I’m sure that most people involved in animal welfare, particularly those who donate their money or time to the myriad of different organisations, have the relief of suffering as their core motivation. The frustration often felt at the speed (or lack of it) of change is understandable. Look, for example, at the flouting of EU rules by numerous countries on ending battery cages and sow stalls, (not to mention the British farmers who are then undermined by cheaper, poorer welfare imports).
Every new generation seems to want to achieve what the previous one failed to do. The problem is that ‘the cause’ of animal welfare/rights sometimes attracts those with a more blinkered and bigoted attitude and this can lead some campaigns down the wrong route – one, I would argue, that is more about making them feel good, rather than achieving any real improvement.
The Hunting Act is a perfect example. A piece of legislation that has been criticised by a wide range of people unconnected to hunting, yet is still regarded as ‘iconic’ by its supporters, some of whom say it’s working well, some saying it requires amending, others saying it has had virtually no effect. Whatever the truth of the matter, their precious Hunting Act must not be condemned and must be obeyed.
It’s against this background that a parliamentary debate took place last week, secured by MP Simon Hart. It was the prosecution role of the charity that was to be placed under the spotlight, prompted by the Heythrop Hunt case, its “staggering” cost and the fact that the Charity Commission had, as a consequence, written a letter to the RSPCA cautioning the organisation. Though the commission did not consider that the trustees had breached their duty of prudence, they were nevertheless asked to review their current arrangements for prosecutions. Some MPs felt that the high degree of consternation the action had caused both inside and outside parliament warranted scrutiny and felt it right to debate the role and wisdom of the charity’s decisions. Yet, in true ‘them and us’ style, certain anti-hunting MPs chose to see this debate as an attack on the RSPCA as a whole, despite the opening comment from Simon Hart that the organisation “can be, and often is, a huge force for good.”
There was the usual string of emotionally charged descriptions spattering the anti-hunting MPs’ contributions, “We are asked to believe that the apostles of cruelty, who for many years have campaigned in the House to keep gratuitous killing as part of hunting, now want to be compassionate to animals…” and “Rather than worrying about whether the RSPCA is misusing its funds in bringing the prosecution, should we not as taxpayers be criticising the CPS for not being prepared to spend its funding on bringing fox-hunting prosecutions?” All designed to emphasise that if you hunt or are a member of the Countryside Alliance, you are on one side and the RSPCA is on the other – because no hunting person could possibly be concerned about animal welfare. Total rubbish of course, but a line that is constantly sold to the public by anti-hunting groups and MPs for their own ends.
Just consider for a moment, is it really feasible that no hunting person, for example, was shocked by the disgusting, brutal scenes of horse cruelty that took place at the Red Lion abattoir recently? Are they all so hardened, from five year olds upward, that they are immune to such images? This situation suits certain people who have a particular attitude when it comes to animal welfare. They suffer from a form of blind faith, meaning that anything said or done in the name of their ’cause’ must be right. So the RSPCA’s prosecution is justified… for no other reason than they are the RSPCA. The League Against Cruel Sports wins debates…because they are the LACS.
Conversely, anything remotely critical of ‘the cause’ is wrong and must be attacked at every level, even if that means being personal, irrelevant, threatening, untruthful or obscene, something that is now infinitely easier thanks to Twitter and the like. So Simon Hart was “abusing his position as an MP” by simply calling for a debate on the RSPCA. Worse, Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, can even receive death threats for the proposed badger cull to curb bovine TB.
So back to that ‘iconic’ Hunting Act. Certain MPs – some of whom were quite happy to break the law when it suited them – delight in reminding us about how it is now the law of the land. True, but an Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) document, circulated to chief constables shortly before the Hunting Act was passed, stated that it regards breaches of the Hunting Act as “low level wildlife crime” usually dealt with by a fixed penalty. One police force claimed that Alun Michael, the then Rural Affairs minister, had “tried to cajole groups such as the RSPCA to enforce the law…”. This puts the ₤327,000 spent by the RSPCA on prosecuting the Heythrop Hunt into some perspective and, in the eyes of many, totally justifies the parliamentary debate. Of course this will not be accepted by those who blindly follow their own propaganda and can never be objective.
One can’t help thinking that much of the support for the RSPCA’s prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt was more about seeing “posh hunters” in court, rather than what was actually achieved in terms of animal welfare. 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. It prompts the question “Is this about animal suffering or is it really about you?”
Having come through the ranks of animal rights groups and then the League Against Cruel Sports, I am convinced that a considerable number of people actively involved in animal rights are more concerned with how they feel (and perhaps their standing with like-minded colleagues) than what they can actually achieve in welfare terms. Their’s is the view of the fundamentalist. This would explain to a degree why any sort of compromise, agreement or understanding with those they oppose can never be acceptable. That view is strongest in the case of hunting. It also means that there can be only one way forward – their way – and anyone who may hold a different view is, in effect, the enemy, regardless of what good works may have been done for animal welfare, or indeed human welfare, in other fields.
Before I became an employee of the LACS, I worked with adults who had mental and physical disabilities, though I was already involved in an animal rights group. My superior at the time, someone for whom I had considerable respect, came along to one of our meetings and afterwards, when I asked him what he thought, said, “There are causes that need people… and then there are people who need causes”.
I couldn’t see it then, but now I’m sure he was right.
I do rather wonder why the UK government wishes to sub-contract out some of its law enforcement to an unaccountable charity? Certainly the RSPCA are known to be very highly selective about the cases they choose to prosecute; they are notably political and have a marked tendency to prosecute where the intended target has little chance of fighting back.
Perhaps a fairly low limit on the number of private prosecutions a person, company or similar entity might be permitted to undertake per annum might be a fair way to settle all this?
Dan
The RSPCA IS an accountable charity and the Charity Commission has stated on several occasions that it is not necessary to hold the RSPCA to account. The intended target in the case of the Heythrop could not fight back, because they had been caught ‘red handed’ (pardon the pun). How would you know how selective the RSPCA is when prosecuting, when you have possibly never interested yourself in the charity prior to the hunting conviction? I am sure you would love a limit on prosecutions, as I am also sure would most burglars, paedophiles and rapists. Law and order doesn’t work that way though. If you do commit the crime you do the time; no limits.
I have considerable respect for the courage Jim and Simon Hart have shown against those who submitted what can only be described as pure unadulterated hatred towards others in the recent blogs about the RSPCA debate at Westminster. Most of which was full of expletives and vulgarity that no MP on either side of the debate would dare to endorse.
Can you imagine what these lunatics are capable of doing to vulnerable people and animals with such a state of mind? I also noted the RSPCA did not step in and ask its supporters for rational behaviour, befitting of a civilised society with charitable status, a great deal of that money comes from the pockets of millions of hunt supporters?
After receiving a talk today from James Barrington at my school, I believe that hunting and the issues associated with the parts of it that are an effective form of wildlife management and other elements that are perhaps too cruel to continue, are vastly more complicated then most pro or anti hunting groups profess them to be in the propaganda that is provided to the public. The issue, which is chiefly one of animal welfare, has been turned into a farcical black and white (or rather red and blue) issue: resulting in a very flawed piece of legislation. It is strange how immature MPs can become when faced with an issue that seems to them to smack of class warfare. It is time for sensible discussion: the ban needs to be scrutinised, and true animal welfare legislation needs to be implemented to keep the helpful elements of hunting while doing away with the crueler elements such as terrier hunting and the maintenance of artificial ‘earths’ to tempt in foxes to be killed unnecessarily for fun.
