Re:

David Martin said:

On 23/11/04 9:17 am, in article [email hidden], "Richard"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David Martin wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2. the chase is inhumane.

It is clear from what scientific evidence there is that the actual method of
death is quicker and less painful by a pack of hounds than by shooting in
the majority of cases. The tearing from limb to limb occurs after the fox is
dead so, though it may appear distasteful, the feelings of the fox have very
little if anything to do with events after its death.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ISTR a study on stag hunting that showed massive stress in the animal
due to it being hunted for hours.

Quoted message said:

The study showed that if you make a deer run then there are biochemical
markers that show that it is getting tired. The studies were not
comprehensive and were open to some criticism.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't imagine that a fox's
biochemistry is vastly different in that respect.

Quoted message said:

There is a difference in the engineering aspect of how the body works as the
size changes. This would be expected to be reflected in how similar the
biochemistry is.

Quoted message said:

One of the arguements put forward is that: "there is little or no pain due
to the adreanlin in the system. As ther is no pain it is not cruel."
(paraphrase). That is debatable (obviously) but is not wholly untrue.

I recall an article on being eaten by a lion which drew on the
anecdotal reports of those folk who had survived the experience. The
surprising point was how many said that it wasn't painful at all. Some
claimed it was actually strangely pleasurable. Something to do with
adrenalin, endorphins, etc..

I'm not saying that foxes feel no pain on being by hounds. I'm simply
pointing that we really haven't a clue. It's a waste of time arguing
about without further research, and totally daft to base legislation
on ignorant speculation. On the other hand, basing legislation on
well-informed competent research is a very radical and as yet untried
idea :-)
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

Richard Bates [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

I am quite happy with the concept of killing something for food. After all,
what is the rational difference to distinguish between a mammal and a
vegetable wrt life?

The presence of a central nervous system.

Quoted message said:

Dangerous territory here. You should be OK with certain types of seafood
here since they have little or no nervous system at all.

Quoted message said:

Is the requirement for a nervous system that it be capable of feeling
pain? Or that it be conscious? Or just that it has one?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whilst I still don't agree with the need for humans to kill other
animas for food, I tolerate killing of food by oneself far more than I
tolerate factory farming

Quoted message said:

Biologically we are adapted to eating an omnivorous diet and restricting
oneself to only non-animal foods will make your dietary requirements
more difficult to meet, and leave you more likely to be deficient than a
balanced approach to meat. Where possible, I try to source meat from
local suppliers such as the Farmer's Market, or from a butcher that
works in a similar manner (Crombies in Edinburgh). One reason for this
is that it tastes better.

I usually get two meals and a big pot of soup out of a
chicken. Sometimes I procrastinate too long and the remains go off
before I get round to the next stage. I notice that organic chicken
not only tastes a lot better but lasts a lot longer before it goes
off. In fact it takes quite a while before it even smells as bad as a
fresh-from-the-supermarket non-organic chicken.

I wonder if the same applies to people? Anyone work in a mortuary?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Arthur Clune said:

I know some vegetarians that don't actually like vegetables.

Good grief. The sole reason I eat vegetables is because I don't like them.

Pull them out the ground, chop them in pieces, boil (or maybe roast)
them, chew them to bits.

It serves the [censored] right.

[censored].
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Chris Malcolm said:

I wonder if the same applies to people? Anyone work in a mortuary?

Better yet, we could experiment on the Master of Trolls up there ^ Just
remember that burning the body will mess things up...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

MartinM said:

BTW I have studiously avoided all the low carb stuff recently because no-one
has yet come up with a sensible alternative for cycling on than complex
carbs IMO.

