Giant Fox caught in Kent

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

There is actually a thread started in there at the moment by someone who is anti hunting and they have not been called silly names or abused in any way.

Well the Mods thought it appropriate to issue a warning after 11 posts - they have banned "biting satire" - new one for you Seamus .

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

Well the Mods thought it appropriate to issue a warning after 11 posts - they have banned "biting satire" - new one for you Seamus .

The Mods warning read as follows for those who dont want to go into that forum

Mod notice: read before posting.

Firstly, this thread can make for an interesting and good debate, but only if posters keep a level head and refrain from insulting each. The first sign of this and the post(s) will be removed and poster infracted. This also includes "biting satire" or any other post that is designed to illicit a reaction.

The mods in that forum will always issue a warning with threads that may cause trouble, no more than the mods here will step in to a thread and tell people to keep to the forum rules but I suppose they are not supposed to do that in there since we are a supposedly lawless bunch.....oh gosh that was biting satire too :rolleyes . As you are aware mods are not always online so whats the problem with how many posts there were before the warning?
For someone who is so vocal about anti hunting, I see you have not posted in there....your golden opportunity to shine....oh wait more biting satire

i think laisurg has every right to ask the question she did. instead of condemning hunting without any knowledge or insight in to hunting and what it involves.
it would do us all good if we answered her properly instead of making fun of her.

Even the regualr posters in there are not happy with the one post wonders coming in making silly comments....something new for you Discodog and Mods.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

For someone who is so vocal about anti hunting, I see you have not posted in there....your golden opportunity to shine....oh wait more biting satire

Patience Grasshopper . I shine all the time so much so that I have to keep my pants on to avoid being blinded by the sun shining out of my bum - it's handy during power cuts .

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

Patience Grasshopper . I shine all the time so much so that I have to keep my pants on to avoid being blinded by the sun shining out of my bum - it's handy during power cuts .

Break out the sun glasses, hope you come with a health warning

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Break out the sun glasses, hope you come with a health warning

I come like an earthquake . My post is now up in the hunting forum just for you.

Vegeta

Discodog wrote: »

I assume you mean in relation to the oath sworn by Vets. If so then most people here know exactly what it means to entrust an animal to the care of Vet. The Vet is duty bound to do the best that he/she can do for the well being of the animal.

So why don't you enlighten us into a shooters view of caring for an animal ?.

So tell me who put the fox in the vet's care?

Or is there another oath which I am unaware of where vets swear a duty of care by proximity?

Fact of the matter is the fox was never in his care so he could not have broken his oath. But don't let the truth get in the way of a witch hunt

It's funny how you think the oath doesn't count for fishing but it does for the fox. That kind of logic is lost on me tbh

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

"I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct & that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"

The animal wasn't committed to his care though. It was caught. If he had caught a fish and killed it would he be recieving the same criticism. If you say he should then i believe that you're over reacting. If you say no, that a fish is different then i believe you to be a hypocrite.

Discodog

Vegeta wrote: »

So tell me who put the fox in the vet's care?

Or is there another oath which I am unaware of where vets swear a duty of care by proximity?

Fact of the matter is the fox was never in his care so he could not have broken his oath. But don't let the truth get in the way of a witch hunt

It's funny how you think the oath doesn't count for fishing but it does for the fox. That kind of logic is lost on me tbh

If you, I or a Vet catch an animal alive in a trap we are responsible for it's care. He laid the trap, he caught the fox, it was in his care & he shot it.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

The animal wasn't committed to his care though. It was caught.

Refer to the answer above.

If you want to be pedantic, which clearly you do, then the oath specifies animals not fish

This is turning into a scene from the Life of Brian.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

Refer to the answer above.

If you want to be pedantic, which clearly you do, then the oath specifies animals not fish

This is turning into a scene from the Life of Brian.

