Bluefish2009's Profile

10 Feb 2013

Quote by Steve
RSPCA....
Only interested in big,high profile cases...
The conditions they have returned some animals to beggars belief...
And on more than 1 occasion as well...
Returning animals to a woman who has mental health issues and can barely look after herself let alone her pets and keeps the animals in squalid conditions....
They took the animals from her....Fed them back up to a decent state of health then gave them back to her so she could do it all over again...

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
Here`s a little scenario....
You and your children are starving to death, you've seen thousands of people die around you from malnutrition and then some bloke toting an AK47 comes along and tells you that there are people not so far away who are throwing away food because they have some namby pamby idea about not eating horses.
How would you feel towards the next lot of well fed charity workers that turned up in their nice new 4x4 ?

I have eaten horse knowingly,it is good and I have no problem with eating it. It seams more of us than we thought have done so unknowingly.
The only problem I see is the fact people have been miss-lead by labeling. Solve this problem, go to your local butcher

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV
I eat rabbit, and enjoy it. I would also happily see cats eradicated

What would fox taste like?
I do not know, I have tried many meats but not fox

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Not to my knowledge Trev, I cant see that a cull is likely unless these cases become more frequent.
There are things people can do for them selves, things like stop feeding the Urban fox, cleanliness could also help, such things as food waist badly stored around a property will encourage them into and around your property. Fencing, make fences as secure as is possible. Foxes are opportunist and will take the easy option, make your garden more secure than others and this could help.
Most of these urban foxes are looking for an easy meal, most have lost their natural ability to hunt, so as house hold bins become harder to obtain a meal from, these animals will be increasingly be looking for a meal else where, some will be desperate.
When animals with no natural predators become overpopulated their life is no longer a good one, a combination of overpopulation and meals becoming harder to get is possibly a contributing factor of these attacks. This is just one reason why management of animals can play an important role in their own well being as well as ours.
Over population leads to desperation, sickness, and slow miserable death

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
I'd be intrigued to know what method the council would use to cull the urban fox population. Hunting with horse and hound is illegal, snares and poisoning would kill other animals/possibly people, and shooting them doesn't sound like the safest thing to do for public safety.

There are only two methods open to them; (with (a) rifle or (b) shotgun);
(with legal snares or live cage traps).

View Post

10 Feb 2013

I eat rabbit, and enjoy it. I would also happily see cats eradicated

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Certainly not. If an animal is to be controlled then there are methods which are painless.

I would say hunting with hounds is the least painless manor of fox control. It is selective, none wounding and as close to nature intended as could possibly be achieved
Show me another full-proof method and I may change my opinion

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

:thumbup:
I may have this as my profile picture.

RSPCA sure put down a lot of animals, funds will only go so far of coarse so £300,000 would have homed a lot of animals for a long time

View Post

10 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
I suspect you credit me with too much, I am willing to bet all those on here who supported the RSPCA still do, and those that did not, still do not

I only credit you with drumming up my support for their current campaign on live exports, something I assure you, I wasn't even aware of a few weeks ago.
Don't think I have claimed otherwise :thumbup:
Support for the campaign on live export is a good thing in my view

View Post

5 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Time will tell, not all publisity is good

Time is already beginning to tell, according to that article; It says the brand value was on the rise again by the time the research ended. And given that the regulator doesn't seem concerned I would surmise that short term headlines will not damage the long term reputation of the RSPCA.
For the record you may not be a 'RSPCA hater', but you certainly aren't a fan. So I find it ironic that you have inadvertently drummed up some support for them.
I shall watch with interest and see if they are so fast to Court such controversy
I suspect you credit me with too much, I am willing to bet all those on here who supported the RSPCA still do, and those that did not, still do not wink