Hi Charlie
You obviously enjoyed the talk James did at your school. I would ask though that you look at the other side of the issue before you make up your mind that hunting foxes with dogs is in the best interest of the foxes and the countryside. There is an excellent website which was set up by scientists from Bristol University who are experts in all things foxy. It’s called, as you would imagine, http://WWW.thefoxwebsite.org You could also take a look at the information on the League Against Cruel Sports website too. Lots of stuff out there if you take the time to look. I have a beautiful fox who comes to my garden every night. There is an empty fox den right at the bottom. I have left that part of my garden completely wild so as not to disturb him if he decides to find a lady friend and they have a litter of cubs. He is beautiful, with an enormous tail. I would never encourage him to trust humans but he and I have stood just watching each other on many occasions. If the weather is very cold, I leave him an egg sometimes and I always make sure there is a bowl of fresh unfrozen water for him to take a drink. Nice to get the chance to send you a message.take care, Pattie x
Many of those who care passionately about animal rights think it is wrong for human beings to use or interfere with animals for any reason. They consider human beings who eat animals, for example, to be speciesists. They insist that where animals have similar interests to human beings, such as the capacity to suffer, their interests should be treated equally. Most people in this category are vegans.
There are meat eaters who genuinely dislike hunting and country sports. Their position is that it is wrong to kill and/or cause any suffering to animals for sport. Eating meat is different, they say, because it is nutritious. They would prefer it if all meat were produced and slaughtered to high welfare standards, but complain that such produce is unaffordable.
There are others who say that even if a country sport makes a contribution to wildlife management, it causes unnecessary suffering because what it does could be done in a more humane way. There are those who believe that using dogs to kill animals is inherently cruel, a form of abuse comparable to badger baiting or dog fighting.
Jim Barrington understands all these arguments better than most, having devoted most of his life to addressing them. Few people could be more qualified to comment on the subject of “animal welfare”. Animal rights activists such as Professor Peter Singer or Doctor Richard Ryder are not, by reason of their academic status, any more qualified than Barrington in this field.
Where it can be shown that the proper use of dogs can be beneficial to wildlife management and/or animal welfare, whether directly or indirectly, there is no reasonable argument against it. The complaint that people who participate do so because they enjoy the challenge has no merit, save where the activity serves no useful purpose or where suffering is caused for its own sake.
Those who argue that properly conducted hunting amounts to “animal abuse” are either being disingenuous, because they see it as a clever way to promote an animal rights agenda, or are deluding themselves. Those who genuinely care about animal welfare should consider carefully what Jim Barrington has to say.
Those who need the ban should ask themselves honestly whether the Hunting Act 2004 really does improve animal welfare and human behaviour.
JB. Let us unwrap this particular sweetie before we suck it. I’m sure even you would not argue that real change is rarely effected without people being motivated to act. Managing change requires dogged commitment because once the ball is rolling, there are always those who will take swipes at the facilitators in an attempt to derail the process for their own person ends.
Of course wanting to put an end to animal abuse is emotionally charged. If compassion and empathy ( which are normal emotional responses to suffering in others) did not play a part, then no one would object to hunters terrifying and disembowelling foxes as a form of recreation. What sets human beings apart from other animals, is our ability to feel sorry for others and to want to make the lives of those oppressed better if we can.
People who speak up for animals are not bigots, and unfortunately for us, the blinkers are well and truly off. We do not see hunting through the rose tinted view of spectacle or tradition. We see it as it is in all its stark, dark cruelty.
You say “their precious hunting Act must not be condemned and must be obeyed”. This comment is at the very beginning of where your thinking starts to crumble. First, let me point out that it is YOUR hunting Act too, and second, it must be obeyed because it is the Law. That is what laws are, James, you are supposed to obey them or there are penalties.
We ALL know that Simon Hart’s debate was an attempt to bully the RSPCA into submission so that they would perhaps think twice about prosecuting next time a hunt was caught in the act. You all jump on the amount spent because you have nothing else to carp about, but the reality is, as the CC keep saying, the RSPCA has no case to answer. Simon Hart and the pro hunting press who keep printing smears are just bullies, and we can all see that. I’ll bet not one of you actually donates to the RSPCA, so really you shouldn’t keep going on as if the money came out of your housekeeping.
You may not have heard of Spindles Farm. That case cost the RSPCA £800,000 and only half of that amount was recovered from the guilty parties. I don’t recall any bad press about the RSPCA for spending that amount of money; neither do I recall any questions being asked in Parliament, and the case as passed in to the realms of RSPCA history without a bat of anyone’s eyelid. The RSPCA spends about 5p in every £ on prosecutions, hardly a staggering amount.
Hunting people are most definitely NOT concerned with animal cruelty, if they were they wouldn’t go on a killing spree with a pack of dogs. The RSPCA prosecution WAS justified but not because it was the RSPCA, but because the Heythrop hunters deliberately broke the law, but more importantly, they were caught in a deplorable act of cruelty against a defenceless animal.
Your attempts at belittling the efforts of the more empathic amongst us by referring to what we work towards as ‘the cause’ does your own ‘cause’ no good whatsoever. Finally, I would point out that rudeness and lewdness is more often found amongst your own supporters, and as for your claims of physical violence, the people who live in your glass houses should be especially careful about throwing stones.
Hello again Patricia,
Compassion and empathy play a good part in many things. For example, using staghounds to find casualty deer, so they can be humanely put down. At present only two hounds can be used for this purpose, which prolongs the suffering of the deer. Hound noses working together as part of a pack are more effective than two working as a pair.
Foxes are sometimes disembowelled, usually after they have been killed by hounds, but death is certain. They are not maimed or wounded. The Burns Committee found as follows.
“If the hounds are successful in their pursuit, they will get close enough to the fox to see it and will then catch it up, kill it and usually tear at the carcass (“break it up”).” 2.22
6.48 “There seems little doubt that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death is no more than a few seconds, bearing in mind the great disparity between the size and weight of the fox and the hounds.”
Feeling sorry for wild animals can be kind but it can also be slightly absurd. Predation and death are a natural part of life in the wild. If every wild animal that feels pain or dies in the jaws of another animal were to be felt sorry for we would be so miserable that life would become unbearable. Properly conducted hunting with hounds is not dark and cruel, it is the most natural and humane way of killing foxes. It does not involve the use of alien technology against which the animal has no natural defence.
Lord Scott of Foscote, a former Law Lord and hunt supporter said the following during debate in the House of Lords on 12th January, 2001.
“The principle of not using the law except when its use is justified is highly important if respect for the law is to be observed. We all know of examples from the recent past of what happens when public opinion does not regard a legal prohibition as justified, even though it may accord with moral views.”
He was referring to the iniquity of criminalising consensual homosexual behaviour. Laws can be wrong, and sometimes it would be morally right to disobey a law. If I found a fox in my garden chasing my favourite runner duck, and I called out to my lurcher “Beryl, Foxy” and she chased the fox away I would probably be breaking the law.
Peter Singer is an honourable vice-president of the RSPCA. Richard Ryder is on the Council. Ryder came up with the idea of “speciesism” while sitting in a bath at Oxford University in the 1970s. He then confused Singer with his idea. Singer is a utilitarian and Ryder an animal rights man which the former was once anxiously clarified for me.
Patricia, I wonder whether it is possible that you are projecting some form of personal pain onto animals, in a way that is slightly potty and involves repeatedly attacking Jim. I must go out now to muck out the horses.
PS I still think your style of writing is charming and that your comments are highly intelligent. D
Patricia.
You are wrong on numerous points. It is nonsense to say “We ALL know that Simon Hart’s debate was an attempt to bully the RSPCA into submission”. There are many people, including a former law minister, who supported the reason for that debate, therefore it cannot be “All”, can it?
The Charity Commission cautioned the RSPCA, therefore there must have been some basis for that action.
Those in charge of Spindles Farm were an absolute disgrace and rightly prosecuted. The cruelty was obvious and the RSPCA eventually (after many complaints about James Gray and over a considerable length of time) did the right thing – the costs being directly proportionate to the suffering relieved. One would have to be naive in the extreme to think that the same applies in the case of the Heythrop Hunt prosecution.
The Hunting Act is certainly not MY act and whenever my dog chases a squirrel, I, like Giles Bradshaw, am breaking it. That’s how stupid this law really is.
Your comment about hunting people not being concerned about animal welfare is something you’ve managed to convince yourself about, like numerous other points, but don’t think for a minute that everyone agrees.
I’ve just watched footage of calves a few days old being man-handled, thrown about and brutalised before they were slaughtered. If you think that this is comparable to hunting you are deluding yourself.
