Bluefish2009's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Bluefish2009

Over 90 days ago

Straight Male, 60

•

Straight Female, 50

UK

Profile Follows

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

16 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
No Blue I'm saying the same as I have done all along ,that docking is an unnecessary surgical procedure,that all surgical procedures carry a risk,that it is not a painless procedure (nip down to the hospital and have them cut your thumb off... I doubt you would enjoy the process).I was merely pointing out to G that docking is not always the clean clinical process that he seems to believe.
It is you Blue who is trying to justify a surgical procedure not you mean castration and spaying of dogs then I really don't need to justify them ... ban them by all means and then deal with the strays,abuse and neglect that would ensue,deal with keeping your kids and dogs indoors to avoid the increased number of dog attacks that would follow ... my argument hasn't fallen down or altered yours it would seem is skidding along on it's arse

I have made a comparison Staggs, two surgical procedures, both involving risk and pain to the animal. I would hazard the docking to be a far smaller procedure. A local Anastasia, quick snip and two stitches
Mine is chosen to prevent stress and pain to a working dog, yours it would seam is done to save us all from bedlam. Who is benefiting from this, is it the dog, is it us, the human race? dunno

dunno

I have not called for a ban on this staggs, just to point out your double standard, purely because this procedure suits your needs and way of thinking.
I have not felt the need to inflict this pain and distress on my dog.
I am simply pointing out that your argument for castration and spaying is no more justifiable than mine for docking.
My argument is the same as it was at the start, I firmly believe the docking of some breeds to be of benefit to the dog.

16 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
A well constructed counter argument Staggs, but it still doesn't alter my view.
I could certainly accept your view if it were the case that 'docking' is carried out in an 'inhumane' (if that is not a contradiction in terms) way - like using a rusty old pair of tin snips to undertake this procedure but when it is carried out professionally by, or under the supervision of a qualified person, it surely carries the same weight as spaying and castration does; procedures which you suggest are entirely common sense.

You seem G to be labouring under the assumptions that all vets are competent, all dogs are cared for and that all dogs are docked by vets .... spend some time in dog rescue and you'll soon find that non of these are correct
Now you are suggesting that because there may be some who do not follow procedure and break the law, that the rest of us and our dogs should be punished because of them. That does not sound like logic to me. Some people have been clubbed to death with a hammer, should we ban people from using hammers?
As far as I can see now your argument has fallen down, it is an attempt to justify a surgical procedure based on your beliefs for what may or may not be best for the dog, bread, human race, rescue center.

15 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
No responsible rescue would allow an un-spayed or neutered dog to leave their kennels .... this is to prevent further irresponsible breeding not for any health benefits it may or may not bestow upon the animal ... so not for the dog per se more for dogs in general
oops missed my edit Blue .... it is for the benefit of dogs in general it prevents us as rescues from having to deal with even more unwanted dogs and the dogs from suffering the abuse and hardship that comes with being unwanted or a stray ... kind of common sense really

Sorry post crossed in edit.
Me thinks you are now just playing with words. Double standards spring to mind. The end result is to stop the suffering of dog or dogs. Both surgical procedures and both in my view to benefit the dog. :thumbup:
No responsible dog owner would allow a working dog to enter cover without this procedure

15 Apr 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
But whi is it legal to hunt a rabbit? It is because it is classed as a non-native pest and there is already legislation stating you should kill the rabbit.
Rats are a lot larger than mice and can be hunted with a terrier where as a mpuse is not. A mouse can be sticky boaded but a rat can get off the boards.
As for the number of dogs used for flushing, two dogs are ample. Any more then control is going to be harder. All laws have to pick a number e.g. 70 mph on a motorway, why not 75 or 65. No good reason but to pick a number. Arguing over the trivial deflects away from the main reason..........which none of the authors even tried to.
I have been banned for a while so I could get on with work and not be sidetracked.........now have a break so can chill out here for a while and join in the inane drivel that we spout
Dave_Notts

I do follow your point completely, but disagree, if it is cruel and inhumane to hunt certain animals with dogs then all animals must surely be afforded the same protection. No matter what there status is on the scale of "pest" they must surely deserve equal protection from cruelty.
Inane drivel, this about as articulate as I get wink

wink

:wink:

15 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

As promised, I have spent the day with many dogs, 99% with docked tails, no dogs were seen with tail damage.

