Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think most supposed "animal lovers"

87 replies

Aribura · 15/04/2012 12:37

only care about animals when it's convenient?

Horses die in a race you don't watch or take part in: OMG NO HOW CAN THEY BE SO CRUEL LETTING HORSIES DIE IT'S SO UNNECESSARY

Crapton of animals die for a food product which you eat and really enjoy: lol oh well circle of life we need meat to live ignoring the fact there are perfectly healthy vegetarians lol never mind

If you don't care about either or care about both then fair play. I know I'll be UBU'd by the guilty but I just had to get that out there.

OP posts:
Fireandashes · 16/04/2012 14:08

I agree, if it is the most humane way then there should be a service/company set up to do this not everyman and their dogs dressed up to the nine's for entertainment sake.

There was. They were called hunts. But they were never subsidised, so they covered their running costs by offering interested followers the chance to see hounds work and the opportunity to ride over ground they would never otherwise have access to, for a fee.

If you accept that hunting with hounds is the most humane method of control - and I do appreciate that is a stretch for some people even in the face of evidence, because it flies against our human perceptions/emotion re being chased/hunted - then why does it matter if it's carried out by one person in a grey jumper or a group of people in red coats (which have a purpose by the way - the landowner/farmer could see at a glance from a distance that it was the hunt and not some unauthorised riders on his/her land)?

Honestly, I can't express enough that the perception of a bloodthirsty mob glorying in the death of a fox is so wide of the mark. To be blunt, most followers don't care or mind if the fox gets away. If the fox goes to ground at the end of the day, no one (except the farmer whose lambs/poultry it is preying on) is annoyed, regretful or disappointed that the fox 'bested' them. The kill is not their primary motivation - riding a horse at full gallop over open countryside is the thrill for them, and no other equestrian activity allows them to do this without the course being marked out and restricted, without health & safety this and qualification that.

When a mounted follower gets on their horse at the start of the day, they don't know whether they're going to have a day of standing around failing to get a scent at all, a few short gallops punctuated with stops or an end-to-end run. They don't know which direction they will end up riding in, how far or how fast they will be going, what time they will finish. There is no other equstrian activity that has that complete uncertainty. That is the appeal for the vast, vast majority of people who hunt.

entropygirl · 16/04/2012 14:14

fire I have a problem with the 'sport' being tied up with the 'death' regardless of whether or not the 'sport' members are into bloodbaths or not. If people need an equestrian outlet that isn't being catered for then that is surely a separate issue to the needs of farmers to keep fox numbers down?

I can see that the relationship has grown up symbiotically but that doesnt mean it has a place in modern society.

maddening · 16/04/2012 14:18

I'm veggie, does that mean I'm allowed to speak up about animal cruelty?

OrmIrian · 16/04/2012 14:19

maddening - probably not unless you are a vegan! And eschew leather....

GeriatricBabyMama · 16/04/2012 14:29

Quote from animal aid's website:
The whole point of hunting is that the 'chase' lasts as long as possible. This is why the hounds are bred for stamina, not speed. There have also been numerous cases where hunts have provided artificial earth's to encourage foxes to breed to provide 'sport'. Recently the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) secretly filmed an employee of the Beaufort Hunt feeding fox cubs. (The Observer, 11/6/00)

This, if true, kind of suggests that hunt followers do enjoy the chasing of the fox and that it's more about their pleasure than about keeping the fox population down Confused

Another quote from that page:
Every part of a fox hunt is cruel - from the chase, to the dig-out, to the kill. There is no 'quick nip to the back of the neck' in hunting. Lead hounds will snap at any part of the running fox, before the pack rip it to pieces. If the fox manages to go to ground, then it will be forced to fight with terriers for hours before being hauled out and, if lucky, shot.

So, according to animal aid, the foxes do experience considerable pain when they're being killed.

Fireandashes · 16/04/2012 15:53

**

Well they're not exactly unbiased, are they...?

If it's a choice between believing scientific research supported by the UK veterinary profession, who have no agenda one way or the other, or selective propaganda from a group whose ultimate aim is to bring an end to any form of equestrian activity, animal farming and pet ownership, I know who I'd rather believe.

Interestingly, two successive Chairmen of the League Against Cruel Sports organisation, one of the staunchest anti-hunt bodies (Richard Course and James Barrington) both left the organisation because they could no longer support the League's stance that hunting was cruel.

entropygirl · 16/04/2012 16:13

Sorry but no matter how much I personally find the idea of hunting horrible, there is no way in which the statements:

'According to independent scientific research.....'
and
'According to animalaid........'

can possibly be compared.

GeriatricBabyMama · 16/04/2012 16:55

If it's a choice between believing scientific research supported by the UK veterinary profession, who have no agenda one way or the other, or selective propaganda from a group whose ultimate aim is to bring an end to any form of equestrian activity, animal farming and pet ownership, I know who I'd rather believe.

