Advocates for Animals Lose

[hunterswind]

Today the SNP listened to reason and didn't ban the use of snares. This is a victory for Scottish wildlife brought about by a Scottish government who listened to rural people, not a Labour so called English government who go for headlines. A personal friend who lobbied for the farming community stated today that the SNP are listening to their voters not sub minority animal welfare groups.

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by hunterswind

Today the SNP listened to reason and didn't ban the use of snares. This is a victory for Scottish wildlife .

Hardly a victory for the poor sod that gets slowly garrotted. Don't be daft.

Regards, Chris

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

Hardly a victory for the poor sod that gets slowly garrotted. Don't be daft.

Regards, Chris

I think the point HW is making is that it is a victory for ground nesting birds etc in that effective Fox control will still be possible - and btw a modern snare doesnt work as a garrote the purpose is to hold the Fox or whatever captive until it can be shot not to kill it outright (modern snares have a stop that gives the a minimum diameter meaning that they cant over tighten and thus can't cause amputation or strangulation)

the type of snare that used to do lots of damage was the locking snare which could only tighten and slowly throttled its victim often nearly cutting them in two - these are horrible but they are already banned in the whole of the UK, have been for many years, and are not in wide spread use.

I think it is a great shame that this issue has become about "sides" winning and losing as despite our differences we are all here through an apreciation of wildlife and the countryside - however I dont blame HW for putting it in these terms as the anti snaring people have constantly sought to personalise this debate (see the other thread) and I must admit that there is a certain ammount of satisfaction in seeing their position turned down by the scottish executive

[hunterswind]

Animal rights people let loose the Mink and I have a broken collar bone thanks to some idiot throwing marbles under my horses feet horse that I loved and was shot due to broken leg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I have a grudge agents LACS and Advocates for Animals but these people are a tiny minority with good PR and achieve nothing for wildlife at all.

The Scottish Nationalist Party Lead by Alex Salmond ( the best leader in the UK just now) has really listened to the majority and ruled in favour of the countryside

Andy

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by hunterswind

Animal rights people let loose the Mink and I have a broken collar bone thanks to some idiot throwing marbles under my horses feet horse that I loved and was shot due to broken leg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I have a grudge agents LACS and Advocates for Animals but these people are a tiny minority with good PR and achieve nothing for wildlife at all.

The Scottish Nationalist Party Lead by Alex Salmond ( the best leader in the UK just now) has really listened to the majority and ruled in favour of the countryside

Andy

Going totally off the topic - ive never understood why a horse has to be put down when it has a broken leg - you would have thought that the technology existed these days for vets to pin the bone and plaster cast it like they do with people (and cats and dogs) - or is it to do with the horses weight ?

back on topic I mostly agree with you - though i am not pro Fox hunting (with hounds - i see nothing wrong with Fox control with a lamp a rifle and a lurcher) I have no time at all for the hunt sab - this is another example of animal rights campaigners crossing the line from activism to crime. I know of one case down here where they threw drain cleaner in a horses eyes - striking a real blow there against cruelty to animals

[hunterswind]

I have a horse just now with a fracture to the front leg (speeding car !!!!) he will be tied up for 6 weeks standing to prevent a break. Horses use their legs to get up from the ground so will break everytime they lye down. Bob is kind of lucky, not a break but a fracture so might be saved if not in 6 weeks time might have to be shot

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by hunterswind

Animal rights people let loose the Mink and I have a broken collar bone thanks to some idiot throwing marbles under my horses feet horse that I loved and was shot due to broken leg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I have a grudge agents LACS and Advocates for Animals but these people are a tiny minority with good PR and achieve nothing for wildlife at all.

The Scottish Nationalist Party Lead by Alex Salmond ( the best leader in the UK just now) has really listened to the majority and ruled in favour of the countryside

Andy

I have no time for animal rights extremists at all (remember when some of them dug up that poor lady's corpse?). Just because I would like to see snares banned, for heavens sake, don't tar me with the same brush. You couldn't be more wide of the mark.