If 99% of them have had their tails removed, doesn't that mean 99% damaged dunno

dunno

Whether they are damaged by choice or by accident it has still gone
Dave_Notts
No Dave, it means that an unacceptable 1% have the potential to suffer avoidable injury.
Or indeed G that 99% have already suffered an avoidable injury
Or indeed that 99%, have had a surgical procedure to avoid injury, for the benefit of the dog.
I am sure you will be familiar with other surgical procedures performed, we are told for the benefit of the dog.
We are constantly told that Neutering will make a better and more affectionate family pet. It is a medical fact that in some cases spaying and castration can prolong the life of our pets and may reduce the number of certain health problems in later life.
Females may benefit from spaying by reducing the incidence of uterine, mammary, and ovarian cancers. It can also reduce the incidence of infections such as Pyometra.
Castrating a male dog we are informed reduces the risk of prostrate cancer. This, like many other claims for the benefits of neutering is a total fallacy. In reality castrated dogs have a 4 times greater risk of developing prostate cancer than intact animals. spayed or neutered dogs also have a 1.5 to 3 times greater chance of developing bladder cancer
We are also told that they are less likely to develop unwanted behaviour's such as marking, sexual aggression, and mounting, they are also less likely to escape, roam, or fight with other male dogs. I will accept that these are in some instances correct, castration can help reduce some of these problems.
Some vets recommend that our dogs are spayed or castrated anywhere between 5 to 16 months. In America some are being done as early as 8 weeks and they routinely neuter at between four and six months. Many of the Vets, Trainers and Behaviourists in both America and the UK are recommending this course of action without understanding the numerous problems this advice may create.
Some rescue centre's such as the RSPCA often spay and neuter as a matter of course, whatever the age.
What is the policy at your rescue center on this kind of mutilation?

15 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV

As promised, I have spent the day with many dogs, 99% with docked tails, no dogs were seen with tail damage.

If 99% of them have had their tails removed, doesn't that mean 99% damaged dunno

dunno

Whether they are damaged by choice or by accident it has still gone
Dave_Notts
No Dave, it means that an unacceptable 1% have the potential to suffer avoidable injury.
You have a wonderful way with words GnV

15 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV

What a beautiful dog Blue.
Thank you, I think so also, even with her short tail wink

wink

15 Apr 2012

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
Just going to put this little reminder here so you can all read it fully, before you post anything else.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/324334.html
I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed the mindless snide remarks, back biting, point scoring and the general attempts to wind people up.
Its "mildly annoying" to some and extremely annoying to others.
So whilst the mod team have been lenient in an attempt to allow greater freedom of speech on what is after all an adult site, those that continually like to skirt the AUP to the limits and like to push boundaries, "walk up to them, piss on them and then calmly walk away giving us the Vs" should take note that the time for that has ended.
Some of you have exhibited what I can only call anti-social behaviour, I've been keeping notes and have been deciding on an appropriate course of action.
We could;
a) Ban a few people and let everything settle down.
b) Remove the playground for while.
c) Do something else
I'm going with c) for now, I'm going to see how many more complaints I get with regards to posts made after this one, any that I count as wrong will be one strike, when anyone reaches 3 they are out.
The usual AUP rules also apply, I would also draw your attention to;
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/main/aup.html in particular;
Swinging Heaven have the right to withdraw membership without notice or explanation.
Swinging Heaven's decision on any matter set out in this AUP shall be final.

Please be sensible and ensure you have read and understood the above post by St3v3.
:thumbup: Duly noted

15 Apr 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
This law is generic and not specific. There may be codes of practice that the DPS may have access to, where they would decide if the case was in the public interest.
Critism has been passed on DEFRA and what their opinion is, however their opinion is only that. The only place that a decision could be made is in a court. So DEFRA can guess but the judge decides. Until it goes to court it is just opinion only.
In this case of the farmer, it would depend on what happens. Is the farmer "hunting" or not? If he is then he should follow the law. If he is moving on animals then why is he doing it this way. If it is the most practical way and the animals are unduly distressed then no problem, and it wouldn't fall under the hunting act because he is not hunting. However, if he doesn't control his animals and they bite the other animals then animal cruelty legislation should be used against him and not the hunting legislation.
IMO the author of the link (Donoughue) is trying to discredit a piece of legislation on an example it was not designed to control. It would be better if he explained in normal hunting practices why it is not practical. This is similar to FOREST trying to find the loop holes to the smoking legislation and hung on to the ridiculous end of the spectrum to justify their claims.
Dave_Notts

