Ban on tail docking

17 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
And ben the springer

That ben, he get everywhere... lol

17 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
sod it wheres blue i want me tail cut off seems the safer option

Just slip behind the screen and loosen your clothing :twisted:

17 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
And ben the springer

That ben, he get everywhere... lol

:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:

17 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
Every day of the week I hear this ... I've seen dogs stolen from breeders,kennels,houses ... all from people who would never lose their dog who love their dogs,I've seen dogs of all breeds 'just not come back' even those highly trained prize winning gun dogs,and well 'they've never done it before' , I've seen dogs of owners who know all this go missing.
If you you think YOUR dog will never run off, you are a fool spayed or not and need to be a little more honest with yourself about the nature of dogs... they will and often do get distracted keep chasing that rabbit or whatever and get lost,no matter how well trained you think your dog, this happens.. you are not a better trainer than the owners of these dogs you are just luckier.
Dogs of all breeds are stolen everyday and are never returned to their owners... you are not a better more responsible owner than these people, you're just luckier.
Try phoning the police about your lost or stolen dog ... as a priority it will rank right up there with spitting in the a lost or stolen dog is labour intensive and to most people other than the owner pointless
you wrote this
And here's where you're wrong.. the chances of you getting an unspayed bitch or unneutered dog back are far less than that of you getting their sterilised counterparts back,they have you see a value above and beyond their own ... it is the difference between finding a £50 note and finding a machine that makes £50 and it is btw rarely a matter of waiting for a bitch to come into season most spayed bitches have a visible scar from the process not always easily visible but detectable non the less
then wrote this

P.S. I forgot to mention those dogs stolen found to be incapable of breeding and subsequently used as bait dogs to train fighting dogs .... they're not pretty to look at I promise you

so i wont get my spayed dog back then
and its death by breeding or by being baited as i pointed out then doesn't make a difference to spaying a dog or not the outcome is going to be the same a horrible death
sod it wheres blue i want me tail cut off seems the safer option bolt

I don't know where the underlined bit comes from ... certainly not my post
I don't think I said all or even most just some
Enjoy yourselves,take good care of your animals

17 Apr 2012

Quote by i
blue as an aside, can you confirm the highlighted bit to me please.
in other words your dog gets injured " working ". what is the work your dog does to get its tail injured so often. as i have had many a big dog and never had the need to have its tail docked. my dogs have never injured there tails either.

Quote by you then
The work is to flush game which can be shot by others with a gun.

as i thought blue.
sorry but i think this practice is barbaric, medieval and bloody cruel.
if that is what happens to other defenseless animals in the country, i am fecking glad that i am a city boy. what a horrid thing to do. sorry bluefish but obviously i do not understand the workings of the country, and any dog that gets injured doing that " work " i hope suffers the same pain as the poor animal that is shot. and i am a dog lover, but sometimes a massive hater of the human race. sad

18 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

blue as an aside, can you confirm the highlighted bit to me please.
in other words your dog gets injured " working ". what is the work your dog does to get its tail injured so often. as i have had many a big dog and never had the need to have its tail docked. my dogs have never injured there tails either.

Quote by you then
The work is to flush game which can be shot by others with a gun.

No need to be sorry Star, however, you are wrong
It is most definitely not barbaric in any way
Can you tell me that the life and death of the meat that goes onto your table, has been better than those flushed and shot?
What can you tell me about the meat that you eat and its life and death. I would be interested to hear what you know about its life, transportation and death. How it was reared and where it was reared. Can you be sure it had a better life, a better death, less barbaric if you will.

18 Apr 2012

I do not believe the process is one which is barbaric - I do believe it is not required, I appreciate the arguments about working dogs tails being docked - and I am willing to "blindly" accept the statistics without further research.
I can blindly accept them, because I do not believe that working dogs are required either - save for some specialised uses (Police Dogs, Army Dogs, Sheep Dogs, Rescue Dogs, Customs etc etc).
I suspect that these organisations do not have dogs whose tails require docking to prevent "injury", but if they do then I can accept that it should be done.
I deliberately ommitted "Gun Dogs" as although I am willing to accept that they are indeed working dogs, I am not willing to accept that they are a requirement. I am not anti-blood sports, but I do not accept that shooting is the only method of culling birds - and to that end there are alternatives to working dogs, and hence working dogs that require their tails to be docked for the prevention of injury.

18 Apr 2012

That's a jolly good argument.
I had never thought of it in those terms before.

18 Apr 2012

Quote by HimandHer
I do not believe the process is one which is barbaric - I do believe it is not required, I appreciate the arguments about working dogs tails being docked - and I am willing to "blindly" accept the statistics without further research.
I can blindly accept them, because I do not believe that working dogs are required either - save for some specialised uses (Police Dogs, Army Dogs, Sheep Dogs, Rescue Dogs, Customs etc etc).
I suspect that these organisations do not have dogs whose tails require docking to prevent "injury", but if they do then I can accept that it should be done.
I deliberately ommitted "Gun Dogs" as although I am willing to accept that they are indeed working dogs, I am not willing to accept that they are a requirement. I am not anti-blood sports, but I do not accept that shooting is the only method of culling birds - and to that end there are alternatives to working dogs, and hence working dogs that require their tails to be docked for the prevention of injury.

A very unusual approach , but thought provoking.
I will answer this, at this stage with a simple quick answer.
It is not to cull birds but to put them on the table for dinner, gun dogs are required for this past time, which is legal and legitimate.
The fact that some thing may be unnecessary is a weak argument, in my view, unless you are to apply this to all things deemed unnecessary. Meat eating, cars, etc

18 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
A very unusual approach , but thought provoking.
I will answer this, at this stage with a simple quick answer.
It is not to cull birds but to put them on the table for dinner, gun dogs are required for this past time, which is legal and legitimate.
The fact that some thing may be unnecessary is a weak argument, in my view, unless you are to apply this to all things deemed unnecessary. Meat eating, cars, etc

If it is not to cull birds, then why is it the case that not every single bird that is retrieved by a gun dog, makes it to the dinner table.
In fact I would suggest that out of all the birds that are shot, whether a gun dog is present or not, that most of them do not make it to the dinner table.
To that end, either birds should not be shot unless they are for the dinner table, or birds can be shot if the reason that underwrites the shooting is culling.
Infact, is it not the case that DEFRA General Licences exist for the culling of birds pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - irrespective of whether a gun dog is involved or not?
I do not believe that the argument is a weak argument, and I agree - please do apply it to meat eating and cars - put the question out there yourself... are cars necessary? Is it necessary to eat meat? I would argue yes on both counts and many would agree (I suspect most would), but some wouldn't and that's fair enough. The fact that most people would agree (in my opinion) would be good enough.
Do most people agree that birds are shot are to put them on the dinner table? I would suggest that the most common bird that makes it to the dinner table is the chicken - I would further suggest that they are not shot, neither are they retrieved by gun dogs.
Like I say I am not anti blood sports, and I suspect that a Tesco Value Chicken would prefer to take its chances with a shotgun rather than have the life that it is destined for... but that is a different argument altogether.
My opinion remains that a gun dogs' tail is not required to be docked, because there is no requirement for a gun dog. I accept that the pastime is legitimate, I do not accept that Grouse, Pheasant, Partridge, Duck etc cannot be bred for the dinner table in the same way that the Chicken is.

18 Apr 2012

Quote by HimandHer
If it is not to cull birds, then why is it the case that not every single bird that is retrieved by a gun dog, makes it to the dinner table.
In fact I would suggest that out of all the birds that are shot, whether a gun dog is present or not, that most of them do not make it to the dinner table.
On every shoot I know all birds that are shot and picked up are eaten, some by the guns, some by the beaters and the rest are sold to the game dealer who then sells to the butcher.
To that end, either birds should not be shot unless they are for the dinner table, or birds can be shot if the reason that underwrites the shooting is culling.
Infact, is it not the case that DEFRA General Licences exist for the culling of birds pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - irrespective of whether a gun dog is involved or not?
I do not believe that the argument is a weak argument, and I agree - please do apply it to meat eating and cars - put the question out there yourself... are cars necessary? Is it necessary to eat meat? I would argue yes on both counts and many would agree (I suspect most would), but some wouldn't and that's fair enough. The fact that most people would agree (in my opinion) would be good enough.
No cars and meat are not required, we just enjoy both and you make your case as that is what suits you. Man existed without cars ans vegitarians exist without meat. The majority/ minority argument is a red herring, just because a majority prefer to believe some thing does not automatically make it correct or right.
Do most people agree that birds are shot are to put them on the dinner table? I would suggest that the most common bird that makes it to the dinner table is the chicken - I would further suggest that they are not shot, neither are they retrieved by gun dogs.

Like I say I am not anti blood sports, and I suspect that a Tesco Value Chicken would prefer to take its chances with a shotgun rather than have the life that it is destined for... but that is a different argument altogether.
My opinion remains that a gun dogs' tail is not required to be docked, because there is no requirement for a gun dog. I accept that the pastime is legitimate, I do not accept that Grouse, Pheasant, Partridge, Duck etc cannot be bred for the dinner table in the same way that the Chicken is.

I would rather not see any of the above moved to intensive rearing like chickens. I like to see them the way they are.
As it is an excitable and legal past time gun dogs are required. My opinion remains steadfast

18 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
On every shoot I know all birds that are shot and picked up are eaten, some by the guns, some by the beaters and the rest are sold to the game dealer who then sells to the butcher.

The shoots that you know about, do not make a good basis for a substantive argument - it is not unlike saying that the Hunting Act 2004 was effective because it stopped the hunts that I know about.
What about the shoots that you don't know about - I have been on many shoots, both as a beater and a shooter, I organise them, I shoot on them and I can guarantee you that this does not happen. Maybe it should... maybe I should do more... maybe I am the only one in the country where this does not happen - I will accept that, but I doubt it is true.

Quote by Bluefish2009
No cars and meat are not required, we just enjoy both and you make your case as that is what suits you. Man existed without cars ans vegitarians exist without meat. The majority/ minority argument is a red herring, just because a majority prefer to believe some thing does not automatically make it correct or right.

Man also existed without shotguns and gun dogs, your argument supports the case that cars and meat eaters, and gun dogs should all be outlawed - or neither should be. It does not support the argument that cars and meat eaters are not necessary but gun dogs are.

Quote by Bluefish2009
As it is an excitable and legal past time gun dogs are required. My opinion remains steadfast

I accept that your opinion remains steadfast - but I don't accept that it remains steadfast because of the excitable and legal nature of it.
Some people find stalking excitable - it is also still legal (at the moment) - so I should be allowed to do it. I appreciate the example is ridiculous, but there will be other examples that you may find objectionable - but which in all fairness would meet the criterion that you have set out.
I don't believe that that finding something excitable and legal is sufficient justification for perpetuating the practice. Once upon a time witch burning met that criteria.

18 Apr 2012

Quote by HimandHer
A very unusual approach , but thought provoking.
I will answer this, at this stage with a simple quick answer.
It is not to cull birds but to put them on the table for dinner, gun dogs are required for this past time, which is legal and legitimate.
The fact that some thing may be unnecessary is a weak argument, in my view, unless you are to apply this to all things deemed unnecessary. Meat eating, cars, etc

If it is not to cull birds, then why is it the case that not every single bird that is retrieved by a gun dog, makes it to the dinner table.
In fact I would suggest that out of all the birds that are shot, whether a gun dog is present or not, that most of them do not make it to the dinner table.
To that end, either birds should not be shot unless they are for the dinner table, or birds can be shot if the reason that underwrites the shooting is culling.
Infact, is it not the case that DEFRA General Licences exist for the culling of birds pursuant to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - irrespective of whether a gun dog is involved or not?
I do not believe that the argument is a weak argument, and I agree - please do apply it to meat eating and cars - put the question out there yourself... are cars necessary? Is it necessary to eat meat? I would argue yes on both counts and many would agree (I suspect most would), but some wouldn't and that's fair enough. The fact that most people would agree (in my opinion) would be good enough.
Do most people agree that birds are shot are to put them on the dinner table? I would suggest that the most common bird that makes it to the dinner table is the chicken - I would further suggest that they are not shot, neither are they retrieved by gun dogs.
chickens!!!! quiet a few are pumped with water live without natural sunlight and due to the rancid way they taste and smell only those without tastebuds would eat one its a bit like the supermarket milk argument the milk is just pasty water and tastes nothing like the milk of 25 years ago as most cows are milked to the maximum sorry forgot to add chickens dont fly very well so there is no need to shoot them
Like I say I am not anti blood sports, and I suspect that a Tesco Value Chicken would prefer to take its chances with a shotgun rather than have the life that it is destined for... but that is a different argument altogether.
why would that be a different arument is that because the anti shooting argument falls down on this point every time
My opinion remains that a gun dogs' tail is not required to be docked, because there is no requirement for a gun dog. I accept that the pastime is legitimate, I do not accept that Grouse, Pheasant, Partridge, Duck etc cannot be bred for the dinner table in the same way that the Chicken is.

18 Apr 2012

Quote by HimandHer
The shoots that you know about, do not make a good basis for a substantive argument - it is not unlike saying that the Hunting Act 2004 was effective because it stopped the hunts that I know about.
What about the shoots that you don't know about - I have been on many shoots, both as a beater and a shooter, I organise them, I shoot on them and I can guarantee you that this does not happen. Maybe it should... maybe I should do more... maybe I am the only one in the country where this does not happen - I will accept that, but I doubt it is true.
Well I can assure you this is rare, shoots require all the money they can get, so sell all meat to the game dealer. If you organise shoots that do not collect there shot game then you should be ashamed!

Man also existed without shotguns and gun dogs, your argument supports the case that cars and meat eaters, and gun dogs should all be outlawed - or neither should be. It does not support the argument that cars and meat eaters are not necessary but gun dogs are.
Yes I know, I said, apply your unusual logic, that because it is not required we should not have it to all or nothing
I accept that your opinion remains steadfast - but I don't accept that it remains steadfast because of the excitable and legal nature of it.
Some people find stalking excitable - it is also still legal (at the moment) - so I should be allowed to do it. I appreciate the example is ridiculous, but there will be other examples that you may find objectionable - but which in all fairness would meet the criterion that you have set out.
I think I may have made a spelling mistake, excitable should have been acceptable
I don't believe that that finding something excitable and legal is sufficient justification for perpetuating the practice. Once upon a time witch burning met that criteria.

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

19 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:

20 Apr 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:
Wasn't stalking mentioned earlier ??

20 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:
Wasn't stalking mentioned earlier ??
are you stalking me then lol

20 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:
Wasn't stalking mentioned earlier ??

20 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:
Wasn't stalking mentioned earlier ??

Ah but now ask yourself whose window they're peering through

20 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

If a past time is legal then I and others may take part in it, no matter what other views may be on it.

well said blue it really is as simple as that :thumbup:
Wasn't stalking mentioned earlier ??