With respect, it's not true to say that all of the scientific research you linked to is backed by vets who have no agenda one way or the other The Veterinary Association For Wildlife Management, who published the report n your first link, used to be called Vets For Hunting. They do have an agenda and it is pro hunting.

If you're going to dismiss information from animal aid on the grounds that they're biased, then you can't really claim that studies by the Veterinary Association For Wildlife Management/Vets For Hunting are any more credible.

GeriatricBabyMama · 16/04/2012 17:07

Sorry but no matter how much I personally find the idea of hunting horrible, there is no way in which the statements:

'According to independent scientific research.....'
and
'According to animalaid........'

can possibly be compared.

The "independent scientific research" cited by Fireandashes, or at least the first link she posted, is not genuinely independent as it comes from an organisation that is pro fox hunting. The organisation used to be called Vets For Hunting.

montysma1 · 16/04/2012 17:26

Quick and painless. I think not.

Given the number of times I have had to rescue my ownl dogs from attacks from other dogs, (on one occasion 2 dogs), all of known killing/fighting/ hunting breeds and and given the screams of my dog during the attack and the post event trauma demonstrated, I would conclude that they suffered both pain and fear. And that was without several miles of pursuit.

In addition, the fact that I have indeed been able to rescue them AT ALL, points to the fact that death by dog is not anything like instantaneous or my animals would have been long gone before I was able to intervene.

Aside from the treatment of the fox, there are oft raised welfare issues regarding the lives of the hounds themselves, and many documented incidents of horrible injuries to the terriers which are sent down the holes as the corned fox is finally forced to fight for its life.

If its all about pest control, dont make it a jolly day out. If its about a good gallop, do it without chasing and killing things.

There are planty of scientific papers out there, but contrary to what you would have us believe, they do not all conclude that fox hunting is the "humane" way and without fear or stress. Is disengeunuine to suggest that the science is conclusive and veterinary approval is unanimous because it most certainly isnt.

"""""""But independent forensic evidence by university veterinary surgeons on foxes killed by hunts and hares caught by greyhounds during coursing show that it is extremely rare for hunted animals to be killed instantly.

Post-mortems commissioned by the Home Office inquiry into hunting - and seen by The Observer - show no evidence to support claims by hunt supporters that foxes are killed by a 'quick nip to the back of the neck' and finds that in many cases foxes are disembowelled first. Five of the 12 hares killed were pregnant, and all had their necks broken by humans after bites by greyhounds had failed to kill them.

Independent vet Professor David Morton, who heads the department of biomedical ethics at Birmingham University, has examined the post-mortems carried out by vets from Bristol and Cambridge universities. He said: 'The fact that none of the animals died instantly clearly shows that they would have suffered. But probably more important is the mental distress these animals would have suffered before they were killed or caught.'

Vets from Bristol University examined the corpses of four foxes killed by hunting. Two of the foxes were shot, having gone to ground. Although the first fox hunted in Cotswold Park near Cirencester was killed by a single bullet, the post-mortem examination found evidence of 'trauma before death'.

The second fox hunted on Salisbury Plain had to be shot twice. Having gone to ground a terrier with a radio collar was sent down, and after 25 minutes of digging the fox was found. The first shot went through the animal's shoulder and failed to kill it, so another shot was required.

But the post-mortem of the fox found it had suffered from multiple bite wounds on the face and the top of the head, damage to the right eye, and bite wounds round the throat.

In both cases where the fox was killed above ground by hounds, evidence was found of 'profound trauma'. In neither case was there major damage around the head or neck, as pro-hunt supporters claimed. The post-mortems showed the foxes had been attacked around the rib cage with the heart, lungs and stomach bitten. Morton said: 'In one case, the fox probably died from suffocation which might have taken several seconds, and in the other, where the heart was severely damaged, it looks the fox would have been attacked while upside down or on its side.'

But the post-mortems of animals killed in hare-coursing paint an even more disturbing tale of animal cruelty. The 12 post-mortems by vets of Cambridge University show that it is probable that 11 of the hares were not killed by the greyhounds despite suffering severe injuries through bites. The vets concluded that their deaths were likely to have been caused by men breaking their necks after they had been caught.

The hares' agonising deaths were revealed in The Observer in March when hidden film was taken of the premier hare-coursing event, the Waterloo Cup, attended by members of the Burns inquiry team. In some cases, men made several attempts to break the hare's neck after greyhounds fought over it. """""""""""""

Bessie123 · 18/04/2012 22:31

montysma that is a really good, informative post. Unfortunately it doesn't help people who want to participate in blood sports feel better about themselves

New posts on this thread. Refresh page