Eeyore, whether they garrotte or not, to 'pin' an animal down for any significant length of time is going to cause a certain level of distress, which I find unacceptable. I have no argument with justified control, all I ask is for is an efficient, swift dispatch.


Regards, Chris

[hunterswind]

Chris I really understand where you are coming from. You don't have to use snares I do !!!! but they are very effective and now still legal. Please remember that if it wasn't for people in the countryside there would not be much in the way of wildlife.

Andy

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

I have no time for animal rights extremists at all (remember when some of them dug up that poor lady's corpse?). Just because I would like to see snares banned, for heavens sake, don't tar me with the same brush. You couldn't be more wide of the mark.

Eeyore, whether they garrotte or not, to 'pin' an animal down for any significant length of time is going to cause a certain level of distress, which I find unacceptable. I have no argument with justified control, all I ask is for is an efficient, swift dispatch.


Regards, Chris

No problem chris - i'm not tarring you with that brush - i used to be quite active with lynx myself but got turned off the whole sector by the increasing slide towards direct action and hysterical and emotive campaigning.

I'm sure you are correct about being pinned down causing a certain level of distress , and i dont advocate their wide spread use (normally i would control foxes with a rifle, a lamp and a long dog) but there are circumstances where they are the only sensible option (such as the scenario i described on the other thread with rare nesting birds on a heathland where shooting would have cause an unjustifiable level of disturbance).

good practice suggests that a snareline be checked at dawn and dusk (and once during the day in hot conditions), and so long as this is followed the distress caused is no more than that caused by a cage trap (which would be the other option were they not too expensive). In my expereince most of the foxes we caught didnt seem particularly distressed and in some cases had curled up and gone to sleep.

this was also the expereince of prof david macdonalds oxford uni WILDCRU who used a stopped snare to trap foxes to be radio collared

[hunterswind]

Long dog ! you cant use them lol I remember the old days though great way to control foxes and better than a rifle. I had a whisper that the RSPB backed the use of snares up here but shhhhhhhh

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by hunterswind

Long dog ! you cant use them lol I remember the old days though great way to control foxes and better than a rifle. I had a whisper that the RSPB backed the use of snares up here but shhhhhhhh

I think you can - at least down here - theres an exemption on the hunting act for the use of a single dog for such work. Ive used a long dog against Rabbits too and I agree its much more effective and probably kinder than a bullet. I dont own one myself but i have used to have access to a mates collie cross lurcher cross pyrenean mountain dog cross ...i dunno wolf probably and she was deadly effective on Fox , Rabbit, and egg colector

I wouldnt be suprised if the raspberies did back the use of snares, i know of rspb, national trust, and wildlife trust sites that use them to form a cordon sanitaire arround terneries and heathland GNB sites and the like. I would imagine that they like to keep this fairly low profile tho

[hunterswind]

At least Alex Salmond did the right thing and actually listened to sound advice from lots of organisations backed with Ho my word scientific knowledge. The Game conservancy has to take a bit of credit as they supplied a lot of factual based knowledge

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by hunterswind

Chris I really understand where you are coming from. You don't have to use snares I do !!!! but they are very effective and now still legal. Please remember that if it wasn't for people in the countryside there would not be much in the way of wildlife.

Andy

To a small extent you have a point, but I have lived (for most of my life) and worked in the countryside and had many dealings with gamekeepers, farmers and the like and in my experience they really do not always know best. Plenty just think they do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I sense a morsel of arrogance here on your part. Are you saying 'townies' are not as capable of making worthwhile contributions to our wildlife? Because that is what is coming across to me here. If so, I think you are mistaken.

Regards, Chris

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by ChrisJB

To a small extent you have a point, but I have lived (for most of my life) and worked in the countryside and had many dealings with gamekeepers, farmers and the like and in my experience they really do not always know best. Plenty just think they do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I sense a morsel of arrogance here on your part. Are you saying 'townies' are not as capable of making worthwhile contributions to our wildlife? Because that is what is coming across to me here. If so, I think you are mistaken.

