't in support of Blue's argument, as he say's they weren't, then why post them?
To show that the posting of emotive pictures is not a way to support an argument because anybody can trawl the internet to find pictures that could be used to support any argument making the whole process pointless.
No it is called making a point....keep up.
What the heck is wrong in posting emotive pictures, that helps to prove an argument? Of course anyone can trawl the internet, such a wonderful invention !!!
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
For me the whole point of this thread was that the RSPCA created their pictures and then used them to bolster their agenda. They killed the sheep, some how got blood all up the walls which I have never seen achieved else where with bolt guns, then took pictures of their deed to post on there website!
I too have never seen such a mess made with a bolt gun, however I wasn't there and so I can only guess at the full circumstances behind the blood splatters. Maybe it was innefective use of the bolt gun, maybe it was arterial bleeding from one of the broken legs. I have no idea, and even your original Daily Mail article speculates.
What I do have an idea on is why the RSPCA took and used the photo's. They used graphic images to shock and grab attention to their campaign against transporting live animals through Ramsgate to the continent for slaughter. To that end they have succeeded.
Ironically, I was not aware of this RSPCA campaign until you raised the subject. They want the government to change the Law to ban live export, allow port authorities to turn down live export, and to place the liability for the full costs of veterinary and animal health regulatory inspections, lairage and emergency facilities on the hauliers, rather than by the taxpayer. I have now signed their and have provided a link in case anyone else would like to.
Time will tell, not all publisity is good
Why ironic, surely it is a good thing, I am not an RSDPA hater, I agree with this cause,and many others, just not the way they have attempted to publisise it.
They should stick to animal welfare and not animal rights in my view
Quote by Bluefish2009
They should stick to animal welfare and not animal rights in my view
Oh right Bluefish. So.............who takes up the mantle of animal rights then? I would rather we had the RSPCA at least doing something for the rights of the animal, than let the countryside be run by the blood sport brigade, that give the animal no rights at all.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Worse things are killed daily but hey ... Just how it is eh
J
Unfortunately that is how it is, but two wrongs don't make a right.:bounce:
How right you are Star, :thumbup: could not agree more, and in many ways this has been part of my point all along, If the RSPCA and other groups were truly concerned about wild mammal welfare, they would be supportive of the wider, more principled measure proposed by Lord Donoughue, rather than this very skewed and very mammal specific hunting act.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
They should stick to animal welfare and not animal rights in my view
Oh right Bluefish. So.............who takes up the mantle of animal rights then? I would rather we had the RSPCA at least doing something for the rights of the animal, than let the countryside be run by the blood sport brigade, that give the animal no rights at all.
I would suspect, well I know that most of those who manage the animals within the country side do far more for animal welfare and there well-being than you give them credit for.
Far far more than many who sit and spout such short sighted comments as this. I t does really show a lack of understanding of the country side and those that are charged with its management
For me animal welfare is some thing I can understand and support. On the other hand, animal rights are just a farce in my view. We see, on a day to day basis how complicated the concept of human rights can be, to try and translate this to animals is a falsehood. If we are to give animals, rights, then exactly what rights and to which species? To give rights to animals and avoid any discrimination, that must mean every animal, this would require a massive change in the way we all live. A change in the way we treat fly’s, mice, and rats to name but a few.
Many of those who say they support animal rights will not be vegetarian, let alone vegan, showing once again that the term does not correctly apply to most people or for that matter most groups campaigning for animals. If, as many will say, they simply mean that animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering, well, that is, in my view animal welfare.
What annoys me about the animal rights movement types is the “just don’t do it”, attitude, or demand, because we say so. This in my view is a naïve attitude as they do not always know best. This often comes down to more about how the person feels, rather than what actually happens to the animals concerned.
It is not always black and white, or for and against, most times there is middle ground that is often overlooked in a bid for personal gratification and point scoring. This leads to demonising the opposition rather than constructive debate and in some cases leading to violence as in the B-TB debate.
Below are some wise words I once read that often spring to mind at times like these
“There are causes that need people… and then there are people who need causes”.
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
Time will tell, not all publisity is good
Time is already beginning to tell, according to that article; It says the brand value was on the rise again by the time the research ended. And given that the regulator doesn't seem concerned I would surmise that short term headlines will not damage the long term reputation of the RSPCA.
For the record you may not be a 'RSPCA hater', but you certainly aren't a fan. So I find it ironic that you have inadvertently drummed up some support for them.
Quote by Trevaunance
Time will tell, not all publisity is good
Time is already beginning to tell, according to that article; It says the brand value was on the rise again by the time the research ended. And given that the regulator doesn't seem concerned I would surmise that short term headlines will not damage the long term reputation of the RSPCA.
For the record you may not be a 'RSPCA hater', but you certainly aren't a fan. So I find it ironic that you have inadvertently drummed up some support for them.
Not how it reads to me Trev.
Sex God
Quote by Trevaunance
Time will tell, not all publisity is good
Time is already beginning to tell, according to that article; It says the brand value was on the rise again by the time the research ended. And given that the regulator doesn't seem concerned I would surmise that short term headlines will not damage the long term reputation of the RSPCA.
For the record you may not be a 'RSPCA hater', but you certainly aren't a fan. So I find it ironic that you have inadvertently drummed up some support for them.
I shall watch with interest and see if they are so fast to Court such controversy
I suspect you credit me with too much, I am willing to bet all those on here who supported the RSPCA still do, and those that did not, still do not
Quote by Bluefish2009
I suspect you credit me with too much, I am willing to bet all those on here who supported the RSPCA still do, and those that did not, still do not
I might have once had sympathetic views towards the RSPCA but after the reporting on here about (mis)using funds to pursue what the DPP decided was not in the public interest, I now wouldn't go out of my way to be supportive.
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
I suspect you credit me with too much, I am willing to bet all those on here who supported the RSPCA still do, and those that did not, still do not
I only credit you with drumming up my support for their current campaign on live exports, something I assure you, I wasn't even aware of a few weeks ago.