You appear to think that I write primarily to convince you (and people like you) that you are wrong. I don’t. Yours is a closed mind and with a selected amount of information you have to hand, you feel that this is all that is required to make everyone believe you. Some will, some won’t, but that is what reasoned debate is all about and I write to explain hunting and the alternatives to those who are more reasonable.
You seek to browbeat people into seeing that yours is the only way forward to prevent cruelty – it’s not.
James
Perhaps I should have said, those of us who don’t have a vested interest in a repeal of the Act, are able to see Mr Hart’s true motive in calling a debate in Parliament. I stand corrected on that point. Mentioning former Ministers etc, doesn’t lend weight to your argument. No doubt the Prince of Wales himself would think SH is a rattling good chap, whose only motive is to safeguard RSPCA donations, but HRH is himself a hunt supporter so he is bound to be biased is he not?
The Charity Commission said there was no case to answer. I can’t think of anything to add to that.
Spindles Farm cost almost three times the Heythrop case. I can’t remember how many horses were rescued from Spindles Farm, but the Grey’s appalling lack of empathy and respect for the animals, and the suffering they caused made the money spent totally justifiable. I believe the investigation did take years, as did the work leading up to the hunting Act. Years of research, lobbying, meetings, reports etc, which culminated in the legislation we have today. That there are loopholes is one hundred percent attributable to the rich and powerful who did their best to scupper the Bill all through the Parliamentary proceedings . I know I have upset you, and you feel brow beaten, and the LAST thing I want to do is push you over the edge, so I am slightly hesitant about reminding you, that unless you have some personal exemption, the hunting Act IS your Act too. We plebs, and you, are bound to obey the laws, otherwise we can expect to be punished.
People are funny, don’t you think so? In the world of fur fashion, ridiculous people like the weird GaGa, who wears more fur than Chewbacca, can profess to love a tiny dog and lavish hours of affection and attention on the creature. Not certain if macho guys actually love their animals, but for want of a better description, you can ‘love’ your dog, and would go to great lengths to protect him from pain and suffering, yet you don’t give a stuff about his smaller relative with the thick bushy tail.
I don’t think for one minute you write to convince ME. I think you regard me as you would a small irritating gnat. Something annoying that kind of spoils your perfect blog with all its nice replies and the comments you get from Mike and Dominic. You could always get rid of me by blocking my postings on here. It won’t stop me from putting across my case against hunting, it will just mean I will return to the bosom of my weird foul mouthed vegan rabble, (as Mike and Dominic describe the empathic amongst us) and you can continue posting your fairy tales in peace. xx ❤
Patricia
Thank you for accepting that not everyone was opposed to the RSPCA debate at Westminster. The Charity Commission clearly had some reason for cautioning the RSPCA over their prosecution policy.
As I said before, I’m very pleased those at Spindles Farm were prosecuted and I’m glad that the RSPCA were eventually successful. Let’s get them back on those animal welfare lines and stop wasting vast amounts on money on animal rights prosecutions.
I’ve heard the nonsense about the “rich and powerful” creating loopholes in the Hunting Act before. Not true. I was present at all the debates, including all the committee days. Those in support of the Hunting Bill (as it then was) were in the majority, both in the Commons and on the committee. There was nothing anyone opposed to the bill, either inside or outside parliament, could do to prevent it passing. Now that some antis are slowly realising that this is a flawed piece of legislation, they are embarrassed and now trying to blame others. It won’t work.
I deplore the fur trade and if you read a previous blog (China’s horror and hope -May, 2012) you’ll see that I was offered a substantial amount of money by a fur PR company simply to talk at one of their conferences. I refused. So much for the accusations about me leaving LACS to gain more money.
Of course I can always block you, but wouldn’t that defeat the object of a blog, much of which is made interesting precisely because of those who repond? I think what what is happening here is that you, and perhaps some others, are finally having your views tested. Remember I came through the animal rights group route, in which usually a dozen or so like-minded people discuss and agree policies and campaigns. Easily done, but when those views are expressed to others in the real world who may not see it the same way, it becomes frustrating. You can’t see why those other people don’t agree with you…and the reason is that people are different, have different lives and have different interests. Rather than being confrontational about those differences, I prefer to find out what we can agree on and what can be achieved.
Don’t worry, you won’t push me over the edge.
Dear Patricia,
You were one of the main culprits I’ve written about in my blog recently, attacking for no apparent reason outside of politics a much needed debate on promoting animal welfare. Your letters conceal a warped sense of self righteousness whereby you are becoming known for arguing black is white and wrong is right.
You need to go back to the comments you made and ask yourself, not someone else as to why you need to associate with a foul mouthed bunch of weirdo’s. And while your’re at it, try apologising to those your comments were directed towards and listening a little may be of some benefit. You’re known to sign off prematurely on your steep learning curve? I suspect its all about politics with you dear girl.
Dear Mike
I havent read your blog but I can kind of imagine. I do not attack for no apparent reason, do you feel you have been attacked? lol You do a good line in arguing black is white not I. I am perfectly capable of telling black from white and wrong from right and I am most ceratinaly not self righteous. That you label me in this way does not make it so, neither does it negate what I am saying which is hunting and ripping foxes to shreds is cruel and it is also against the law. You are rude and pompous, and none of your points are really points and I am at a loss to know what ” You’re known to sign off prematurely on your steep learning curve?” actually means. Is it some kind of question? What is this about me associating with with a foul mouthed bunch of weirdos? As far as I can make out I have been defending my corner entirely alone. Your agenda is clear, you are desperate to make this a political thing, although I can’t for the life of me understand why. The Law is made and it’s now up to the enforcers to see it is obeyed, what is political about that?You’ll be telling me next it’s all about ‘Toff’ bashing. I can only assume that you have been smoking some kind of mushroom things before you wrote this epistle. If you dont want to interact then dont reply to my posts Its quite simple.
Thank you for re-affirming all the points I have made ? Must dash, got to get up early for tomorrows fox shoot. Sweet dreams old girl.
I am am supposed to feel, outraged, tear my bodice, cry, scream, shout, what ?? You are up early to shoot foxes and you think you are going to score a point and upset me? You sad stupid man. I hope you blow your foot off. BTW what WAS all that about your wife running off with marine?
Mike Fry you have annoyed me and I am not your dear girl, you could never get that lucky
Hello Dominic
I have seen footage of hounds on a deer and it wasn’t nice. The poor creature tried to escape by jumping into a canal. It was gruesome to watch even for the less faint hearted. The animal floundered down to a place where it managed to haul itself out and the chase was on again. It was finally cornered when it tried to jump a barbed wire fence, and as it struggled to free its back half from the barbs it was brought to its knees by the dogs who tore and hung on its neck and face. It hung defeated and dying over wire. I am no Beatrix Potter, but the sight of it broke my heart. JB accuses me of brow beating him, and you talk to me as if I were a petulant child who doesn’t understand the world and who should leave hunting to the grownups and not worry my pretty little head, because it would be impossible for me to understand. “Feeling sorry for wild animals can be kind but it can also be slightly absurd.” I cannot decide if you really believe that you are doing animals a service by ripping them apart or if you are just extracting the urine in order to wind me up. You all talk about ‘animal rights people’ as if we are some kind of alien species who spend our entire lives hating humans and elevating animals to sit on the right hand of God. James talks about the suffering of calves as if that exonerates other forms of cruelty because he cares about calves. I will never understand how some people can lavish such care and affection on their dogs, or be concerned about abuse in slaughterhouses and at the same time, they continue to eat meat and call the slaughter and torture of wild animals, ‘welfare’. James is upset because I am strongly disagreeing with him. He is clearly upset, but then so am I. I am upset at the smears, lies and the dirty tricks in the press. I am upset that hunters think they are above the law. I am upset at the blogs and Facebook pages that have been set up by hunt supporters with the sole aim of lying to discredit the RSPCA. My list of justifiable upsets is a long one. You people don’t play fair; you have lost the argument on that alone because you can’t be trusted. I read only today how the odious Jeremy Clarkson encouraged pros to use the free mail to send worthless packages to LACS so it would cost the charity a lot of money in postage. I discover that an ex CEO of the CA told hunters to call the police and lie about hunt monitors attacking them, and I see footage of bullies on quad bikes deliberately picking fights with middle aged women who are filming hunts. One particular lady in her 60s was ridden down and pushed into a ditch. The abuse is endless from hunts all over the country. One particularly nasty fellow was filmed shouting racist abuse, telling a respectable woman that he hoped she died of cancer and she should be “shot like a nigger and left dead at the side of the road” Then the poll rigging, and someone on this blog telling me the antis should have thought of it first. All this and more, and you guys have the nerve to say I hang out with foul-mouthed weirdoes.
The Burns Report does not say that hunting is not cruel, nor does it say that it is less cruel than other forms of fox control. The Burns Report is broadly accepted by all sides as a definitive statement on the issues, but it has been interpreted differently by different parties and its findings used to justify their views. The Report does not state whether hunting foxes with dogs is cruel or not, and it emphasises that there is a lack of firm scientific evidence on the relative welfare merits of the various forms of legal pest control. The report notes that “none of the legal methods of fox control is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective” and states that, like other methods, hunting with dogs “seriously compromises the welfare of the fox”. It concludes that, of all the available methods, lamping, if done correctly, is the most satisfactory method of controlling foxes
Lord Burns returned to this issue in his remarks during the debate in the House of Lords on 12 October 2004, when he said “My view remains that hunting with dogs falls short of what we would like to think of in other contexts as “humane killing” but the sad fact is that so do many of the other methods likely to be used”.
Wordy I agree, but quite clear nevertheless. I am upset tonight because you have all twisted my motives and accused me of being nothing short of a bully who hangs around with deviants who are incapable of putting up an argument without profanities, and I see James is visiting schools apparently and indoctrinating children. You people are just something else.
Good morning Patricia,
I am waiting with the kids for the school bus, before rushing off to work, so this one is on the hoof, as it were.
I know the piece of footage you mean, I think. IFAW had it on newsroom desks when Bateson published his first report on deer hunting for the National Trust. Things can go wrong sometimes in all things. You could produce footage of the aftermath of a plane crash to campaign against flying.
Interestingly, the Nationa Trust modified their view, as did Bateson when he assisted the Burns Committee with the sensible Harris.
You probably ought to own up to being a militant vegan, who could come with emotive material about any form of human interaction with animal where killing occurs.
Your approach to these matters is gloriously purist and intellectually honest in the extreme. Animal Aid PETA and other animal rights organisations would also wish to preach to sensible RSPCA omnivores who have done good work with their Freedom Food brand. If you could you would have a go at other people concerned about the industrialisation of meat production, such as Jamie Oliver.
It is time to own up to the fact that you will not rest until the whole world is covered in soya and everyone has become vegan!
Bye for now. Good luck with your potty ideas.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
I’ve seen a half dead wild deer with a dislocated broken leg struggling on a deer fence after presumably having been there for several days – that wasn’t nice either.
From: dominic
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:53:58 +0000
To: James Barrington
ReplyTo: dominic
Subject: Re: [New comment] Blind faith
Good morning Patricia,
I am waiting with the kids for the school bus, before rushing off to work so this one is on the hoof, as it were.
I know the piece of footage you mean, I think. IFAW had it on newsroom desks when Bateson published his first report on deer hunting for the National Trust. Things can go wrong sometimes in all aspects of life. You could produce footage of the aftermath of a plane crash, for example to campaign against flying.
Interestingly, the National Trust moderated their view, as did Bateson when he assisted the Burns Committee with the sensible Harris.
You probably ought to own up to being a militant vegan, who could come with emotive material about any form of human interaction with animals where killing occurs.
Your approach to these matters is gloriously purist and intellectually honest in the extreme. Animal Aid, PETA and other animal rights organisations would also wish to preach to sensible RSPCA omnivores who have done good work with their Freedom Food brand. If you could, you would have a go at other people concerned about the industrialisation of meat production, such as Jamie Oliver.
It is time to own up to the fact that you will not rest until the whole world is covered in soya and everyone has become vegan!
Bye for now. Good luck with your potty ideas.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
________________________________________
Hello Dominic
I do hope you caught the school bus. I think you were a little rattled when you sent this reply lol. I’ll put it down to you running late. I AM vegan and I work towards animals being given a few rights in Law. However, I am neither potty (as you suggested) nor am I foul-mouthed, (as Mike suggested) although I have nothing against swearing, I just don’t think it helps win an argument. It was silly of you to suggest that I want to see the world covered in soya. When people resort to this type of comment, it usually means they are running late in getting the children to school, or they have no valid arguments to back up their case.
I have many friends who eat meat, and whilst I prefer not to, I don’t attack them for it. I do try to gently show them the cruelty involved in the meat and dairy industry however, but I am subtle when doing so. I think eating meat is a learned activity as far as humans go, but as long as the animals that die for our food are treated with respect, I don’t have too much of a problem with meat eating. One thing certain, it will take a better woman than I to turn the world vegan and I have more pressing matters.
I don’t think your plane crash analogy is a good one, especially as James wouldn’t let go of my Nazi analogy in his Debatable Tactics blog.
It would appear that the National Trust have moderated their view even further, because in light of the Heythrop prosecution, they have banned hunting on NT land.
All this talk about Freedom Food labels and intellectually honest vegans who go on Cromwellian crusades is just a smokescreen, Dominic. This is about the spin, smears and dirty tricks from the hunting fraternity who want the Act repealed. I have no clue as to your life style; I suspect you are/were a hunter of foxes. Somehow I can see you in a red coat on the back of a beautiful horse. That may be entirely wrong, as is your perception of me. I have always been against hunting, all forms of hunting, including trapping, bow hunting, shooting, fishing etc. It isn’t necessary in 2013. Slaughterhouses MUST be run humanely, as the law intends, and we should all be lobbying to that end. There is no requirement to hunt for food. People should not have a right to use animal flesh as living targets for any reason. If an animal has to be culled for its own good then a skilled marksman must do the job, and he should be properly trained and paid a salary. There is no requirement to hunt for sport, we regard ourselves as civilised and yet we cling to these outdated traditions in a manner that is nothing short of fanaticism. It would seem that hunters are unhinged in their fanatical determination to follow their bloodlust.
Throughout history, individuals or groups of people have advocated greater kindness and denounced cruelty, but what had never been suggested was that cruelty should actually be banned by law. It was left to a great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, to put forward such an idea in 1780. Twenty years later, a courageous MP called William Pulteney tried to bring in a Bill to prevent bull-baiting. It was thrown out and he was ridiculed and reviled for his ideas. Throughout Britain, men of sensitivity and kindness saw themselves surrounded by a society which permitted slavery, cruelty to children, and which amused itself by torturing animals. Those men didn’t give up and neither will we. Managing change is a painfully slow progress and the change facilitators have to be prepared for setbacks, dirty tricks, threats, lies and smear tactics from the opposition, just as Pulteney et al had to endure all those years ago.
Hello Patricia,
No problem, the boys caught the bus and we were not late.
I would rather not traverse each of your points seriatim as it may not be constructive, so I’ll see if there is anything else we can say to each that might help us move forward a little.
The Burns committee did say in the introduction to the report that they found a number of paradoxes. Here is one.
“Lamping is most effective in autumn when fox densities are high, cover is reduced and the inexperience of young foxes makes them a relatively easy target.”
You said this about the report.
“(I)t concludes that, of all the available methods, lamping, if done correctly, is the most satisfactory method of controlling foxes.”
Would you say that shooting young foxes in autumn is lamping “done correctly”? It is just a thought arising out of your “marksman” point. The reality, as the Burns report found, is that a range of methods is used to kill foxes and hunting with hounds is in my view complementary to the other methods. Why do I say that? As you know, annual fox mortality is high. With Professor Stephen Harris’s assistance it was estimated in the report that “about 400,000 foxes die each year”, (5.5). Believe it or not, the ethical hunter is often the quarry species’ best friend. I can assure you that the ban is not good for the rural fox. Prohibition, whether it be of abortion, alcohol or even some drugs can have unintended consequences and be counter-productive.
There was anecdotal evidence that deliberate culling is a substantial factor in this mortality. It is important to keep that in mind because the report found that hunting under MFHA rules accounted for about 14,000 – 15,000 foxes a year. It may be me, but it may seem odd to some people that 700 hours of Parliamentary time and vast sums of money were spent trying to stop traditional foxhunting. I think you would agree that as an animal welfare issue, on any view, it pales into insignificance when you consider the problems involved in producing meat – including Findus burgers. Just imagine if Deadline 2000 (and various incarnations since) had done more to support ethical meat eating instead of spending so much time and money trying to ban hunting?
In my view the ban, if it were vigorously enforced, would deprive foxes of a number of benefits which other methods cannot provide, which I could list – but not now!
BTW, I don’t think the National Trust has banned hunting on NT land. I understand they may have banned one hunt in one particular location.
I should also tell you, as you are making assumptions about me, that I am mixed race and have been a Labour voter for much of my life. I think my assumptions about you were right, were they not? But you did give me some clues. And yes, it is true I do like hunting on a beautiful horse, especially ex-race horses that nobody wants.
The problem with being purist is that you can end up achieving very little. I saw the film Lincoln recently and it was interesting to see how pragmatic the man had to be to obtain the 13th amendment before the end of the civil war. I read philosophy some years ago at college so I do know about Bentham, just as I know about Ryder and Singer, who like Bentham is a utilitarian. It is easy to care passionately about animals it is much harder to care properly for them.
I find some of your anger difficult to understand. I don’t know why you find it necessary to use shock tactics all the time. Tricks, threats and smear tactics are often associated with people who share your aims. BTW, it is true that hounds are put down when they come to the end of their working lives. They would pine for the hounds in the pack if they became somebody’s pet. Again this is a tiny point in the overall scheme of things. The RSPCA put down a very large number of dogs and other animals for welfare reasons do they not?
Properly conducted hunting is not purely a sport. It has and should have some utilitarian value in relation to the quarry species. It therefore does not cause gratuitous suffering. So unless you are suggesting that the vast majority of decent hunting people are in some way corrupted by the enjoyment of spending a day out with hounds, I really don’t understand what the objection is to the activity also being recreational. It strikes me that this point is a form of “pseudo” morality which has nothing to do with animal welfare. Finally,I care deeply about animals and find some of what you say about people like me quite offensive.
Hi Patricia – spindles farm was appalling cruelty through neglect.however there have also been situations where arguably more suffering has been caused to wild deer through neglect. I’m thinking of the LACS sanctuary at Baronsdown where there was considerable overcrowding and many deer suffered and died.
Of course in the case of wild animals we can wash our hands of responsibility and say ‘that’s nature’. but we should remember we as human beings have had a massive impact on the circumstances in which wild animals find themselves.
The horses at spindles far died a ‘natural death’ in so far as that is what happens to horses when they are not cared for. However their owner was obviously morally culpable because he was responsible for their circumstances.
In my opinion given that we have greatly modified the natural environment we have a moral responsibility for the welfare and health of the wildlife that inhabit it.
How we fulfil that responsibility is of course rightly a matter for debate. However I am not sure that it is a black and white issue.
The view of LACS seems to be – in the words of their previous chief executive Douglas Batchelor that ‘the important thing is killing for sport’. In my opinion that view has the potential of leading us to place our moral qualms over ‘killing for fun’ before the actual best interests of the wildlife.
Mr Batchelor might for example excuse the consequences of his deer management on his sanctuary by saying that it would have been worse if people had killed some of those deer for sport.
In my opinion the issue is not one of killing for sport but what is the best form of wildlife management. LA|CS had i believe around 300 wild deer on their land which is what lead to it becoming a major TB hotspot with 76 recorded cases.
If he had allowed the stag hounds on there or allowed a proper regime of deer stalking – or dare I say it even me with my two collies the considerable problems that arose could have been averted.
Giles xoxo
Hello Patricia,
I agree with Jim’s response to you last night. I am sure we could agree on some things; for example that animals are sentient creatures that feel pain and deserve respect.
You might be a little dogmatic at times, but I certainly have not suggested that you are foul mouthed. I thought you might be flattered by my “on the hoof” comment above. I was certainly not trying to insult you.
I respect “militant vegans”! I was greatly influenced by Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation during my first year at university. I have avoided factory farmed animal products ever since.
What Giles has written about wildlife management above makes good sense don’t you think? Although you have disagreed with some of what he has said in his comments under Jim’s Debatable tactics blog, there are important respect in which you do agree
We can all thank people like yourself, Peter Singer and many others for drawing to people’s attention the the iniquities of factory farming, for example.
Most people who enjoy properly conducted hunting are not racist or foul mouthed. There may be some who may need some advice about how they should behave towards middle aged monitors.
I watched some You Tube footage recently which showed a lady with a film camera on her head rescuing a fox from hounds who were about to kill it, I don’t know what she did with the fox, but one thing that struck me is how the hounds behaved. They were real gents if they were dogs – or ladies if they were bitches – and just let her do it without biting her or even growling at her.
Don’t you agree that these fine animals are very different to some of the creatures morons use for the purposes of dog fighting or badger baiting?
All the best and good luck with being positive rather than negative about animal welfare and good wildlife management.
Kind regards,
Dominic
Dear Patricia,
You have all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. But I do confess to liking a woman with spirit and while excepting a fanatic is one who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject, please give me both barrels again ?
Lol I am sorry that i was rude last night. I am angry with myself for becoming uncool. Am cool again now. I must confess to being desperately curious about your ex wife and the marine. Your posts are not always easy to follow, I do my best but that one has me completely stumped. I am not a fanatic, I am just always right,which is the prerogative of a woman
Dear Patricia,
May I make it up to you with a joke:
Jack and Susan are on a blind date at a nice restaurant.
The date is going terrible and Jack justs wants to leave, but he can’t because they are waiting for the main course to arrive.
Fortunately, Jack, an experienced dater has foreseen this happening and arranged with a friend to call him midway through the date to see how things are going.
His friend finally calls his mobile, Jack answers, listens for a minute and says “Oh no”. He hangs up and tells Susan “I have to go my grandmother just died”.
Susan, also an experienced dater says “thank goodness, my grandmother was about to die” /
I guessed the punch line lol but not bad. Try this one I laughed all day, and such a catchy tune http://my.twonky.com/video?vid=154968841
Dominic
I couldnt reply in the usual way to your last post because there was no reply button to click. (I am rarely flattered, so a bit of a waste of time trying, I do however appreciate a straight conversation) Before I ask a question, let me say that fox hounds are indeed beautiful animals, they don’t deserve the life and death they get as memebers of a hunting pack http://www.realca.co.uk/violence/they-love-their-hounds
O’h very funny for us (I found it ridiculously amusing) but not funny for our wildlife that suffers because of a misconceived class war from fund raising Labour incompetents. They f**ked up our wildife, the economy and threatened the very existence of the NHS, public sector workers and two generations of young people who will never realise their true potential. While at the same time, making silly videos when the life for British hares has become virtually impossible. There has been a sixty per cent drop in hare numbers (they look like a big rabbit) since the ban came into place. Oraganised, sustainable hare coursing that accounted for five per cent of hare kills where practiced, has been replaced with a poachers charter and marauding gangs of poachers have no close season (allows the population protection during the breeding season) they simply compete wth each other all year round because if they don’t ‘ave them, someone else will. Hence the dramatic drop in the population.
And Patricia don’t delude yourself in claiming “what’s different”. Hare poachers blind the hare with powerful lamps and send a lurcher down the beam unaffected because the light comes from behind, death of the hare is almost guarenteed and the carcases are dumped. Farm workers are subjected to horrendous attacks during darkness if they report it and most have had to concede defeat on losing all thair wildlife?
But please don’t let me upset your sensitivities again old girl, tear your cloths , self harm if you must but please leave our wildlife management to experienced people who have successfully managed it for hundreds of years and strangely enough, know what they are doing with sustainable hunting ???????????
i
lol you didnt find that video funny then? I must try harder next time
I thought we were making up with a few jokes? Oh well guess not lmao
On the seventh day not only did the Lord rest, you wrote “its not about toff bashing”. Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you old girl.
A hypocrite is someone who professes one thing and does another along the same vein as the thing he professes to abhor. The trouble here is twofold; firstly I am not quite certain what a ‘toff’ actually is. At one time I suppose a toff would have been an aristocrat, although I am not at all sure how the word came into being. The lines these days are somewhat blurred, and some people who have no aristocratic claims still regard themselves as toffs, so I can assume that by ‘toff’ you mean the rich middle classes. If that is the case, then there are quite a few of us anti blood sports types who belong to the rich middle class, so toff bashing wouldn’t really be an issue would it? The second problem is that those who can afford the hunting club fees and the paraphernalia and animals would have to be rich. A lot of hunters are landowners and people in well-paid jobs. They usually, although not always, vote Conservative. It is not only those type of hunters I despise, I also despise the lowly terrier men and the hangers on and followers who trail around the country like sycophantic poodles. So you see I don’t go in for toff bashing because I don’t care who they are. I think you would like it to be a class war, but class is not really an issue these days. People are more concerned with the cruelty.
“A hypocrite is someone who professes one thing and does another along the same vein as the thing he professes to abhor.”
ah I see – what’s the word for the League Against Cruel Sports and RSPCA – saying they are anti cruelty – thinking that shooting herds of wild deer fleeing dogs is cruel – and then formally supporting in court the law requiring wild deer to be shot.
In other words being anti cruelty and pro what they themselves believe to be cruel. I thought that was hypocrisy but maybe there’s another word for being an utterly cynical bunch of unprincipled liars?
BTW Mike I sent you some links to videos to watch in reply to your assertions that we antis are foul mouthed bigots but James hasn’t allowed them through as yet. You could always search The Real Countryside Alliance website and see what a lot of charming fellows YOU align yourself with. Not sure the any Bible quotes will be relevant as far as I am concerned as I am an atheist. You may be interested to know however, that Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Pope before him, reckon animas have souls. Ooops that’s you in trouble at the Pearly Gates.
Hi Patricia – would not videos made in an attempt to tarnish an entire group of people with the selected and edited actions of a few not say something about the videoers as well as the videoees?
James
this is in reply to your last post I couldn’t reply in the body of the post because the ‘click reply’ button wasn’t available.
I have a question for you and Dominic. Simon Hart et al would have us believe that his motives are pure, and indeed he said at the beginning of the Parliamentary debate that he wasn’t there to defend those who broke the Law. He stated that he was concerned that a charity had used money frivolously which had been donated by the public, and that to safeguard future donations, the charity should be held accountable as it had a duty of prudence not to waste public money.
With that in mind, I would draw your attention to some skulduggery orchestrated by Jeremy Clarkson, and others, who set about a scam to bankrupt the League against Cruel Sports.
When the League launched their Hunt Crimewatch campaign in 1995, they appealed to its many members to make donations to help pay for the equipment for the monitors. This appeal included a freepost address to make it convenient to donate. Once this became public knowledge a plot was hatched. There is evidence that an upper echelon of the CA circulated an email, suggesting that its members may like to bombard the LACS with totally worthless contributions to the Freepost address.
The idea was to wreak havoc for LACS and to cost them a huge amount of money in postage. One of the ring leaders of this scam was on record as saying he hoped it would bankrupt the charity. Parcels kept arriving at the Leagues offices that contained dead animals, excrement, house bricks, paving slabs, heavy books and abusive letters (one involving bestiality). An email, citing the support of the Countryside Alliance, was circulated urging pro hunters to send these items using the League’s Freepost address which was published in the Evening Standard’s ‘Londoner’s Diary’ and Jeremy Clarkson’s column in the Sun on Saturday 17th December. Clarkson suggested that he was going to send a paving stone or a horse. The CA has since made an effort to distance itself from the scam.
Investigations by the League revealed potential evidence of named individuals’ involvement in the circulation of the email, including major figures in the Countryside Alliance, the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, hunts and the wider pro-hunting movement. There are indications that the email has also been forwarded by the wife of an employee of the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace. Several City law firms are also implicated, along with estate agencies, chartered surveyors and senior staff in a variety of companies. The League reported the matter to the CID. The police are investigating potential abuse of the postal system and malicious communications.
Now my question is this, if pro hunters are so concerned about a Charity’s money being wasted, why was there not an outcry and condemnation of those who tried to bankrupt the League? There wasn’t a whisper in the Telegraph or the Mail. Do you think it is right to behave in this way especially when the CA now wants us to believe that they only have the best interests of charities at heart? It is small wonder we don’t believe a word they say and especially the part about their animal welfare agenda.
Do we have any names for these named individuals or are they to remain nameless? Obviously all individuals have names – so what were they? And what exactly was this ‘potential’ evidence? Was it actually evidence or was it just ‘potential evidence’ maybe just as we don’t seem to know what the names individuals were but can reasonably assume that they did in fact have names we also don’t actually know what the evidence is although we must assume that there is some somewhere if only we could find it.
Probably we must conclude that any individuals that circulated the email would have had names and that there is a potential of there being actual evidence of them circulating the email.
As such all we can go on is a statement by LACS that they may have potential evidence of unnamed named individuals who may have circulated an email.
From this you seem to want us to draw certain conclusions about the HUNTING FRATERNITY – and let us in this enlightened age also add the HUNTING SORORITY that they are in general the kind of people who have names and forward these kinds of emails.
After all videos have been produced of (presumably named) members of this fraternity/sorority being very angry with and unpleasant to hunt monitors/sabs. If we are justified in drawing conclusions about the entire faternity/sorority from such videos we are also surely entitled to draw conclusions about their email habits from the evidence that potentially may or may not exist about certain unnamed named members.
Giles there are a couple of names mentioned in here and it shouldnt be too dificult to discover others. For example the Master of Foxhounds at the time, not sure who that would be as I am not familiar with all the Klan positions and appointments http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/exclusive-animal-rights-group-horse-570392 BTW I dont believe te footage is doctored re the videos, some f it is sustained verbal and physical violence, and Christopher Marles was actually convicted of bodily harm to a lady
Patricia you are missing the point – I think deliberately. Some named black people have done appalling things. Some named muslims have killed thousands of people. No doubt some named homosexuals have done so too. But to extrapolate from the actions of a few members of a group is straight forward bigotry. It is the typical tactic of disreputable organisations such as the BNP. No doubt there are violent hunt supporters and their actions very probably come to the fore in the tense situation which surrounds hunting with masked activists regularly out to sabotage activities whose legality is disputed. However the fact remains that just as most black muslim homosexual &c &c people do not conform to the profiles represented by the few members held up as examples by prejudiced politically motivated bigots to represent them – nor do most hunt supporters.
I am afraid your tactics in this debate are transparent and they are to continually hold up the actions of ANY one you consider to be ‘pro’ as to represent an entire group of people labelled as ‘pro’. Moreover you then extrapolate from this labelling to try and make some kind of case against a particular form of wildlife management.
I am surprised at you to be honest ans you are obviously an intelligent woman.
Let me ask you a simple question – are the rights and wrongs of various dog based wildlife management techniques in any way related to people sending LACS the yellow pages in the 1990s? What bearing does possible misuse of the postal system actually have on the animal welfare consequences of wildlife management?
I’m against violence except in very exceptional circumstances and condemn it.as do I feel other contributors to this forum.
Pattie B,
I don’t know what the answer is to this one, so I am guessing.
Have you ever heard the expression “Never test the patience of a patient man”? I suspect, but I don’t know, that every now and then people get slightly fed up with being told what they can and can’t do by LACS. So, if someone came up with a prank like that one, many rural people might feel tempted to let off a bit of steam. But I am just guessing.