Firstly, great to see you around the forums again.
(for clarification, the author of the link is Jame Barrington, animal welfare campaigner and ex member of the league of crewl sports. Donoughue is the anther of a bill put forward on several occasions)
However,
I disagree with a lot of what you say on this one Dave, I would personally say the law was actually too specific. For instance it is legal to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare unless it has been shot; a rat, but not a mouse. It is legal to use two dogs to flush a wild mammal to be shot by a waiting gun, but not three dogs. It is legal to use a terrier to flush a fox from below ground to be shot if it is threatening game birds, but illegal to use the same method if the fox is killing lambs or ground nesting birds.
Illogical in my view, what it is saying is some animals deserve better protection than others. To be honest what it actually says is the government of the time had an axe to grind with a group of people, it was a law targeted at a group of people and had little or nothing to do with animal welfare. what Donoughue puts forward is a bill to protect all wild animals not just selected few, which is what the hunting act has done.
Many of these ‘exemptions’ were designed to allow some types of hunting to continue and
were the result of political wrangling and are both illogical and unclear. Defining these exemptions has been left to the police and the courts and experience has demonstrated both are confused. Not surprisingly so too are huntsmen and this farmer.
The vast majority of convictions under the legislation are not connected to registered hunts and could have been achieved under legislation that pre-existed the Hunting Act.
Out of interest, the Hunting Act has the same status as a minor road traffic violation

15 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

No Dave, it means that an unacceptable 1% have the potential to suffer avoidable injury.

Quote by GnV
Not once in this thread have I professed any superior knowledge in this subject, nor will I.

:doh:
blimey GNV you can be very easily swayed, still nice to see that it is only an opinion and not some " superior knowledge " on your part. :giggle:
GnV is clearly a man of common sense and logic, not all posses such divine powers wink

wink

14 Apr 2012

29, 48, 49, and 50, never ever done!

14 Apr 2012

My gorgeous Cocker Spaniel lol

lol

14 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
curiously of all the dogs I met over the last weekend only one had an injured tail ... a spaniel with a docked tail

Curious indeed, of all the dogs I met over the weekend none had a tail injury all were docked.
This coming weekend I shall be at a working dog test, I shall probably see several 100 dogs, most with tails docked. I shall keep my eyes open for any with injury for you, and report back staggs :thumbup:
As promised, I have spent the day with many dogs, 99% with docked tails, no dogs were seen with tail damage. For anyone interested we entered the Novice section which the dog is and got a third. In the afternoon we entered the open and were placed second.. Great day lol

lol

14 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
even some 30 odd years later blue i still have the urge to bury someone in the sand :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

lol

13 Apr 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
I bet it has far more to do with reporting habits and recording methods than anything else.
That is assuming they are talking about all crime. There is bound to be a shift of numbers between types of crime as society changes. I'm pretty sure the number of horse thefts will have dropped along with the number of horses in everyfay use for instance.

Yes valid points

13 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
There are comments made here that bring much joy and laughter to this houshold for sure

that's settled then
just got an email from the basc for insurance of a gun dog through pet plan and they will knock off a tenner a year for having the tail docked on a springer
fooking funny or what

rotflmao

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
:laughabove:

13 Apr 2012

There are comments made here that bring much joy and laughter to this houshold for sure lol

lol

13 Apr 2012

Never achieved about 4 of the above,
Most are too dangerous for these guys though;
lol

lol

13 Apr 2012

Did you achieve all these before you were 11 3/4
National Trust: 50 things to do before you are 11 ¾
The National Trust is aiming to get the UK's ‘cotton wool kids’ outdoors. Here is their list of the 50 things to do before you are 11 ¾.