IMHO low-carb is a special diet invented for those descendants of a
nomadic hunter-gatherer who have adopted an unnaturally sessile
lifestyle with which their physiology can't cope; it's a treatment for
the various unpleasant disorders they suffer from, such as hypertrophy
of the bum.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Richard Bates said:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:35:26 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Biologically we are adapted to eating an omnivorous diet and restricting
oneself to only non-animal foods will make your dietary requirements
more difficult to meet, and leave you more likely to be deficient than a
balanced approach to meat. Where possible, I try to source meat from
local suppliers such as the Farmer's Market, or from a butcher that
works in a similar manner (Crombies in Edinburgh). One reason for this
is that it tastes better.

Quoted message said:

If you think you are biologically adapted to eating meat, try chasing
a cow around the field, jumping on it and biting it.

Sounds as difficult as digging up potatoes with your hands and eating
them uncooked.

If you happen to be descended from an animal adapted to the contriving
of tools and weapons you don't need to bother with such nonsense.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Larrington

Quoted message said:

Jon Senior said:

And I don't try to start vegetarians on to meat.

Don't have to. Just stand near them while eating a bacon sandwich...

You like to watch people throw up?

--
Sara

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know some vegetarians that don't actually like vegetables. They subsist on
Linda McCartney and similar.

That would make them cannibals, wouldn't it?

Senor Coffee, meet Ms Keyboard...

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

David Martin [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

This translates to: buy local wherever possible.

I'm not as good at this as I'd like to be simply because work
restrictions keep me from the farmer's market on most occasions and the
choice for veg in Edinburgh seems to be somewhat limited.

Can any of the Edinburghians recommend a good greengrocer. Preferably
within the confines of the ring road as I'm more likely to use them if I
can get to them.

Quoted message said:

Don't worry, just make it up as you go along like the rest of us..

Ahh. Known to my family as a bungit.

Jon

Dave Larrington said:

Jon Senior said:

And I don't try to start vegetarians on to meat.

Don't have to. Just stand near them while eating a bacon sandwich...

Yukk!

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:10:23 +0000, [email hidden] (Carol Hague)

Quoted message said:

MartinM said:

I went to Russia servile years ago; having put on the booking form that I
only ate fish the rep greeted me with "but you do eat chicken as well?" you
should have seen her face drop when I said no ;-)

<shakes head in despair> Why do people put this stuff on booking forms
if they're not going to take any notice of it ? Sheesh.

Russians understand the concept of vegetarianism even less than the
French and Italians.

I once invited a friend from Astrakhan to stay with me for a couple of
weeks in Twickenham. I noticed there was a wildlife program on
featuring his region and suggested we watch it. Some bizarre scrawny
quadruped would appear on the screen and David Attenborough's voice
would intone "...and this is one of the most endangered species of the
entire Volga delta. Fewer than 500 individuals remain."

Alexei would leap and and declare: "Umm... Diss animal eez delicious."

He also brought with him a prezzie of about £1,000 worth of caviar,
poached from another endangered species, and smuggled in a big jam
jar. We didn't chuck it away until he'd left.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:07:21 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I once invited a friend from Astrakhan to stay with me for a couple of
weeks in Twickenham. I noticed there was a wildlife program on
featuring his region and suggested we watch it. Some bizarre scrawny
quadruped would appear on the screen and David Attenborough's voice
would intone "...and this is one of the most endangered species of the
entire Volga delta. Fewer than 500 individuals remain."

Alexei would leap and and declare: "Umm... Diss animal eez delicious."

He also brought with him a prezzie of about £1,000 worth of caviar,
poached from another endangered species, and smuggled in a big jam
jar. We didn't chuck it away until he'd left.

The irony is that most endangered species don't become endangered
because people like Alexei choose occasionally to feed themselves and
their family on the local wildlife. That seems entirely natural and
proper to my mind.

--

Call me "Bob"
Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

Call me Bob said:

The irony is that most endangered species don't become endangered
because people like Alexei choose occasionally to feed themselves and
their family on the local wildlife. That seems entirely natural and
proper to my mind.

No, but when the animal is on the verge of extinction every individual
is signigicant for its survival (as you know).

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Chris Malcolm said:

MartinM said:

BTW I have studiously avoided all the low carb stuff recently

because no-one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has yet come up with a sensible alternative for cycling on than

complex

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

carbs IMO.

IMHO low-carb is a special diet invented for those descendants of a
nomadic hunter-gatherer who have adopted an unnaturally sessile
lifestyle with which their physiology can't cope; it's a treatment

for

Quoted message said:

the various unpleasant disorders they suffer from, such as

hypertrophy

Quoted message said:

of the bum.

If you are referring to the Atkins diet; apparently the way it works is
to put you into keto-acidosis much like Diabetes Mellitus, nice!

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:30:21 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

when the animal is on the verge of extinction every individual
is signigicant for its survival (as you know).

He could always try killing them in the spirit of scientific enquiry
and then eating them afterwards to avoid waste...

I think the Japanese have now proved, through extensive research, that
whales die when you kill them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:40:13 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Quoted message said:

In what way is two men with a gun less effective than a crowd of
people on horseback and a pack of dogs carefully bred to be not much
faster than the quarry?

Number of injured animals left to die slowly.

(What is this gun that requires two men? Is it the sort where the
loader feeds the belted ammunition? If so, I'm sure injuries would be
lower).

On 27 Nov 2004 01:59:13 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If you are referring to the Atkins diet; apparently the way it works is
to put you into keto-acidosis much like Diabetes Mellitus, nice!

If this were QI there would be a blaring siren at this point and the
word "Ketosis" flashing on the screen :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Al C-F [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In what way is two men with a gun less effective than a crowd of
people on horseback and a pack of dogs carefully bred to be not much
faster than the quarry?

Number of injured animals left to die slowly.

Still clinging desperately to that one aren't you?

So one more time. Take:

1 x Skilled marksmen.
1 x Good quality rifle.
some x ammunition.

Pay marksmen to kill foxes on a fee / fox, with maximum kill limit
system. He must bring the carcasses to collect the fee.

Number of injured animals left to die slowly = Not a lot.

Number of healthy animals chased to exhaustion with the associated ill
effects and general unpleasantness associated with it = None.

If a bullet is an ineffective way of killing I wonder why the military
didn't just take the hunt to Iraq! :-)

Quoted message said:

(What is this gun that requires two men? Is it the sort where the
loader feeds the belted ammunition? If so, I'm sure injuries would be
lower).

Not to passers by they wouldn't.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Quoted message said:

Number of injured animals left to die slowly.

Still clinging desperately to that one aren't you?

Errr. The Burns Report commissioned by Jack Straw in 2000:

" We are less confident that the use of shotguns, particularly in
daylight, is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective."

Quoted message said:

So one more time. Take:

1 x Skilled marksmen.
1 x Good quality rifle.
some x ammunition.

Pay marksmen to kill foxes on a fee / fox, with maximum kill limit
system. He must bring the carcasses to collect the fee.

Number of injured animals left to die slowly = Not a lot.

Burns would disagree.

"We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to
shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded. We suspect that this is
correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.[423] There is
also the welfare issue of what happens to orphaned cubs when the vixen
is shot during the breeding season.[424] Terriers are used at present by
gamekeepers and others to dispatch cubs which have been orphaned in this
way."

For hunting deer, which are much larger, with rifles Burns found about
10% required two or more shots to kill them and about 2% escaped wounded.

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

Burns would disagree.

"We received a good deal of evidence arguing that it was not easy to
shoot foxes and that a fair number were wounded. We suspect that this is
correct, given that foxes are relatively small animals.[423]

[snip]

This is odd. Using the same type of bullet and rifle, how would you
expect size of animal to correlate with rate of fatality per animal shot?

Perhaps Burns was influenced by the famous hunter's warning, "there is
nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito."

Quoted message said:

For hunting deer, which are much larger, with rifles Burns found about
10% required two or more shots to kill them and about 2% escaped wounded.

Well, quite.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap