Discussion
It's an amusing situation, this. In many cases, this is what we are dealing with..
I wish to keep animals for profit.
Other animals may reduce my profit.
I therefore dress up and force other animals (readily discarded when of no more use) to chase and tear to pieces said animals.
Anyone who does not like this situation is a troll / stupid / destroys the planet with cars.....
No wonder the majority of people think these types of wannabe cowboys are comedy gold.
The excuses are desperate and laughable in equal measure.
I wish to keep animals for profit.
Other animals may reduce my profit.
I therefore dress up and force other animals (readily discarded when of no more use) to chase and tear to pieces said animals.
Anyone who does not like this situation is a troll / stupid / destroys the planet with cars.....
No wonder the majority of people think these types of wannabe cowboys are comedy gold.
The excuses are desperate and laughable in equal measure.
Digby said:
It's an amusing situation, this. In many cases, this is what we are dealing with..
I wish to keep animals for profit.
Other animals may reduce my profit.
I therefore dress up and force other animals (readily discarded when of no more use) to chase and tear to pieces said animals.
Anyone who does not like this situation is a troll / stupid / destroys the planet with cars.....
No wonder the majority of people think these types of wannabe cowboys are comedy gold.
The excuses are desperate and laughable in equal measure.
Do you eat cow, chicken....any meat ?I wish to keep animals for profit.
Other animals may reduce my profit.
I therefore dress up and force other animals (readily discarded when of no more use) to chase and tear to pieces said animals.
Anyone who does not like this situation is a troll / stupid / destroys the planet with cars.....
No wonder the majority of people think these types of wannabe cowboys are comedy gold.
The excuses are desperate and laughable in equal measure.
chrispmartha said:
Stickyfinger said:
With so many emotional objectors to fox hunting thinking it is all about being in red and on a horse, the result is my sport grows.........thanks
It's got nothing to do with dressing in red or being on a horse, it has everything to do with people like you, who think killing animals is a 'sport'.
And there you have it. What an absolute belter of a clanger.
"Sport".
Talk about utterly destroying everything you tried to lie about with a single word.
I hope someone takes on the mammoth task of trying to defend this (I would imagine even pro-hunters are cringing right now) as it should provide some of the best and most entertaining BS yet!
Welsh farmer has asked his MP if they can review hunting with hounds so that they can use more than 2 hounds to flush a fox as he has lost 115 lambs to fox kill this lambing time. It's all LIES LIES LIES. I Don't believe it. Cuddly Basil would never ever kill for fun. Maybe the lambs had these orange coats on to protect them from the cold and foxy thought Look at these over dressed t
ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)
ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)stichill99 said:
Welsh farmer has asked his MP if they can review hunting with hounds so that they can use more than 2 hounds to flush a fox as he has lost 115 lambs to fox kill this lambing time. It's all LIES LIES LIES. I Don't believe it. Cuddly Basil would never ever kill for fun. Maybe the lambs had these orange coats on to protect them from the cold and foxy thought Look at these over dressed tts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)
Got a link? Would be interesting to see why they are having so much trouble.ts parading about in fancy dress . fking toffee nosed upper class welsh half breds(That's a sheep breed)EDIT:
Is ok, I found it.
It's about profit and saving money as expected.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 28th May 20:23
Digby said:
And there you have it. What an absolute belter of a clanger.
"Sport".
Talk about utterly destroying everything you tried to lie about with a single word.
I hope someone takes on the mammoth task of trying to defend this (I would imagine even pro-hunters are cringing right now) as it should provide some of the best and most entertaining BS yet!
stichill99 said:
I just can't understand why anybody would be in business to make a profit? Delusional I would say!
"Research has conclusively shown that the fox is primarily a scrounger of carrion. Animals that have died from disease, malnutrition and hypothermia all present feeding opportunities for foxes. Sadly many sheep farmers present the average fox with plenty of “fallen stock” as a feed supply.On hill farms, losses of new born lambs where they are born outdoors can run as high as 16%. Wet and cold weather is the biggest killer by far of new born lambs, followed by death due to malnutrition because the ewe does not have enough milk to support her young. Rather than killing the lambs, the rural fox is more often simply in the business of removing the already dead and of recycling the bodies as food.
Where a farmer claims to be suffering severe losses from fox predation it is well worthwhile examining the reality of that claim and determining where true responsibility for lamb deaths lies.
Where is the proof that the fox was the cause of the lamb’s death? What steps did the farmer take to protect vulnerable lambs from the cold and the wet? What steps did the farmer take to ensure that his ewes were in good enough condition to provide enough milk for the new born lambs? Did the farmer tend his lambing flock by night to ensure that new born lambs were accepted and fed by their dams? Ask yourself, is the fox really responsible for all that the farmer claims and remember that it is all too easy for the incompetent and or lazy shepherd to blame the fox!"
He should spend some of that animal based profit on protection and better farming practices...
A study by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) calculated that each year 4 million lambs are lost at a cost of £120 million for the industry. Deaths due to all predators (i.e. not just foxes) and misadventures combined account for only 5% of this figure, whereas 95% is due to poor husbandry and a variety of management problems.
No wonder there's a huge need to dress up and have a nice, animal torturing day out! Damn that 5%!!!
Best get the pro-hunter rug ready, it needs a whopping 95% of factual evidence sweeping underneath it! (if there is any more room)
If it is full, go back to the tried-and-tested PH method of trying to belittle.
No wonder so many famers won't allow hunts on their land. Why would you want to deal with people like this?
Let's have a reminder of the types ofs and the mentality we are dealing with...
"Fox cubs filmed being 'put into hunting hounds' kennels to train them to kill'
'The horror and suffering these cubs must have gone through is almost unbearable to think about', says League Against Cruel Sports
Sadistic, barbaric,s
No wonder there's a huge need to dress up and have a nice, animal torturing day out! Damn that 5%!!!
Best get the pro-hunter rug ready, it needs a whopping 95% of factual evidence sweeping underneath it! (if there is any more room)
If it is full, go back to the tried-and-tested PH method of trying to belittle.
No wonder so many famers won't allow hunts on their land. Why would you want to deal with people like this?
Let's have a reminder of the types of
s and the mentality we are dealing with..."Fox cubs filmed being 'put into hunting hounds' kennels to train them to kill'
'The horror and suffering these cubs must have gone through is almost unbearable to think about', says League Against Cruel Sports
Sadistic, barbaric,
s Edited by Digby on Sunday 28th May 22:22
Let us remind ourselves again of the lies...
Each year, for the past 40 years, pro-bloodsports organisations and their supporters have launched and re-launched a concerted smear campaign against wildlife welfare groups, suggesting they are releasing large numbers of urban foxes into the countryside.
There has never been a shred of proof to these allegations, which are also somewhat ironic, considering the only people ever proven to have trapped and re-released foxes into different areas are foxhunters and ‘pest controllers’, the latter when they can’t bring themselves to kill the fox they have trapped and the former in order to re-stock hunting areas when the population has fallen too low for adequate hunting.
The story, described annually and often simultaneously in local newspapers all over the country, varies only slightly. The ‘witness’ sees a van driven into a field, the driver (usually speaking with an identifiable regional accent) opens the back and a large number of foxes (invariably described as ‘urban’) jump out. The fox number is accurately counted and is seldom less than 30.
The chatty and highly co-operative van driver explains he’s releasing them for an animal rights group or an urban local authority. All this information - on scores of almost identical occasions - yet no-one ever gets a vehicle number!
There is no such identifiable animal as an urban fox. The UK has only one species of fox – the Red Fox. The Fox Project has received tiny, mangy, semi-tame rural foxes and hefty, staunchly wild foxes in excellent condition from urban areas - and vice versa.
Now for some logistical questions:
Q: How did the van driver get multiple foxes in the back of his van without each darting out as the next went in?
A: He couldn’t. As wildlife rescuers we are well aware you can’t control two frightened and agile foxes at the same time.
Q: Where were the foxes kept post capture and prior to release?
A: They weren’t. You can’t hide that many foxes. Pens, human comings and goings and many other factors mean the operation could hardly be kept secret.
Q: Why would an animal welfare group release foxes into areas where hunting or shooting take place?
A: They wouldn’t.
Q: Who would fund such an expensive programme?
A: No-one would. Based on a comparative figure of properly rescued and returned wild casualties, such as The Fox Project admits annually, the cost would run into tens of thousands of pounds per year in terms of cage traps, vehicles, personnel, buildings, holding pens, food and vet bills. An organisation could not raise that sort of money without publicly stating its aims.
No-one who likes foxes would donate money to an animal welfare group operating such an irresponsible programme. And why would anyone who doesn’t like foxes give money to organisations like ours? Local authorities would have no hope of hiding such a programme and, cash starved as they are, they couldn’t and wouldn’t fund it.
Wildlife groups have been challenging the liars for over 40 years but they simply ignore the challenge and keep on lying.
DEFRA (the Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) have repeatedly stated they have “no evidence of groups of foxes being translocated from urban to rural areas” and that “abandoning an animal in circumstances in which it is like to suffer would be an offence under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006”. This Act absorbed the previous Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, to which responsible animal welfare groups have always adhered.
The Fox Project has a standing reward of £1000 available for anyone who can provide information leading to a conviction for carrying out uncontrolled release of foxes into a foreign environment. That is to say, releasing an urban fox into a rural area or vice versa.
The League Against Cruel Sports offered a further £1000 in 1988 for the same purpose.
In 1998, The National Fox Welfare Society offered another £500 and an independent wildlife consultant based in Kent has personally pledged £1000 for the purpose.
That’s £3500 in total, which, despite repeated requests for a vehicle number or some other conclusive proof, remains unclaimed after many years of these stories.
Why? Because no proof is available. Hysterical tales of mass fox release are a useful means of generating support and funds for pro-bloodsports organisations from farmers and landowners gullible enough to believe foxhunting is necessary. There may be another motivation, but, as yet, it hasn’t occurred to us!”
Each year, for the past 40 years, pro-bloodsports organisations and their supporters have launched and re-launched a concerted smear campaign against wildlife welfare groups, suggesting they are releasing large numbers of urban foxes into the countryside.
There has never been a shred of proof to these allegations, which are also somewhat ironic, considering the only people ever proven to have trapped and re-released foxes into different areas are foxhunters and ‘pest controllers’, the latter when they can’t bring themselves to kill the fox they have trapped and the former in order to re-stock hunting areas when the population has fallen too low for adequate hunting.
The story, described annually and often simultaneously in local newspapers all over the country, varies only slightly. The ‘witness’ sees a van driven into a field, the driver (usually speaking with an identifiable regional accent) opens the back and a large number of foxes (invariably described as ‘urban’) jump out. The fox number is accurately counted and is seldom less than 30.
The chatty and highly co-operative van driver explains he’s releasing them for an animal rights group or an urban local authority. All this information - on scores of almost identical occasions - yet no-one ever gets a vehicle number!
There is no such identifiable animal as an urban fox. The UK has only one species of fox – the Red Fox. The Fox Project has received tiny, mangy, semi-tame rural foxes and hefty, staunchly wild foxes in excellent condition from urban areas - and vice versa.
Now for some logistical questions:
Q: How did the van driver get multiple foxes in the back of his van without each darting out as the next went in?
A: He couldn’t. As wildlife rescuers we are well aware you can’t control two frightened and agile foxes at the same time.
Q: Where were the foxes kept post capture and prior to release?
A: They weren’t. You can’t hide that many foxes. Pens, human comings and goings and many other factors mean the operation could hardly be kept secret.
Q: Why would an animal welfare group release foxes into areas where hunting or shooting take place?
A: They wouldn’t.
Q: Who would fund such an expensive programme?
A: No-one would. Based on a comparative figure of properly rescued and returned wild casualties, such as The Fox Project admits annually, the cost would run into tens of thousands of pounds per year in terms of cage traps, vehicles, personnel, buildings, holding pens, food and vet bills. An organisation could not raise that sort of money without publicly stating its aims.
No-one who likes foxes would donate money to an animal welfare group operating such an irresponsible programme. And why would anyone who doesn’t like foxes give money to organisations like ours? Local authorities would have no hope of hiding such a programme and, cash starved as they are, they couldn’t and wouldn’t fund it.
Wildlife groups have been challenging the liars for over 40 years but they simply ignore the challenge and keep on lying.
DEFRA (the Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) have repeatedly stated they have “no evidence of groups of foxes being translocated from urban to rural areas” and that “abandoning an animal in circumstances in which it is like to suffer would be an offence under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006”. This Act absorbed the previous Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, to which responsible animal welfare groups have always adhered.
The Fox Project has a standing reward of £1000 available for anyone who can provide information leading to a conviction for carrying out uncontrolled release of foxes into a foreign environment. That is to say, releasing an urban fox into a rural area or vice versa.
The League Against Cruel Sports offered a further £1000 in 1988 for the same purpose.
In 1998, The National Fox Welfare Society offered another £500 and an independent wildlife consultant based in Kent has personally pledged £1000 for the purpose.
That’s £3500 in total, which, despite repeated requests for a vehicle number or some other conclusive proof, remains unclaimed after many years of these stories.
Why? Because no proof is available. Hysterical tales of mass fox release are a useful means of generating support and funds for pro-bloodsports organisations from farmers and landowners gullible enough to believe foxhunting is necessary. There may be another motivation, but, as yet, it hasn’t occurred to us!”
Digby said:
Let us remind ourselves again of the lies...
Each year, for the past 40 years, pro-bloodsports organisations and their supporters have launched and re-launched a concerted smear campaign against wildlife welfare groups, suggesting they are releasing large numbers of urban foxes into the countryside.
There has never been a shred of proof to these allegations,
A quick google gives advice from RSPCA, Twycross zoo, The Fox Project, National Fox Welfare Society, and many others all on releasing foxes into the wild. The NFWS has a Facebook page about it. Each year, for the past 40 years, pro-bloodsports organisations and their supporters have launched and re-launched a concerted smear campaign against wildlife welfare groups, suggesting they are releasing large numbers of urban foxes into the countryside.
There has never been a shred of proof to these allegations,
Is this advice just made up for fun and they don't really expect anyone to follow it?
Digby said:
Sorry, which question?
The question of whether any animal welfare groups actually do or don't release foxes into the wild. I'm sorry if I missread your post but that is what I thought you were trying to ask.I merely gave a few examples of animal welfare organisations which seem to support it and concluded that some do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff