Re:

you know? said:

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

I don't think they've quite proved it yet to their satisfaction. They
can't have, otherwise why would they keep wanting to raise the quota?

--
Dave...

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

Dave Kahn said:

I don't think they've quite proved it yet to their satisfaction. They
can't have, otherwise why would they keep wanting to raise the quota?

That's because they're launching a new 3-months scientific project, to
determine how many whales can be killed in 3 months of scientific research

--
Opinions are like [censored] -- everyone's got one, but nobody wants to
look at the other guy's.

JLB said:

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."

I think he was influenced by the research his committee commissioned on
the subject of animal welfare. I certainly know I would have more
difficulty hitting a mosquito in the head at 100yds than an elephant but
you may think differently.

Tony

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

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."

OK. Now please explain why the foxes need to be killed in the first
place.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 :-)

?? what is QI?

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

There is

Quoted message said:

also the welfare issue of what happens to orphaned cubs when the vixen
is shot during the breeding season

If you read some of the submissions to Burns they have this covered, they
train young hounds on pregnant vixens and cubs, forcing them back in to the
woods if they break free, where the rookie hounds are waiting for them.
Sporting chance eh?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:21:00 -0000, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

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!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

?? what is QI?

A superb quiz show starring Stephen Fry -watch out for it on the
wireless-with-pictures on a Friday night :-)

The alarm goes off when an obvious but wrong answer is given. In this
case: ketosis. Last I heard they had worked out that protein is an
appetite suppressant, and all those Atkinoids were really just
following the good old ELF diet without realising it :-)

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

Simon Brooke said:

OK. Now please explain why the foxes need to be killed in the first
place.

Why do people play video games?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:21:00 -0000, "MartinM" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 :-)

?? what is QI?

A TV quiz hosted by Stephen Fry. It's claimed the questions are too
difficult to expect the panel to give any right answers so instead
points are awarded for giving answers that are Quite Interesting.
Points are deducted for giving an obvious but wrong answer, which is
announced by the blaring siren. I can listen to Fry all day.
Unfortunately the programme is marred by the tedious presence of the
embarrassingly unfunny Alan Davis as a permanent contestant.

Eg.

Fry: How many wives did Henry VIII have?

Davis: (Pressing button to trigger amusing sound effect) Six.

(Whoop, whoop, whoop.)

Fry: (Holding up card with "SIX" printed on it) Oh, Alan, why do you
keep doing this to yourself?

--
Dave...

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

Tony Raven said:

JLB said:

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."

I think he was influenced by the research his committee commissioned on
the subject of animal welfare. I certainly know I would have more
difficulty hitting a mosquito in the head at 100yds than an elephant but
you may think differently.

How would you do if your task was to hit only the head of the mosquito
and nothing else? Still confident?

No, I think the same. You'd either hit the mosquito, or miss it
completely. Therefore, outcome is either a miss or a dead mosquito. With
the elephant there are a great many possible intermediate results, each
a wounded elephant. Interpolating between mosquito and elephant,
shooting a smaller animal such as a fox has a higher probability of an
outright kill assuming you hit it at all.

However, this is the opposite of the cited part of the Burns report
(which you snipped):-

'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]'

By citing the small size of the animal as the key to why the number of
wounded animals is believed to be relatively high, Burns is asserting
that a small animal is more likely to be wounded than a large one: hence
the inference that Burns believes in wounded mosquitoes. To put it
another way, if I had to wound an animal, I'd far rather try shooting an
elephant than a fox. All I'm pointing out is that this reasoning in
Burns' report appears fallacious.

Also, this precise part of his report is *not* the research his
committee commissioned. It is his committee's attempt to *interpret*
that research by creating their own rationale for some of the evidence
they collected.

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

Tony Raven [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

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."

And show me where exactly I proposed the use of shotguns, a weapon not
reknowned for their penetration or accuracy over distance.

It might equally read " We are less confident that the use of the
blunderbuss, particularly in daylight, is preferable to hunting from a
welfare perspective."

If you're concerned about the possibility of a miss-hit, then substitute
the bullet for a tranquilizer dart. That way the animal will fall within
a few seconds when it can be put down humanely (Bullet to the head if
needs be) or left to recover if it is unneccessary to the cull (Cub /
Female who is obviously with cubs).

Quoted message said:

Burns would disagree.

But Burns appears to have approached from the wrong angle.

Quoted message said:

"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."

[423]. Pheasant are smaller. As are pigeons. Both can (and are)
frequently shot by hunters. What makes foxes (A larger animal) such an
elusive target, other than the cunning of Reynard.

As for orphaning, see my suggestion above for the use of tranquilizers.

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.

So 10% of larger animals (Greater area of body where a single shot may
not be fatal) required two shots. As mentioned in a previous post, this
is not actually difficult. And hunting deer involves a mix of skill
levels including novices.

Of course, if you were to involve professionals (And the associated
fees), then you'd have to have a good reason. I suspect that the
difficulty of justifying the expense would rapidly result in the rural
fox being left alone to wreak its (minimal) havoc.

Jon

Gonzalez [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

OK. Now please explain why the foxes need to be killed in the first
place.

Why do people play video games?

Which brings us nicely full-circle to Simon's conclusion of Pink-frocked
pillocks (Or suchlike) pratting around on horses.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Gonzalez [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

OK. Now please explain why the foxes need to be killed in the first
place.

Why do people play video games?

Which brings us nicely full-circle to Simon's conclusion of Pink-frocked
pillocks (Or suchlike) pratting around on horses.

I can see this is a helmet like topic. I have no interest in whether
people hunt or don't hunt foxes but decided to inform myself on the
debate rather than accept the soundbites. As a result I am still
agnostic about fox hunting but at least I now know why I am. A bit like
the voyage of discovery I went through when I started reading helmet
literature.

The Burns report commissioned by the current pro-ban Government is
probably the best work in the area and came to the conclusion that there
was no clear animal welfare justification either way and it all seems to
come down to your views on whether people should be allowed to be "pink
frocked pillocks" or "lycra clad louts" if they want to.

Lord Burns summed it up in a speech to the now infamous House of Lords as

"Those are a range of reasons why I concluded that it was difficult to
reach a very clear view on the issue of welfare, and that to use that
argument in a very strong position, one way or the other, continues to
fall some way short of the sort of evidence needed to make substantial
political interventions. I can see why many people intuitively are
concerned about the welfare aspects of hunting. We know that lots of
people are upset by the ritual of hunting; they do not like the idea of
it at all. But they must answer the challenge of the welfare problems
involved in control of populations of foxes and deer by other means."

With that I withdraw from the debate and leave you to read Burns if you
want to.

Tony

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:36:08 -0000, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

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

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.

Are you going to regulate and test these 'skilled' marksmen? I used
to shoot at University. Will I do?

Quoted message said:

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.

but >0.

Quoted message said:

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

Nature is not as cosy as Beatrix Potter would have you believe, even
in the absence of hunting with hounds.

Quoted message said:

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

If you wound your enemy, he is incapacitated, as are the two men who
carry him back. There is also a considerable logistic element to
management of casualties, all of which detracts from your enemy's
ability to fight.

Quoted message said:

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

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:36:13 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Unfortunately the programme is marred by the tedious presence of the
embarrassingly unfunny Alan Davis as a permanent contestant.

He can be quite amusing, I think. But others are definitely funnier.

Bring back "If I Ruled The World" say I! The "I couldn't disagree
more" round was priceless, and I will never forget Pauline McGlynn
offering to flash her gvgf to get votes :-)

I've also just noticed that there is a website with a Father Ted FEQ

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 Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:04:33 -0000, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

[423]. Pheasant are smaller. As are pigeons. Both can (and are)
frequently shot by hunters. What makes foxes (A larger animal) such an
elusive target, other than the cunning of Reynard.

As long as you can get the fox airborne, it is an easier target.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:40:26 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

The Burns report commissioned by the current pro-ban Government is
probably the best work in the area and came to the conclusion that there
was no clear animal welfare justification either way and it all seems to
come down to your views on whether people should be allowed to be "pink
frocked pillocks" or "lycra clad louts" if they want to.

This does not address the issue of whether it is desirable for people
to take pleasure in killing small furry animals.

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

Just zis Guy said:

This does not address the issue of whether it is desirable for people
to take pleasure in killing small furry animals.

Or killing them for the pleasure of eating/wearing them?

Still a good trade in mouse traps, rat poison, fishing rods (OK fish are
not small and furry animals) and guns for those that take their
pleasures in killing them in other ways.

Tony

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:27:07 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

This does not address the issue of whether it is desirable for people
to take pleasure in killing small furry animals.

Quoted message said:

Or killing them for the pleasure of eating/wearing them?

Eating? No problem. Wearing? Up to a point: leather is essentially
a waste product of the meat industry, as I understand it, and I don't
wear other dead-animal products.

Quoted message said:

Still a good trade in mouse traps, rat poison, fishing rods (OK fish are
not small and furry animals) and guns for those that take their
pleasures in killing them in other ways.

Do you have any evidence that mouse traps are set for the pleasure of
killing rather than to eliminate household pests? Dot the people
setting the traps, for example, dress up in fancy dress and bring all
their friends along to watch the death? ;-)

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

Quoted message said:

Do you have any evidence that mouse traps are set for the pleasure of
killing rather than to eliminate household pests? Dot the people
setting the traps, for example, dress up in fancy dress and bring all
their friends along to watch the death? ;-)

The whole "you can keep doing it as long as you don't enjoy it" thing seems
a bit silly.

Mind you, the whole "pest control" thing seems a bit silly when habitat for
the foxes is preserved to ensure a good supply! Ho hum.