You see, there are 400,000 people who are prepared to march for what we believe. I don’t know how many members LACS has, but I suspect their membership will be reducing if anyone sensible spends time reading some of what you have written on this blog. Are you possibly talking to your self?
Has anyone told you that you have delusions of grandeur?
Bertie (aged 14)
Hi Bertie
Can you imagine the furore if the ‘prank’ had been played the other way round? What do you think would have happened if the League had suggested that people send countryside alliance head quarters dead animals, dangerous items and excrement through the post? Apart from it being an offence to use Royal Mail to send items like that, the CA would have been justified in being outraged. It’s not really letting off steam. At best it is immature and stupid at worst it was a calculated attempt to bankrupt an honourable charity orchestrated by a group of people who want to see a return of blood sports. I’ll just remind you that the League didn’t make the Law, Parliament did,and we are supposed to obey laws made by our elected leaders. 400,000 people may have marched I have no idea, but there Are 60 odd million in the country and two recent polls showed that three quarters of us want to keep cruelty history. I take on board that you think I am not sensible and that you feel I may have reduced the support given to LACS by posting my comments. If that is the case then you should be quite pleased I would have thought. You are obviously a highly intelligent young man, Bertie and you have given your considered reply. Thank you for taking the time to reply at least I’m not talking entirely to myself.
I thought it was jeremy clarkson?
Hello Dominic
You are right about the Heythrop only being banned from NT land. They will not have their licence renewed when it expires. I realised my mistake after I had posted the reply and it was too late to change it.
I didn’t say I thought lamping was satisfactory, I was telling you what was written in the Burns report. I was replying to an earlier post of yours but I can’t for the life of me remember what that particular point was about now.
Hunters do not kill enough foxes to be termed fox controllers, and of the small number that is killed by hunting, about 40% are killed in the autumn cubbing. Most foxes in Britain are killed on the roads. I remember before the ban that the hunting argument was that most foxes escaped and that the few that were caught were too few to be worth all the Parliamentary time and effort. I confess to not understanding why the opposite is now the claim. I would also ask why, unless game keepers are protecting game birds, that you feel it is your job to kill foxes? DEFRA states that most farmers don’t find foxes a problem, and other sources have suggested that a lot of farmers say hunters are bigger pests than foxes. So for whom are you providing this valuable service, and what is it that you are actually protecting from foxes? It is a farmer’s duty to care for his animals properly, and if he has free range poultry he has a duty to ensure they are behind fox proof fencing and they must be locked in fox proof sheds at night. That he doesn’t house his animals securely is not a reason to kill foxes. DEFRA again states that a very tiny number of lambs are taken by foxes, and indeed it could be argued that the lambs were scavenged rather than killed.
I agree there are many other cruelties, but this is about hunting not about abattoirs or the fur trade. We can discuss those with equal vigour if you like, but that must be for a different blog. I suspect with those issues we may find we have a lot more in common. I don’t know where you get the idea that I am purist. I hate cruelty to humans and animals and I think as civilised beings we have a duty to protect the vulnerable, what is wrong with that?
The only assumptions I made about you I gleaned from your comments. I don’t see what being of mixed race or where your voting allegiance lies has anything to do with hunting foxes, other than more Tories hunt than Labour supporters. You on the other hand attempted to belittle me by calling my ideas potty and suggesting I was a raging vegan with a pathological hatred for meat eaters and I wouldn’t rest until the world all ate soya. You have consistently patronised me, and on occasions insulted me throughout your replies, even suggesting that I ‘attack’ JB because of some deep seated pain in my own psyche. Labels and sneers are used to negate what a person is saying. I hear you but I am not affected by your remarks. The fundamental issue is that you and I see animals in a different way. I see them as beings with which I share the planet. They have their own life ways as I have mine. They enjoy their lives as I enjoy mine within their particular species. I respect them and I try not to harm them. Having said that I know that sometimes we must kill animals and sometimes they kill us. It’s nature. Others think ‘they are only animals’ therefore it’s right and proper to use them as we see fit. This is when animal suffering begins. People put out a general all inclusive term like ‘welfare’ which makes other people think that the species is thriving so that must be okay. But no mention is made of the individuals that make up that species that are suffering and dying while we talk about welfare.
The RSPCA do euthanase a lot of animals and I don’t understand why you make that a point of condemnation. If you read their reasons you will see that some are so physically and mentally traumatised that they can never be rehabilitated. Others have been in ‘kennels’ for so long that they would find it hard to adjust to being in a family, and some are ill when the RSPCA acquire them. The people to blame for the thousands of animals that are killed each year in shelters are those who abandon or ill use them in the first place. I don’t like the idea but I am a realist rather than a purist and I can see no other alternative.
Finally, yes I do see a lot wrong with people getting pleasure out of seeing an animal lose its life. You have deprived an animal that has done you no harm of the enjoyment of being alive and all that that entails. I object very much to killing being recreational, and that some take their children along, is a form of child abuse. I have no false morality; I am perfectly capable of knowing what is wrong and what is right. You find my words offensive? I find your hobby deeply offensive.
Dear Patricia,
When you are in a hole, stop digging? But let us stick to one grumble you have about us. You claimed hunt supporters sent all manner of articles through the pre-paid postal service to LACS, do you honmestly believe in view of virtually every emotive advertisement in the media against hunting having to be removed by the Advertising Standard Authority or every claim of cruelty being thrown out of court that LACS could not stoop so low as to get its own members to send garbage to them in an attempt to get publicity and raise funds? I seem to recall a certain employee of LACS recently being jailed for stealing off his own members charity, LACS certainly have some difficult problems to resolve like their membership dropping to an all time low, they could start with being honest like us lot you love to communicate with. As an atheist please don’t worship LACS? I can’t for the hell of it understand why you are being so stupid – I’ve actually got use to you and admire certain qualities you have, you most certainly make me laugh (LOL).
P/S: What about the hare problem, or are you waiting for someone else to answer that?
Mike
There is this, and other news articles online which easily verify the hoax as being perpetrated by the pro huntng set. It went as high as an equerry’s wife in Buckingham Palace http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/32902 If you dod a bit of researching you will come up with other accounts of what happened. Please dont defend it. We both know it was a despicable thing to do.
I dont worship LACS I align myself with them and others who want to prevent cruel sports. I am not stupid Mike and I’m happy you have a sense of humour. I think you are just cross because my video was funnier than your joke. What is the problem you have with hares again?
Hi Pattie,
I have got child care and equine care issues and a jury trial to prepare for tomorrow. I know that is something you are talking to Mike about.
Might help you soon. Take care.
Regards,
Dominic
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
You too,
good night
” a jury trial to prepare for tomorrow” – I hope it wasn’t your own Dominic?
Hi Patricia – moving away from telephone directories and back to wildlife management there’s a really good paper here you might want to read on the ‘landscape of fear’ http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/articles.php You can see that there is considerable evidence that perceived predation risk can change prey behaviour and have a significant effect on the ecosystem. This is exactly the effect I achieve using my dogs on wild deer. I’d suggest that this paper also has relevance to the issues around urban foxes.
There’s a whole load of links here wrt predator prey ecology
http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/articles.php
Some more here on the effect of fear on landscape – it’s fascinating stuff and interesting that in one of their reports LACS claimed there is no evidence that hounds have any effect on deer beheavior http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/Manning%20et%20al%20%202009.pdf
Patricia,
Your incorrigible – but I like you xx
I wonder why? lol
On Sunday 10th February TV news programs reported how a fox almost killed a five week old baby. Fortunately the mother heard a thud as baby was pulled out of its cot and impacted on the floor followed by a loud piercing scream and on arrival, the mother had to kick the fox repeatedly to get the childs badly mutilated hand out of the beasts mouth. The little toddler also had a severed finger and serious injuries to the face and scull and was rushed to hospital for emergency life saving treatment.
The RSPCA claimed fox attacks as a rare incident, funny how I can recall at least three in the past two years that have been reported? But the thing that puzzles me is their statement that was released at the time, it was the irresponsible public feeding foxes that were to blame. The idiots said people should not put out food for foxes. Yet in their own leaflet called “living with foxes” it advised giving these dangerous, disease ridden carriers cheese, boiled potatoes, raw chicken, bread and table scraps. Although it did stop short of offering a glass of your best claret.