View Post

4 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

They should stick to animal welfare and not animal rights in my view

Oh right Bluefish. So.............who takes up the mantle of animal rights then? I would rather we had the RSPCA at least doing something for the rights of the animal, than let the countryside be run by the blood sport brigade, that give the animal no rights at all.
I would suspect, well I know that most of those who manage the animals within the country side do far more for animal welfare and there well-being than you give them credit for.
Far far more than many who sit and spout such short sighted comments as this. I t does really show a lack of understanding of the country side and those that are charged with its management
For me animal welfare is some thing I can understand and support. On the other hand, animal rights are just a farce in my view. We see, on a day to day basis how complicated the concept of human rights can be, to try and translate this to animals is a falsehood. If we are to give animals, rights, then exactly what rights and to which species? To give rights to animals and avoid any discrimination, that must mean every animal, this would require a massive change in the way we all live. A change in the way we treat fly’s, mice, and rats to name but a few.
Many of those who say they support animal rights will not be vegetarian, let alone vegan, showing once again that the term does not correctly apply to most people or for that matter most groups campaigning for animals. If, as many will say, they simply mean that animals should not be caused unnecessary suffering, well, that is, in my view animal welfare.
What annoys me about the animal rights movement types is the “just don’t do it”, attitude, or demand, because we say so. This in my view is a naïve attitude as they do not always know best. This often comes down to more about how the person feels, rather than what actually happens to the animals concerned.
It is not always black and white, or for and against, most times there is middle ground that is often overlooked in a bid for personal gratification and point scoring. This leads to demonising the opposition rather than constructive debate and in some cases leading to violence as in the B-TB debate.
Below are some wise words I once read that often spring to mind at times like these
“There are causes that need people… and then there are people who need causes”.

View Post

4 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

Worse things are killed daily but hey ... Just how it is eh

J

Unfortunately that is how it is, but two wrongs don't make a right.:bounce:
How right you are Star, :thumbup: could not agree more, and in many ways this has been part of my point all along, If the RSPCA and other groups were truly concerned about wild mammal welfare, they would be supportive of the wider, more principled measure proposed by Lord Donoughue, rather than this very skewed and very mammal specific hunting act.

View Post

4 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
For me the whole point of this thread was that the RSPCA created their pictures and then used them to bolster their agenda. They killed the sheep, some how got blood all up the walls which I have never seen achieved else where with bolt guns, then took pictures of their deed to post on there website!

I too have never seen such a mess made with a bolt gun, however I wasn't there and so I can only guess at the full circumstances behind the blood splatters. Maybe it was innefective use of the bolt gun, maybe it was arterial bleeding from one of the broken legs. I have no idea, and even your original Daily Mail article speculates.
What I do have an idea on is why the RSPCA took and used the photo's. They used graphic images to shock and grab attention to their campaign against transporting live animals through Ramsgate to the continent for slaughter. To that end they have succeeded.
Ironically, I was not aware of this RSPCA campaign until you raised the subject. They want the government to change the Law to ban live export, allow port authorities to turn down live export, and to place the liability for the full costs of veterinary and animal health regulatory inspections, lairage and emergency facilities on the hauliers, rather than by the taxpayer. I have now signed their and have provided a link in case anyone else would like to.
Time will tell, not all publisity is good

Why ironic, surely it is a good thing, I am not an RSDPA hater, I agree with this cause,and many others, just not the way they have attempted to publisise it.
They should stick to animal welfare and not animal rights in my view

View Post

3 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
I know they were a reply. But if they weren't in support of Blue's argument, as he say's they weren't, then why post them?

To show that the posting of emotive pictures is not a way to support an argument because anybody can trawl the Internet to find pictures that could be used to support any argument making the whole process pointless.
I have answered the question several times now, they were in answer to other emotive pictures.
For me the whole point of this thread was that the RSPCA created their pictures and then used them to bolster their agenda. They killed the sheep, some how got blood all up the walls which I have never seen achieved else where with bolt guns, then took pictures of their deed to post on there website!
Even if you find it impossible to believe my motives for posting the pictures, I did not create a situation or take the picture, in my view vastly different and not comparable

View Post

2 Feb 2013

Quote by HimandHer
Foxes can be baited into a cage, trapped and euthanised with far less effort than it takes to lamp them or hunt them with dogs.
The truth is that lamping, or hunting with dogs has an element of sport to it whereas cage baiting does not.
If you genuinely want to rid land of foxes humanely and efficiently, then set out 30 odd cages and bait the foxes in. Those cages that attract other animals can simply be opened and the animal set free, those with the animals in that need controlling are euthanised on the spot.
No dogs, horses, rifles or anything else, the truth is that there is an element of sport/fun/excitement in shooting or hunting with dogs and that is the reason it persists.

