[Sal]

Pr,  :wave:

I’m sorry I think you still misunderstand me.  I believe animal welfare is very important, not just for ‘pets’ but for the environment as a whole, which therefore includes all wild animals.  As the lions in the Serengeti show, there is a natural cycle to these things.  Too few lions = too many gazelles = not enough vegetation = starvation of gazelles = not enough food for lions, etc etc.  In areas of the environment where humans have already intervened we then have a duty to care for that environment, if necessary by controlling the number of animals present.  Our responsibility for domesticated animals is different – we have made them almost entirely dependent on us for their food and shelter, so our responsibility is for the animal itself.  

Raz mate, I did a previous post trying to show grey areas of morality.  Unless someone is very arrogant, they have to accept that what may seem to them as so clearly morally wrong, might in other cultures or societies be socially acceptable.  As humans need no longer depend on animal products for food, there is a growing lobby that it is morally wrong to unnecessarily slaughter living creatures to be eaten for our enjoyment.  A vegetarian may hold this view as strongly as you hold yours, it does not mean that either of you are correct to impose this view on people who do not hold your beliefs.

[Sal]

pr, :wave:

Do lions have divine right to chase gazelles, zebras etc?  Hawks to catch rabbits? Sharks to catch, er, littler fish?  Its the way of the world, deal with it.

I think the depletion of bears and wolves was due to a variety of factors – yes hunting, but also climate change and mostly human encroachment into their natural habitat, rather like towns are creeping into the countryside today, a process which can be stemmed by money from hunts preserving fields and woodland.

I don’t think, from interviews I have seen on tv that hunters are shy to admit that they love riding to hounds, and that mostly they are keen to see the way of life continue.

I’m sorry, but I think you may have missed a couple of points with your last comments.  The obligations humans have is to domesticated animals, such as dogs (and in danger of entertaining Jim :biggrin: , cocks), not to abuse their trust as they have been enslaved for human enjoyment.  This does not apply to foxes, wild rabbits, rats, etc.  As I said before, the human obligation for these animals is to sustain their environment, so the fox does not go the way of the wolf and bear.

And as for burning heretics…..:laugh: exactly which part of my suggesting we respect other peoples moral views did you not understand? :biggrin:  

[Sal]

And while I’m on the issue….:biggrin:

Nobody seems to have any problem with the widescale destruction of rats, mice and bugs that goes on in urban areas (ie Rentokil).  I think I would prefer a sporting chance running across my ‘own’ fields, rather than undergoing slow death by poison.  The fact that this sort of death of animals is accepted, whilst riding to hounds is not, suggests that the welfare of the particular animal is not the main issue for many people.

I can completely understand that many people find the death of mammals (foxes especially) distressing – it is not something I would wish to witness.  However you have to accept that other people experience animal deaths every day in one way or another, and although it does not stop people caring about animal welfare it also makes them much more pragmatic.  Like Kathy says, seeing the destruction and death that can be wrought by foxes would make you more understanding about the natural life-cycle.

People have different attitudes towards all aspects of life – and we have to accept these differences.  You may find a hunt riding to hounds for fun repulsive.  I cannot stomach grown men being paid huge sums to hurt each other in a boxing ring while a paying crowd screams in blood lust.  A  vegetarian may be revolted that you find pleasure in eating the corpse of a dead animal.  

Everyone is entitled to these views, but I don’t believe we should enforce our moral views onto someone else’s lifestyle.

:wave:

[Sal]

The huge difference Razeen, is one of human obligation.  Dogs, cats, chickens, horses, goldfish, all these have been domesticated over the centuries by human for their own purpose and pleasure – restricting their liberty and dampening their survival instincts.  As such they are dependent on humans and we should not abuse that trust (by hitting puppies with golf clubs or however :biggrin: ).

Wild animals are DIFFERENT.  They are able, through their freedom and genetics, of fending for themselves.  We do not have the same obligation over them – and in many cases it is better to leave them alone.  However, with cases such as the fox and the mink, they no longer have any NATURAL predator. Since the wolves and bears died out in Britain, fox-hunting has played the role of natural control of the fox population in many areas.  The job of humans with regard to wildlife is to care for the environment around – and if that means culling the animal at the top of the foodchain then that should be done.

The fox, in amongst all this, doesn’t spend his days worrying about the nasty humans that he thinks enjoy chasing him.  Foxes, like most things in the real world, live by the hunt and be hunted rule.  They don’t have a big moral issue about it.  Watch a nature programme, something like lions on the Serengeti, to get the idea.

:wave:  

[Sal]

PR – As Jay says, and as I mentioned in my post, this law has many loopholes and will be very open to interpretation (you agree the hypothetical old lady can ‘get away with’ essentially breaking the spirit of the law), particularly by those whose livilihoods are at stake.  I’m sure fine lines can be trodded by law abiding citizens, which still have to be policed, for example drivers who are within the legal alcohol limit are still often breathalized.  Even if a law is not being broken it still has to be policed. I hope I have explained that without casting aspersions on any characters!

For me, this issue is one of personal moral choice, which is something I do NOT believe the government has right to pass judgement upon.  British society as a whole cannot agree on this contentious and often emotional debate, and as such to outlaw an issue is an infringement on personal liberty.  Read the following statement, and see what you think.

Divorce is seen by some people as a sin.  It often has innocent victims, is morally wrong, and should not be permissible in society. Other people believe that divorce is often essential and far worse damage would be caused to society without it and the benefits it brings.  Other people may not like the idea of divorce, but they believe it does not harm society and people should be free to divorce if they please.

Agreed?  Then read this statement again and exchange divorce for fox-hunting.  Again this statement makes sense.  Try it again, but instead put in the words murder or burglary or rape or terrorism or selling heroin.  

That is the difference between an issue that should be personal choice in a free society, and that which a government should act upon.  

[Sal]

Raz, I think you missed a valid point made by Rob.  It isn’t just the waste of time in Parliament passing this type of legislation, it is then also the effort and expense involved in policing and implementing its results.  

If all kennels, hunt packs and various societies that are involved in ‘hunting with dogs’ have to be outlawed, this takes a large amount of administration.  The legislation for this is so unwieldy (do you prosecute an old lady whose spaniel catches a rabbit?) means there are many loopholes and the law is ultimately unstable.  

Just because the law has been supposedly passed does not mean the end of the issue – and in the meantime much public service money will be used to enforce a law that is not wanted by the most important people (yes, people, not animals) that it affects.

Are the police (particularly in the poorly serviced rural areas) not better deployed in protecting citizens from crime rather than investigating whether a farmer has used a natural, darwinian method of removing a vermin problem?  

I think the modern world is in danger of disappearing up its own moral backside.

[Sal]

For the anoraks amongst us ;) See You Then was retired for about a year, then tried for the 1990 Champion Hurdle. He had two runs before Cheltenham (6th and fell), finished 16th (last of the finishers) and then finished 9th in the Scottish Champion Hurdle before being retired again.  He started at 25/1 at Cheltenham.  Not really many parallels with Istabraq!

:wave:  

[Sal]

Statistics on their own can be used to make an argument from any angle. I suppose the thing to always remember is the events that are behind the statistics. The figures themselves should just be a useful way of summing things up.  For (a very simplified) example – a sire’s figures tell you that 97% of his progeny do not like soft ground.  You know the horse you want to back is one of the 3% that has already won on soft. In this case the sire statistics, although overwhelmingly against your selection, are not backed up by the evidence of this event.

However, the racing statistics of the individual horse involved tell you that the horse has won on the soft in the past.  This would suggest that he is quite likely to win in it in the future.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that statistics can be useful – as long as you look at the right ones!  It should’t ever be a matter of blindly following numbers.

[Sal]

I’m with sidders on this (although I’m probably not a good example as I have no system, no fixed stake, and couldn’t tell you if my betting was profitable or not!).

However – I would always prefer each-way betting on a longer priced (10-1+) runner that I thought had a strong chance of being placed.  To back a shorter priced runner ‘win only’ requires a lot more certainty, and I find it easier to regularly pick horses that run well into the frame than to find a sequence of winners.  

Why not bet place only?  I don’t think my anger management techniques :biggrin: could cope with continuously working out how much I would have won, had I backed 20-1 winners e.w. rather than place only – and if the 20-1 is second its still as good as a short-priced winner.  My total stake for a win bet would still be the same as for an e.w.

More run for my money, either way. :)  

[Sal]

It was Rainbow Quest in the Dewhurst.  I think of the 2yo fillies from last year Gossamer has alot of potential, and Protectress for Cecil if he gets everything together again.

:wave:

[Sal]

Smithy, shouldn’t that be Derby, Irish Derby, King George and St Leger?  Surely that is a better test of the traditional thoroughbred over an extended range of distances?<br>:)

[Author]

Posts