Regards, Chris

Hi chris - I notice that HW is frozen and thus isnt likely to be replying to you. In my view the whole town / countryside thing is a red herring - there are plenty of people who have no idea about how the countryside actually works-- including a fair number of animal rights campaigners- and these predominantly dont live in the countryside , however there are also a number of people who live in the countryside who have no idea about wildlife including a number of those who think than anything with fur or feathers which isnt game is vermin.

At the end of the day where you live is far less important than your knowledge and experience - for example I live in a town but have spent my entire career working in the countryside.

I also agree that there is a tad of arrogance in what HW was saying but "country" people like him are often driven to this by people from the animal rights lobby laying down the "law" on the inequities of species control when they dont actually have the faintest idea about the realities of the situation

note that i'm not saying that you fall into this group, it is clear from your post above that you accept the need for occasional and responsible control but are concerned about the humaneness of the methods used - this is an admirable concern and one that I and indeed an number of country folk including quite probably HW can share.

It is also easier to engage in intelligent dialogue and debate, or indeed to agree to disagree, with someone whose concerns are based on fact rather than the emotive and rose tinted view of how the countryside should work which is common amonst many animal rights activists

[stripee]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Hi chris - I notice that HW is frozen and thus isnt likely to be replying to you. In my view the whole town / countryside thing is a red herring - there are plenty of people who have no idea about how the countryside actually works-- including a fair number of animal rights campaigners- and these predominantly dont live in the countryside , however there are also a number of people who live in the countryside who have no idea about wildlife including a number of those who think than anything with fur or feathers which isnt game is vermin.

At the end of the day where you live is far less important than your knowledge and experience - for example I live in a town but have spent my entire career working in the countryside.

I also agree that there is a tad of arrogance in what HW was saying but "country" people like him are often driven to this by people from the animal rights lobby laying down the "law" on the inequities of species control when they dont actually have the faintest idea about the realities of the situation

note that i'm not saying that you fall into this group, it is clear from your post above that you accept the need for occasional and responsible control but are concerned about the humaneness of the methods used - this is an admirable concern and one that I and indeed an number of country folk including quite probably HW can share.

It is also easier to engage in intelligent dialogue and debate, or indeed to agree to disagree, with someone whose concerns are based on fact rather than the emotive and rose tinted view of how the countryside should work which is common amonst many animal rights activists

I don't disagree with much of what you say eeyore but I do disagree with too much running down of people and organisations which work towards improving wildlife and farm welfare. I know there is a percentage of extremists who would do weirdo things and illegal activities, but the majority of people in the mainstream animal organisations, and some of the less mainstream too, are not like this. Yes, they have may have strong convictions, but usually they do their homework. What goes on the countryside can be pretty unpalatable if you not aware of it, sometimes I would really like a rose tinted view of the countryside rather than the reality which I see rather too much of. It is not that difficult to see exactly what goes on in the countryside. Also if it was not for campaigns over the last couple of centuries by people seen as nutters (basically) or eccentric, we would be looking at a less humane treatment of wildlife today. The strict dividing up of town and country people is fairly absurd these days. OK when people travelled no further than the nearby county town in their lives, but as country people are able as with everyone else to get on a plane and go Florida if they feel like it, and shop at Tescos, they are hardly living anymore in a state of isolation as in the old days.
What divides town and country, is field sports, and some methods of "pest control", along with some types of animal and poultry farming, which also divides people living in the countryside, and always has done. There are many people in rural communites not involved in traditional farming, or have a different attitude to farming, or working in the NHS, offices, solicitors, doctors etc etc., or working in other industries such as tourism. This is what makes me annoyed when the CA for instance think they are talking for all rural dwellers when they are really talking about their grass root supporters who are followers of field sports. Using snares to maintain a dwindling population of rare birds, is perhaps the only exception, although personally I think it's a pity our wildlife has come to this pass. As for game shoots, the birds are reared in a similar manner to battery chickens, not very kindly, to me it's pathetic that anyone wants to do these kinds of sports at all, but someone makes the money out of it so that's all that matters

[willing to learn]

The thing with banning things without giving it level headed thought can lead to an outcome that back fires . Take the ban on Fox hunting. Do you thing there are less foxes killed now
A couple of the estates I know run game shoots,and had an gentlemens agreement with the hunt, not to control foxes and leave it to the hunt as most shoots did, if there was a local hunt . As soon as the ban was in place. The first nights lamping ended in 18 dead foxes. More than the hunt took in a season. I have to admit I was anti hunt toff's and all that, but I was invited to one with friend. I was suprised the hunt and it supporters came from all walks of live and made us welcome. The hounds that day, did catch a Fox it was dead in a instance, several outsmarted the hounds and got away.So the Fox hunting ban was not a very smart move, all it brought about is a lot more dead foxes
Regards
Colin

[ChrisJB]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Hi chris - I notice that HW is frozen and thus isnt likely to be replying to you. In my view the whole town / countryside thing is a red herring - there are plenty of people who have no idea about how the countryside actually works-- including a fair number of animal rights campaigners- and these predominantly dont live in the countryside , however there are also a number of people who live in the countryside who have no idea about wildlife including a number of those who think than anything with fur or feathers which isnt game is vermin.

At the end of the day where you live is far less important than your knowledge and experience - for example I live in a town but have spent my entire career working in the countryside.

I also agree that there is a tad of arrogance in what HW was saying but "country" people like him are often driven to this by people from the animal rights lobby laying down the "law" on the inequities of species control when they dont actually have the faintest idea about the realities of the situation

note that i'm not saying that you fall into this group, it is clear from your post above that you accept the need for occasional and responsible control but are concerned about the humaneness of the methods used - this is an admirable concern and one that I and indeed an number of country folk including quite probably HW can share.

It is also easier to engage in intelligent dialogue and debate, or indeed to agree to disagree, with someone whose concerns are based on fact rather than the emotive and rose tinted view of how the countryside should work which is common amonst many animal rights activists

Dear Eeyore,

I do believe H.W has indeed misinterpreted my views. I don't even think he thinks I am an animal rights nutcase. I reckon he just thinks he knows best because he is a country gent, and I don't know best, because he assumed I was a 'thick townie'! Even after this, he will probably still think he knows best, but then again, so will I!

The irony is, I suspect we share decidedly similar views on ill-informed animal rights activists and their sometimes warped strategies.

Sorry H.W, I am discussing you like you have died or something! I hope a thaw sets in soon and you are back in the land of the living.

And Eeyore, you have got me spot on in your fourth paragraph! I take that as a compliment. Cheers pal!

Regards, Chris

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by stripee

I don't disagree with much of what you say eeyore but I do disagree with too much running down of people and organisations which work towards improving wildlife and farm welfare. I know there is a percentage of extremists who would do weirdo things and illegal activities, but the majority of people in the mainstream animal organisations, and some of the less mainstream too, are not like this.

You've got a point and i too would disagree with running down those organisations that make a genuine difference to wildlife and farm welfare.

However i have my doubts as to how much of a difference organisations like AFA actually make - to whit their campaign against snaring in scotland - they put a load of resources into running this campaign and including the use of graphic images puporting to show the damage done by snares but actually showing locking snares which are already banned (which i find somewhat disingenuous), and then lost the decision in the scottish executive their net gain being nothing whatsoever.

to my mind this kind of thing is not only pointless but also harms the wider lobbies ability to work with farmers, landowners etc to acheive positive change by undermining chances of opening positive and constructive dialougue.

imo the organisations that make a genuine difference are those working quietly behind the scenes - jumping up and down and beating your chest in the press is counterproductive and campaigning on things like the snaring issue without being in full possession of the facts simply gives bodies like the CA a stick to beat the whole animal / wildlife rights lobby with.

a lower key informed campaign based on facts rather than emotion might have for example requested the scottish executive to make snaring a licenceable activity and limited it to stopped snares only (ruling out free running snares which cause more damage) - a campaign along those lines might have got the wildlife trusts, rspb etc on side and even some landowners , by showing a realistic appreciation of why they occasionally need to use snares for Fox control and thus had a far higher chance of success.