There are many things against trapping the first in my view is the extreme cruelty and unnaturalness of the act. There could be many hour of very unnatural stress for animals trapped. Also who then pays for this? As it stands, hunting and shoot are provided to the land owner as a free service. Where do we find these trappers to take the place of hunting shooting.
As for some one gaining job satisfaction from hunting or shoot I see no problem in this, no more than that of the man working in a slaughter house who does his job well.

View Post

2 Feb 2013

Quote by neilinleeds
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!

I'm not sure if you missed the point of the question. Why does seemingly noone argue that lamping for foxes with dogs should be made legal? Where is the mass campaign for it? If there isn't one, why is that? Pro-hunt lobbyists often try to make this a town v country or a class v class vested interests thing. What about the rights of the city-dwelling, working class individual to lamp with dogs? Should they have that right, or not? If not, why not? What difference is there as far as the end result being a fox being torn apart by dogs by way of, allegedly, pest control, as opposed to pure sport.
I would suggest that 90% of the lamping you refer to was already being done illegally before the ban. IE, without the land owner/famers permission. Difficult to mount a campaign for such I would think. However, as it happens I would support those who wish to pursue this form of sport/pest control

View Post

2 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along

No, It was clearly a no
I have a strong opinion on hunting and the RSPCA, and on many other things, but no axe to grind, just a point of view I subscribe too.
OK Blue, you can say you didn't post pictures of dead animals if you like, and I can say your a liar.
As you well know, I have never denied posting the pictures, it is your inaccurate assumption of motive that is in dispute

View Post

1 Feb 2013

Quote by neilinleeds
Not all city dwellers know nothing about the countryside !

True Nellie. Couldn't call it countryside really where I was brought up, pit village in greenbelt on the outskirts of Leeds. Still surrounded by fields though, mostly arable, some dairy farming, fair few horse breeders about. Some of the city dwellers round those parts know an awful lot about pest control. Badger population was pretty well eradicated from my area, had to go all the way to Devon to see my one and only live badger, and not because there isn't good habitat there for them. They just get dug up and chucked to a couple of staffies. Pretty good at foxing too, though they don't go in for all that dressing up on horses much. Couple of lads with some lurchers and a torch, that's how they do it round here. Completely illegal too that as it goes, apparently it's cruel. Few would advocate it shouldn't be illegal I think, there's no mass campaign demanding the right to lamp foxes with dogs AFAICS ( though it's still legal to lamp them with rifles, of course ). What's the diff?
This is probably the most interesting comment on this subject in a long time. Maybe some of the worst offenders of badger baiting and law breaking are from the towns and city's and not the poor Innocent country folk after all?
The lamping of foxes was a big thing and still continues now, along with lamping rabbits and hares
There was quite a campaign trying to save hare coursing which failed, still continues by certain types as indicated above
As for whats the diff,
I would say it is less cruel to lamp with lurchers and greyhounds than with a rifle, the former two never ever wound!

View Post

1 Feb 2013

For me Stormin Norman was a top bloke

View Post

1 Feb 2013

Quote by yogiandboo
Firstly, welcome to the forum :welcome:
I like Dorset, but then I would
Places like clublibertine in Bournmouth or a visit to Studland beach perhaps

We agree with you hun ... dorset is beautiful and being huge naturists too love nothing more than spending out holidays on studland naturist beach .. se you there smile

:thumbup:

View Post

1 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
mod-basting

If ya don`t baste em they get all dry !
For an 8-10 lb (3.5-4.5 kg) mod joint:
Cook for 30 minutes then reduce the temperature to gas mark 3, 325°F (170°C) and cook for a further 2½-3 hours. Then give it a final 30 minutes (uncovered) at gas mark 6, 400°F (200°C).

View Post

1 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Glad to see you back posting Blue

Nice to be back among friends lol

View Post

1 Feb 2013

y ancestors arrived on English shores at the battle of Hastings in 1066, believe they did good so we stayed, not sure how English that make me

View Post

1 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?

All ready answered above, but to be clear, pics were not to further my cause and to be even clearer, I have no cause to further
So that's a yes then? Thank you.
I'm suprised that you feel you have no cause. You come across to me as someone with an axe to grind against the RSPCA and someone who is very much prepared to fight against the hunting ban and for the pro-hunt movement. Maybe I've got you wrong all along dunno

No, It was clearly a no
I have a strong opinion on hunting and the RSPCA, and on many other things, but no axe to grind, just a point of view I subscribe too.

View Post

1 Feb 2013

View Post

28 Jan 2013

Research by YouGov for Third Sector shows that both brand value and a measure called 'buzz' fell in the month after it spent £327,000 on its successful action
The public’s perception of the RSPCA dimmed after the charity’s successful private prosecution of a hunting group, new research shows.
So, perhaps not all publicity is good publicity

View Post

28 Jan 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
Below is my response to that false accusation at the time

There is no false accusation. You posted graphic pictures of dead animals.

Quote by Bluefish2009
As you well know I was responding with like.

That's as maybe, but the truth is still that you posted pictures of dead animals to promote your cause.

Quote by Bluefish2009
I did not kill the animals my self to promote a cause

I certainly didn't accuse you of killing them yourself, and I don't believe anyone else did.
Can you just answer yes or no to the simple question I posed:
Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
All ready answered above, but to be clear, pics were not to further my cause and to be even clearer, I have no cause to further

View Post

22 Jan 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
He also was the one who started the fox debate on here many a time. He also started the RSPCA thread where they had to take that hunt to court over the ILLEGAL hunting of a fox, and then argued about it being a waste of money by them.
Sorry but it kind of seems that Bluefish has hidden agendas where the RSPCA are concerned, obviously works in some capacity for the Daily Mail.
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.

Indeed I do feel the money spent on the prosecution to be disproportionate
I do not believe any of my agenda to be hidden, I believe I am completely open in all I post
This thread is not about hunting, you seam obsessed by it. However your remarks require a reponse which I shall post in the “morals” thread

View Post

22 Jan 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
I as a contributor to their causes would rather my money was spent on the conviction of illegal barbaric hunters of wildlife, than to have no RSPCA and the country toffs allowed to do as they please, when they please. :thumbup:
As a country toff and a supporter of barbaric killings of course those people will constantly try and blacken the RSPCA's name whenever they can to try and cover up their own dirty tricks, but the public can see straight through that as contributors to them seem to have no problem with them spending their money on court cases that try and stop this barbaric sport from taking place.

I feel you may have been reading too much of the propaganda put out by certain groups. This in my view does not reflect a true picture, it’s obviously easier to demonise your opposition and the idea of ‘toffs killing animals for fun’ is an absolute gift. You seem to be of the opinion that there are only “extremist hunt criminals” rampaging around the country “ripping our wildlife to shreds with their packs of hounds”.
Of course this is simply not the truth. Firstly, hunts can still legally kill foxes under the current law. I would say the facts suggest that most are hunting within the law. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but believe it to be only 8 active members of a hunt have been successfully prosecuted by this act and one hunt. Most hunts the toffs are in the minority and heavily outnumbered by normal working people from every walk of life.
I think you cloud the issue with the ‘killing for fun’ argument. Some people seem to equate cruelty with killing for fun but this isn’t really the case. The question of cruelty rests on whether there is a need to kill the animal and the degree to which it suffers.
Foxes are being killed by other more horrendous means. Give me a law that protects all wild animals form all forms of cruelty and I may have some sympathy. A law that says it is wrong in whatever circumstance to cause unnecessary suffering to any wild animal for whatever reason is principled. The hunting act does not do this.

View Post

22 Jan 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
"The following morning, the RSPCA released the graphic picture of the slaughtered sheep via its website, claiming it laid bare the casual cruelty of an animal export industry that ought to be banned."
This is the kind of thing I dislike, the graffic pictures were of there making and then they attempt to use them to further there cause

Didn't you recently post graphic pictures of dead foxes in snares etc to further your cause?
Below is my response to that false accusation at the time

Quote by Bluefish2009
You are introducing emotion into a rational argument

As you well know I was responding with like.
But to answer you question, what I was saying was and still is, if the hunting act was put in place to prevent creulty to foxes it is failing badly, and very slanted at only on section of fox control
Again, I did not kill the animals my self to promote a cause

View Post

Forum