[Archived] Animal-Related Cruelty. (Topic Changed)

[T J Hooker]

Not exactly direct animal cruelty, but what kind of low-lifes would do this to a local completely volunteer run charity http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/14394793._Why_would_they_do_this_____dogs_on____death_row____could_be_put_down_after__vile__thieves_target_animal_rescue_centre/

[Hasta]

Not exactly direct animal cruelty, but what kind of low-lifes would do this to a local completely volunteer run charity http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/14394793._Why_would_they_do_this_____dogs_on____death_row____could_be_put_down_after__vile__thieves_target_animal_rescue_centre/

Scrotes. Unfortunately there's a lot around nowadays.

[brinscall]

this subject can be as divisive as religion, politics and football.

i don't mind admitting i enjoy hunting, & thus it could be said i will kill animals for fun, but in fact i am an advocate for animal welfare, both farmed and wild. i'm kind of in the same mindset as good old hugh fearnley whittingstall.

as for halal and kosher slaughter methods, these practices have been used for millennia around the globe. it's only in recent history (last 200 years) certain types in the west have climbed upon a high horse and vilified the non stun method of slaughter, while the rest of the world carry on slicing the throats of animals without destroying the brain first. make no mistake, with the omission of the halal/kosher prayers, there's probably been zero difference in slaughter methods across the globe until recently

also, from my own experiences debating this subject, much of the halal/kosher vilification i've come across has been a thinly disguised racial/cultural prejudice. for me, if the animal has had a good, healthy rearing, then i don't care if the beast was slaughtered without stunning. that being said, the slaughter has to be done by someone that knows what they're doing.

personally though, i much prefer to dine on meat that was completely free in the wild until a bullet/dog instantly snuffed it out. you can't get any more free range than wild game that's been hunted.

[T J Hooker]

sorry, with respect unless your just talking about killing the odd wild small animal(rabbit, game,..) 'for the pot' or something I cant comprehend how any person can enjoy killing/hunting animals just for fun or sport and then also claim to advocate animal welfare.

I'm completely in agreement with your opinions on hala/kosher though, like you say the most important thing should be how skilled and competant the person doing the slaughtering is, if an animal is cut correctly they will bleed out in no time with little suffering and a stun gun shouldn't be necessary.

seeing this http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/hristo-stoichkov-insists-i-am-7668921 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/04/01/barcelona-legend-sparks-outrage-after-posing-with-dead-safari-an/ reallydisappointed me, especially as he;s one of my all time favourite footballers, I cant disagree with some of his reasoning, but still.........

[brinscall]

sorry, with respect unless your just talking about killing the odd wild small animal(rabbit, game,..) 'for the pot' or something I cant comprehend how any person can enjoy killing/hunting animals just for fun or sport and then also claim to advocate animal welfare.

let me try and make you comprehend. i've never been deer stalking but i would absolutely love to. i know i'd enjoy it; the field craft, the ambience, the stalking, the ranging of distance and finally the composure required to take a clean lethal shot. as for the hunting i do do, i have a lurcher and an air rifle. i only hunt small game and small pest species. rat hunting with dogs is thrilling, it's humane, it's quick and it's necessary, and it's a lot of fun. i'm not apologising if some have a problem with people enjoying this type of killing. so, while much of what i kill would be for the pot or dog food, i do kill pest species. i'm not going to lie and say i don't enjoy it. i'm not some sadistic freak, i wouldn't take the shot if there was a good chance i wouldn't kill it.

the good thing about hunting with dogs, is that if the quarry is caught....it's dead, and dead quickly. poison on the other hand is a horribly cruel death but necessary in certain circumstances, but simply not safe in food related industries like farming and food storage. a few lads with hunting dogs can have amazing success in thinning rat numbers down in places like chicken sheds etc, and unlike poison, the dogs will discriminate on what species to kill. poison doesn't and will kill anything that eats it.

i mentioned hugh fernley, that guy did wonders for game food when he brought longnetting rabbits to prime time tv, and he's one of the most well known advocates for animal welfare in farming. believe me, that guy enjoys his hunting, and why the hell not?

[T J Hooker]

I have no real issues with the type of hunting you do(not that my opinion matters ) i personally wouldnt get any enjoyment out of killing an animal, but i do see how 'the hunt' aspect can be thrilling. I also have a lurcher and a greyhound and if they where to take out a rabbit, etc.. whilst out walking then so be it, but its not something id personally encourage them to do, mainly because i also have a cat and there are many other cats in the area so I wouldn't want them getting to 'keen' on chasing and killing, luckily both their prey drives are VERY low but i stil need to keep them in check sometimes when they're over excited

[Amo]

Maybe if more people were forced to hunt for their food, we'd see more converts to vegetarianism.

It's a lot easier to eat meat when it's nicely packaged at the supermarket and you don't see how it got there.

[VinjayV4]

Microchips are now being enforced for dogs with owners facing a fine if they don't go ahead with the procedure. There were claims in one article from a vet claiming they could have an "adverse effect" citing a couple of cases. Then he suggested that owners should basically break the law and ignore it. Those cases are few and far between and the RSPCA fully endorse microchipping.

Here's an argument from the Telegraph (not that one) which is far more logical than being told to break the law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/dog-microchips-are-safe-and-effective-dont-believe-the-scaremong/

One article said 83% of owners have had their dogs microchipped. Not sure what the recent figures are following this new legislation. Can't really understand why its not 100% surely responsible owners would want microchips if their dog goes missing? More importantly as the Telegraph points out it will be easier to trace dogs that bite people.

I don't think it goes far enough personally. Dog licenses apparently were phased out in the 80's as they were completely ineffective despite being cheap. For those who remember would you make a case for them coming back? Whether you're pro dogs or not. I'm referring to irresponsible dog owners as responsible ones shouldn't have the slightest issue obtaining a license.

Muzzles and leads should be enforced too. How annoying it is to be out late at night and some dog comes bounding round the corner with no lead. Because its a stray? Sometimes maybe but often its stupid owner follows. Even worse some clowns do it on a canal bank and then admonish the innocent person who gets annoyed by dogs jumping up at them. Muzzles as well I couldn't give a toss how big the dog is. If a small dog bites you its still an inconvenience having to go and get a jab.

Is that cruel? I don't think so. Not like they would be muzzled or on a lead all day is it? If owners want to give their dog exercise (beyond walking) there should be at least one fenced off area in every community. Or people should get a bigger garden first.

[T J Hooker]

Youre right every area should have an enclosed dog park, a dog that is well socialised with other dogs and people from an early age is usually a happy well adjusted dog.(thats about allbi agree with in your post thouh)

[VinjayV4]

Youre right every area should have an enclosed dog park, a dog that is well socialised with other dogs and people from an early age is usually a happy well adjusted dog.(thats about allbi agree with in your post thouh)

So to start off...what's your problem with microchips? No jokes about McCains please!

[T J Hooker]

I dont have a problem with microchipping, its just your views on the subject seem a little poorly informed and i can't really be bothered filling you in with what o know as your not a fan of dogs to begin with and it seems youe justblooling for a reason to complain about them and their owners.

[VinjayV4]

Not being a fan of dogs is irrelevant to the microchip related comments. If I owned a dog it would have been microchipped legal requirement or not.

I wasn't hugely informed on microchips but certainly knew enough that they generally have no adverse effects. The article writer in the Telegraph is certainly more informed on the subject and pretty much backed up how I feel.

[T J Hooker]

As I said I have no problem with animal microchips

[Mike E]

I have to say TJ, quite what is 'poorly informed' about his post is beyond me. I'm a dog lover and agree with everything he said.

Can you clarify what you mean by your comments? Especially with regards to 'only looking to complain', as there is nothing malicious there.

[T J Hooker]

As somebpdy who volunteers with dog rescues and regularly sees the strays that are fresh into the pound(some hand ins but most brought in as strays by the dog wardens) i can tell you now that the majority of dogs that are in there are chipped, but a chip without up to date contact details(or no details at all) as many of the strays that are brought in are is pretty useless. And teres also the fact that as things stand there is no law saying that all dogs(and cats) found straying, ect... by the council(or whoever) have to even scan the dog(as ridiculous as that sounds)

I could go on bur i don't have time, but my main point in regards to chipping is that it only goes halfway to solving a problem

[VinjayV4]

Well I hadn't really thought about the effectiveness following the procedure. Not sure what percentage of dogs going missing are quickly found so couldn't comment on that. Certainly I should have guessed there's issues with up to date details. Presumably its easy to remove and replace the chips with new ones? The lack of a scanning law does indeed sound ridiculous and certainly had no idea about that.

Still its hardly an expensive procedure (some even do it for free after all) so the positives still outweigh the negatives. Clearly there needs to be a more effective system and its up the owners to keep things up to date.

This news was something I just happened to come across (and might have effected some members recently) I'm not sure this thread will have many contributions from me "ranting about dogs" otherwise. Didn't just type in dogs on google news thinking hey I hope I can find something to complain about on that BRFCS animal welfare thread!

[T J Hooker]

The article says that 83% of dogs are chipped! If that's correct then thats a pretty high percentage considering how many dogs there are in the country, i think a good bulk of those that aren't yet chipped are a mixture of a. People that are still unaware of the issue b. People that are aware but just haven't got around to it yet but are planning on doing so c. People that know about the issue/new law but decide they know better so dont get it done(for whatever reason)

[VinjayV4]

The article says that 83% of dogs are chipped! If that's correct then thats a pretty high percentage considering how many dogs there are in the country, i think a good bulk of those that aren't yet chipped are a mixture of a. People that are still unaware of the issue b. People that are aware but just haven't got around to it yet but are planning on doing so c. People that know about the issue/new law but decide they know better so dont get it done(for whatever reason)

Just to point out wasn't sure it that was the figure before this new legislation. Or if its significantly increased to 83% because of it.

[Reedy You're A Star]

I have 2 Staffys, I completely agree that all dogs should be chipped and definitely should be on a lead at all times when they're out being walked (for the record, both of mine are chipped and are not allowed off the lead). Where I disagree though is that they should all be muzzled. I have absolutely no reason to muzzle either of mine, as they're both completely under control when they're being walked and have never and I'm confident (well, as confident as you can be with an animal), that they wouldn't "go for" another dog or person. As I said,they're on a lead and do as they're told whether it's me or my wife walking them. Besides that point, breeds like Staffs and Bulldogs, etc. have trouble breathing when they're running about and being exercised, a muzzle would make it even harder for them. I'm just not going to do that to them unnecessarily. Granted, if they were nervous around other people or other dogs, then of course I would, for other's safety, but as far as general muzzling is concerned it should be owner's discretion.