1. Climb a tree
2. Roll down a really big hill
3. Camp out in the wild
4. Build a den
5. Skim a stone
6. Run around in the rain
7. Fly a kite
8. Catch a fish with a net
9. Eat an apple straight from a tree
10. Play conkers
11. Throw some snow
12. Hunt for treasure on the beach
13. Make a mud pie
14. Dam a stream
15. Go sledging
16. Bury someone in the sand
17. Set up a snail race
18. Balance on a fallen tree
19. Swing on a rope swing
20. Make a mud slide
21. Eat blackberries growing in the wild
22. Take a look inside a tree
23. Visit an island
24. Feel like you're flying in the wind
25. Make a grass trumpet
26. Hunt for fossils and bones
27. Watch the sun wake up
28. Climb a huge hill
29. Get behind a waterfall
30. Feed a bird from your hand
31. Hunt for bugs
32. Find some frogspawn
33. Catch a butterfly in a net
34. Track wild animals
35. Discover what's in a pond
36. Call an owl
37. Check out the crazy creatures in a rock pool
38. Bring up a butterfly
39. Catch a crab
40. Go on a nature walk at night
41. Plant it, grow it, eat it
42. Go wild swimming
43. Go rafting
44. Light a fire without matches
45. Find your way with a map and compass
46. Try bouldering
47. Cook on a campfire
48. Try abseiling
49. Find a geocache
50. Canoe down a river

13 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
Nar its abortion honest, I love these forums lately.

I tend to agree without further research.
There was a surge in births after the war - the baby boomers then a drop in unwanted pregnancies as birth control, education and abortion became de rigour.
It fell in Canada and in the United States - It fell in Scandinavia and fell along the shores of the Mediterranean. It fell in Australia and fell in Iceland.
Would that equally apply to all these country's?

13 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
when mr galloway is at the front of the line screaming for sharia law in the uk GNV, where will your thoughts be then? sorry i do not like the man, and as a lone voice in the house of commons, thankfully he will be a tiny tiny wheel in a massive cog. he will be silenced at the first opportunity my friend :thumbup:

I must admit a respect, if you will excuse the pun, for the man. But that does not mean agree with all he says.

13 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
also bluefish how can things be looking up when this vile man is still amongst us.

also with gorgeous george galloway now an mp. i despair bluefish, i reely do. :doh:

Poor old Ken :sad:

13 Apr 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
Nar its abortion honest, I love these forums lately.

I have always enjoyed them

13 Apr 2012

Quote by NEEDFORFUN
we have 5 working border collies and a jack russell. none are docked and we can't see why they should be, they all work hard and seem to be able to keep thier talls under control.
the only dog we have had in the family that was docked was our old english, but that was done before we got her and purely because the kennel club said the breed looked better docked. i say "bollocks ". most docking was, and to an extent, still is being done because the kennel club has historically said "that is how the breed should look.
there is no medical reason for it. people cut thier fingers so, should we all have them cut off at birth?

The only dog from the list above that I would imagine could need its tail docked would be the Jack Russel and only if it was intended to work underground. This kind of work is of coarse now very limited.
not even the jack. he knows where his tail is and is inteligent enough to accomadate it when moving. as i said, docking is purely because of the kennel club. or to prevent damage during fighting. and no, dennis does not work at all. ( lazy git ) he is allowed natural instict if he likes but that is just his nature
Its a dogs life

13 Apr 2012

It is cruel and disgusting and should be banned

13 Apr 2012

So what causes the rise and fall of crime?
Quite why crime rose inexorably from World War II until 1995 and then started falling is a question that still puzzles criminologists.
Because crime didn't just fall in the UK. It fell in almost every developed Western nation from pretty much the same time.
It fell in Canada and in the United States - even though those two countries operate very different criminal justice policies. It fell in Scandinavia and fell along the shores of the Mediterranean. It fell in Australia and fell in Iceland.

13 Apr 2012

It would seam the British car manufacturing is going from strength to strength
Nissan to build ANOTHER new car in UK

Blast furnace at former Corus steel plant in Redcar to be relit

13 Apr 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
An air rifle would have solved the problem without bothering the fire service.

:thumbup: Sadly not legal though :sad:

13 Apr 2012

25 firefighters unable to save trapped seagull 'because of safety regulations'
Read more: lol

lol

13 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I read today that the Countryside Alliance has called for the docking ban to be lifted if the owner or prospective owner owns a rocking chair. Make of that what you will.

Dont believe all you read in the imakeitupmail ben, particularly from such pressure groups wink

wink

dont forget the fact they are a right wing pressure group it makes the difference you know blue
Yes of coarse, I apologise for my oversight lol

lol