Come on RSPCA, get your own house in order before criticizing others!!!!!!!!!!!
The poor little boy he must have been in great pain and very frightened and alone. I hope he is soon well again. The good thing is he is too young for the episode to have a lasting impression. The rest of your comment is just made up of the usual words I have come to know and tolerate. You are one of life’s kidders, Mike, you don’t listen to anyone else and you probably read the Mail and the Sun. Take a good look at the story now though; it has changed completely since it was first reported. At first the fox came in through the broken back door. Then the housing association said they had mended the door on Jan 24th. So today the fox came in the front (no doubt it had its own key). First of all the child was in his cot, but now he was on the couch. First his tiny fingertip was bitten off, now his middle finger was not quite severed. First he had a black eye now he doesn’t. First the neighbours all knew and heard the screams, now they only found out when they read it in the press. It has been suggested although not confirmed, that neighbours say the family had a dog. Apparently keeping dogs is against the rules. Today the baby’s mother has given an exclusive interview to the Sun. I haven’t heard or read it because quite frankly I would rather stick pins in my eyes. I think the press and the pros are loving this. One could be forgiven for thinking that the baby is just a pawn in the battle to get the Act repealed. The Mail had the usual totally unrelated picture of a snarling fox, and they have dragged out the old faithful picture of a huge fox is hanging off a ladder. Some other story about foxes prowling around a maternity hospital is also doing the rounds. What a despicable bunch of sewer rats they are. And then there’s you carping on at the RSPCA again. We both know that what they said about feeding foxes, but of course that is not how you spin it. Unfortunately for you, nobody is listening about the RSPCA any more, that’s old news. They have a juicy injured baby to use as a pawn and they will make the most of it. I feel really sad about it all, sad for the tiny boy and sad for the foxes who are being vilified and demonised with no justification whatsoever.
There seems to be a huge and rather unsavoury operation afoot to smear the parents with all sorts of things being claimed. I read somewhere that the baby (one month old) was feeding the fox in the garden! seems a bit unlikely. Let’s just call that an ‘unconfirmed suggestion’ – in other words totl and utter nonsense that someone has made up on twitter and that I am repeating to make a point.
Letting one month old babies wander round the garden feeding foxes is very irresponsible – what terrible parents they must be. Especially with the pack of fox hounds which the parents (no doubt paid up CA members) also might keep there – let’s call that an unconfirmed suggestion too.
Incidentally I think I may have persuaded the RSPCA twitter account to support my own brand of wildlife crime! They’ve said that deer should only be shot where there is ‘strong evidence’ it is necessary.
The RSPCA LACS and the government all claiming in court that they think is necessary is not strong evidence at all. Because they are unprincipled politically motivated liars.
In the wake of such an absurd law drafted and supported by such dishonest people I think that there is a moral imperative to break the Hunting Act as much as possible.
Dear Patricia,
You never fail to amase me old girl xx
Perhaps you welfarists would take a moment to read this account from one of your own. This account was used as evidence when compiling the Burns Report. No doubt there will be some clever defence from Dominic, some jocular insults from Mike and who knows what from the ex CEO of the LACS. It has sickend me and upset me beyond belief. My one regret is that I bothered replying to any of your comments.
http://www.harperaspreywildliferescue.co.uk/Cliff_pellow.html
Patricia, I’ve come in late to this debate but perhaps you would like some FACTS about Clifford Pellow. He was a talented huntsman when he started out – but his attitude and general behaviour made it increasingly hard for him to find the jobs he thought his skills entitled him to. He made his allegations about the MFH at the Tredegar only AFTER he was sacked – for assaulting the MFH. Until then, IF anything untoward was going on at that hunt, it was with Pellow’s full complicity.
I did some debates with Pellow in the late ’90s – after one, I received a ‘phone call from his ex-wife asking me if I was aware of ‘a tasty bit of dirt’ about him. (It was tasty!) I did some more digging. The most CLASSIC statement of Pellow’s was regarding one of his many departures (under a cloud) from a number of hunts. He said: “Wouldn’t have people calling me Clifford. If they couldn’t say “Good morning sir”, don’t bother to speak at all was my attitude.'”
Now ALL professional huntsmen are called by their first name by hunt subscribers and officials! They are only called ‘Sir’ by the junior kennel staff! The Tredegar was his last chance – he’d been sacked by most of the hunts he’d worked at since becoming a huntsman! He needed to ‘get even’ and he needed cash in his pocket! He got both courtesy of LACS!
“The MFHA rejection drove Pellow into the arms of the League Against Cruel Sports and, before the year’s end, into a public denunciation of the ‘craft’ to which he’d devoted his life.”
Need I say more?
Only this, you may have noticed that I have always used the words “properly conducted hunting” in my comments. In any event, this evidence was not considered reliable by the Burns Committee and their findings were not influenced by it.
But even if it were reliable, it supports the position Jim has advocated namely that hunting (and meat production) can be done in ways that are cruel and not cruel.
Banning an activity that has strong support, such as hunting, is counter productive. As I said in my first comment, hunting should to be conducted in a way that is accountable and transparent. The hunting world has moved on in the 21st Century, even if its detractors have not.
Do read all my comments again, including my conclusion to the first one under Jim’s Debatable Tactics blog.
I have had a long day working, doing the kids (wife is having a much deserved break) and caring for the horses and our other animals, so I’m off to bed. Good night Pattie please do not reply to our comments if it makes you unhappy, we won’t be offended.
Dear Patricia,
Sorry if I have offended you in any way, it was never my intention and I feel quite upset that you have left with such negative vibes towards me for being simply honest – alright, lets own up, we both did a bit of leg pulling ? I continue to like you and hope its not goodbye xx
I just read this re the fox and the baby – it *seems* that unconfirmed reports the thing was just made up by someone on twitter and then taken as gospel by various very gullable people and the parents have now been getting considerable abuse.
http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/news/downham_fox_attack_parents_deny_online_dog_accusations_1_1934541
Not good at all
Unbelievable, isn’t it!! Of COURSE an urban fox will take a chunk out of a baby it happens upon – just as a rural fox will take a chunk out of a cast ewe, or the head off a lamb in the process of being born, OR kill every hen in a hen house!
well indeed Janet and although we should not consider foxes and entirely evil they can in some circumstances be a major problem. A pest is an animal in the wrong place. Imagine the problem we would have in the countryside if people were taming rural foxes, feeding them and encouraging them to come into hen houses.
We found the little captain at the head;
His men lay well aligned.
We touched his hand–stone cold–and he was dead,
And they, all dead behind,
Had never reached their goal, but they died well;
They charged in line, and in the same line fell.
The well-known rosy colours of his face
Were almost lost in grey.
We saw that, dying and in hopeless case,
For others sake that day
He’d smothered all rebellious groans in death
His fingers were tight clenched between his teeth.
For those who live uprightly and die true
Heaven has no bars or locks,
And serves all taste.. or what’s for him to do
Up there, but hunt the fox?
Angelic choirs? No, Justice must provide
For one who rode straight and in hunting died.
So if Heaven had no hunt before he came,
Why, it must find one now,
If any shirk and doubt they know the game,
There’s one to teach them how,
And the whole host of seraphim complete
Must jog in scarlet to his opening meet.
Mike,
I can’t compete with Robert Graves, but here is a home made one in the style of a sonnet.
But what are you hunting?
It is to my horse that I must go now,
To hunt across country in wind and rain;
“But what are you hunting?” with furrowed brow,
I replied “A fox” simply and in vain;
From covert downwind and across the moor,
Through river, heather and in yellow gorse;
When hounds checked and in rocks began to draw,
The huntsman blows “Gone away!” from his horse;
And on to the sound of hounds in full cry,
My mount follows with ears pricked to heaven,
Galloping swiftly over moor on high,
For the art of life in wildest Devon;
In life and in death a country story,
Horse, fox and hound in truth and glory.
Postbridge, Dartmoor, April 1999