Life of brian? ''Hes a naughty boy!' Classic! I like the fact that a staunt animal advocate like yourself would state that a fish isn't an animal. Darwin would love you. :-D
Would a great white or a marlin be an animal or is it size that matters to you? I believe that people honestly form an opinion on an animal (weather it be maritime or land based) on its cuteness factor.
Swans are protected, not because they are endangered but because they are beautiful. I'm not advocating the hunting of swans btw but i think that people crib about the hunting of fox because they are beautiful animals.
If you deem that killing a fish by sticking a steel hook through its mouth and dragging it on to a beach is more morally exceptable or humane then killing an animal by means of a bullet traveling at over 300 meters a second straight to the head then again i see you as a hypocrite.
People on this forum have stated that this vet had no vested interest in the cat that was aledgedly killed by the fox. The cat was 19 years of age. So by a simple application of mathematics one could assume that the cat was in the house when the vet was living there as well. Ergo the cat had once been his pet. He set a trap not to capture the fox for release to a wildlife park but to dispatch of it humanely. (Again more hunmanely then the killing of fish which in your opinion isn't an animal)
This is all in my humble opinion of course. :-) G'Night.

Discodog

Oh Dear I wondered how long it would be before Darwin got included :rolleyes:. All of this reminds me of the leaflets that were handed out by the pro hunting groups during the hunting debate in the UK telling supporters how to oppose the "Anti's".

People "crib" about the unnecessary killing of this fox because they do not see the need to kill an animal for pleasure or "sport". The fox was executed by a man who has sworn to look after animals. There were alternatives to killing it, & killing a trapped animal is hardly sport so that just leaves pleasure. No Vet should enjoy killing.

Whatever we think he will be judged by the public, his employer & his clients.

Vegeta

Discodog wrote: »

If you, I or a Vet catch an animal alive in a trap we are responsible for it's care. He laid the trap, he caught the fox, it was in his care & he shot it.

No we're not, show me the legislation which states the above or the oath a vet swears that any animal he meets is under his care, as I said earlier you don't know what care means. Care does not equal proximity or possession.

Also fish are taxonomically classed as part of the kingdom of animals

ISDW

everypenny wrote: »

Life of brian? ''Hes a naughty boy!' Classic! I like the fact that a staunt animal advocate like yourself would state that a fish isn't an animal. Darwin would love you. :-D
Would a great white or a marlin be an animal or is it size that matters to you? I believe that people honestly form an opinion on an animal (weather it be maritime or land based) on its cuteness factor.
Swans are protected, not because they are endangered but because they are beautiful. I'm not advocating the hunting of swans btw but i think that people crib about the hunting of fox because they are beautiful animals.
If you deem that killing a fish by sticking a steel hook through its mouth and dragging it on to a beach is more morally exceptable or humane then killing an animal by means of a bullet traveling at over 300 meters a second straight to the head then again i see you as a hypocrite.
People on this forum have stated that this vet had no vested interest in the cat that was aledgedly killed by the fox. The cat was 19 years of age. So by a simple application of mathematics one could assume that the cat was in the house when the vet was living there as well. Ergo the cat had once been his pet. He set a trap not to capture the fox for release to a wildlife park but to dispatch of it humanely. (Again more hunmanely then the killing of fish which in your opinion isn't an animal)
This is all in my humble opinion of course. :-) G'Night.

I thought that swans were protected because in the UK they all belong to the queen, and as most of our laws are still based on theirs, it had just carried on.

Whispered

Discodog wrote: »

If you want to be pedantic, which clearly you do, then the oath specifies animals not fish
.

DD I agree with what you are saying here in this thread, but I have to comment on this. Since when is a fish not an animal? :eek: That's like saying "I'm vegetarian, except for when I eat fish/chicken"

In saying that though, I think that while the fox may be considered vermin, this particular fox deserved more study. How did he become that size, are his offspring also so large, are his feeding habits massively different to other foxes, does his size effect his interaction with other foxes etc. I think that the vet killing such a rare animal (I know foxes are not rare but ones of this size are) shows not only a lack of care to the animal, but to the species in general.

The hunters may not understand, but as a pet owner I would be uncomfortable bringing my dog/cats to a vet who is happy to kill a healthy animal, "vermin" or not.

He may be legally allowed kill the fox, but that doesn't mean he should have. Not everyone makes their moral decisions based only on what the law allows.

homerhop

this particular fox deserved more study. How did he become that size, are his offspring also so large, are his feeding habits massively different to other foxes, does his size effect his interaction with other foxes etc.

I can understand your points made here Whispered, the moral aspect is something we cannot get into as it has been stated we are not allowed to in this thread.


I find it amusing that when I posted the piece about anti hunting groups forcing people from their jobs, homes, harrasing their families and in extreem cases advocating the murder of humans not one person condoned it.

ISDW

homerhop wrote: »

I can understand your points made here Whispered, the moral aspect is something we cannot get into as it has been stated we are not allowed to in this thread.


I find it amusing that when I posted the piece about anti hunting groups forcing people from their jobs, homes, harrasing their families and in extreem cases advocating the murder of humans not one person condoned it.

Sorry, missed that, was it a thread by itself? Did you mean condone, or condemn? If I had seen it though, I don't know if I would have commented on it, as I wouldn't condone burglary, murder, drink driving etc, anything against the law, and wouldn't feel that I would have to comment on it, I live in a society where illegal activities are that way because of the general consensus, and harassment is illegal, so it kind of goes without saying (I think) that I wouldn't agree with it, and would want the individuals concerned to be dealt with.

homerhop

My apologies, condem.

My post read as follows

As much as anti hunters find it ironic that I can say I like animals and wildlife but yet I hunt, I too also find it ironic that these self same people see nothing wrong with hounding and badgering a person and their families out of a job, their home and in very extreme cases advocate the murder of human

Whispered

Homerhop, I'm not sure if I've read you correctly; are you talking about other instances or are there animal welfare groups badgering, threathening the vet in question?

If you mean other instances I know the type of organisation you mean and I think that the majority of animal lovers would not agree with those types of tactics. And many distance themselves from such tactics. It's the age old problem of the noisy few. You don't have to be a member of such an organisation or agree with their tactics to have some common ground.

I'm sure as a responsible hunter you disagree with poachers, wasteful hunters, hunters who don't take due care etc. It's sort of the same thing if that makes sense. (and if I read your question incorrectly please ignore this post)

The Little Fella

the mystery of the beast of craggy island has been solved.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

Since when is a fish not an animal? :eek: That's like saying "I'm vegetarian, except for when I eat fish/chicken"

I know that it is an animal but I was having a little fun our hunting friends who seem to want to challenge every word in the Vet Oath

The standard procedure if you disagree with hunting is that the hunter asks if you eat meat or think that fishing should be banned. It's part of the idea that, as you can't justify killing for pleasure, you try to make the "Anti" look just as bad. You then move on to how hunting is more humane than farming or fishing. Years ago the Countryside Alliance supporters produced a guide on how to argue for hunting.

Discodog

Vegeta wrote: »

No we're not, show me the legislation which states the above or the oath a vet swears that any animal he meets is under his care, as I said earlier you don't know what care means. Care does not equal proximity or possession.

Also fish are taxonomically classed as part of the kingdom of animals

What legislation ?. The Vet Oath isn't part of Law. It is an Oath of ethics that it required by the governing body.

Neither does care mean shooting !. I will care for this child by shooting it.
The Vet had the animal in his custody & care to do with as he thought best according to his Oath.

If he did nothing wrong then why has his employer wiped him from the practice website ?.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

I know that it is an animal but I was having a little fun our hunting friends who seem to want to challenge every word in the Vet Oath

The standard procedure if you disagree with hunting is that the hunter asks if you eat meat or think that fishing should be banned. It's part of the idea that, as you can't justify killing for pleasure, you try to make the "Anti" look just as bad. You then move on to how hunting is more humane than farming or fishing. Years ago the Countryside Alliance supporters produced a guide on how to argue for hunting.

Discodog I really dont care if you eat meat, fish etc. I never asked you if you thought fishing should be banned, and if you think I am trying to make antis look bad well I guess I will have a restless night worrying about that one.

I am not challenging the vets oath, but I do believe the man that this thread was started about is entitled to partake in an activity that is not illegal outside of his work.

I am not looking to try persuade anyone who is opposed to hunting that it is the best thing since sliced bread. I hunt because I want to. I asked you about the fishing because a lot of those opposed to someone who shoots have no problems with fishing. I explained what is involved in the same terms those who like to discribe hunting as "blasting everything that moves" and yet you still had no problem with it.

I explained that those who use a rifle will spent many hours refining their ability to ensure as good a shot as possible, where as with fishing you cannot be specific where the hook will get caught in a fish.I never said hunting was more humane than farming. I am not a member of the CA and have never been coached in any way by any organisation or published literature on how to argue the point of hunting.

You are the one who said the following

Let's have good robust debate & welcome opposing opinions.

Discodog

Apart from food species Anglers put their catch back & very alive. Most anglers that I know treat a caught fish with great care & angling clubs demand this. It is totally different to shooting foxes.

I am amazed that the fox hunters haven't started eating fox as it would be the best way to deflect the view that they kill for pleasure rather than necessity.

homerhop

Apart from food species

So then you have no problem with those who hunt food species such as rabbit, pheasant,duck, geese etc?

homerhop

Whispered wrote: »

Homerhop, I'm not sure if I've read you correctly; are you talking about other instances or are there animal welfare groups badgering, threathening the vet in question?

If you mean other instances I know the type of organisation you mean and I think that the majority of animal lovers would not agree with those types of tactics. And many distance themselves from such tactics. It's the age old problem of the noisy few. You don't have to be a member of such an organisation or agree with their tactics to have some common ground.

I'm sure as a responsible hunter you disagree with poachers, wasteful hunters, hunters who don't take due care etc. It's sort of the same thing if that makes sense. (and if I read your question incorrectly please ignore this post)

Yes Whispered I understand totally what you are saying, you cant tar everyone with the one brush.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

I know that it is an animal but I was having a little fun our hunting friends who seem to want to challenge every word in the Vet Oath

The standard procedure if you disagree with hunting is that the hunter asks if you eat meat or think that fishing should be banned. It's part of the idea that, as you can't justify killing for pleasure, you try to make the "Anti" look just as bad. You then move on to how hunting is more humane than farming or fishing. Years ago the Countryside Alliance supporters produced a guide on how to argue for hunting.

Its not exactly a standard procedure. It is instead a logical argument that is made when people make the repetitive argument of 'hunting is cruel'.

I notice as well that when you make reference to hunting you try to use the word 'killing' instead. Hunting is far more then killing, as fishing is far more then catching and golf is far more than getting the ball in the hole.

In relation to the guide that was published for the pro hunting side of the argument, i've never seen one. I have however seen many a publication from the anti side informing people of anti hunt opinion and methods of getting anti hunt legislation.

So i don't see the point your making there in relation to the publishing of guides or leaflets.

On an aside. How does you stating that a fish isn't an animal poke fun at anyone or any argument bar your own? And no one wanted to challenge the oath that the vet took, we just wanted to define it. At no stage was the animal in his care after he caught it. Again to refer to fishing, if he caught a fish in a net (a trap) would you object to him killing it?

At the end of the day he did nothing illegal, trapped and killed the fox humanely and well within the law. Why he should be made into a pariah is beyond me.

Discodog

I am mindful of Seamus's request not to take this thread off topic but I will reply to your points.

everypenny wrote: »

And no one wanted to challenge the oath that the vet took, we just wanted to define it.

Same thing. You seek to question the meaning of a simple Oath that is perfectly clear to everyone. I asked my Vet & now another two Vets. None of them have any doubt that an animal trapped by a Vet is in his care until his care is superseded. For example if he had handed it over to a rescue the duty of care would pass to the rescue.

everypenny wrote: »

Its not exactly a standard procedure. It is instead a logical argument that is made when people make the repetitive argument of 'hunting is cruel'.

Shooting should not be cruel but it can be if done badly - not every shot is perfect. I witness many foxes, rabbits, deer, birds etc that were shot & wounded. Most other forms of hunting are explicitly cruel. It is illegal to terrify or infuriate an animal as well as being illegal to cause unnecessary suffering. These laws were drawn up by the British in 1911 & hunting was exempt because, in those days the majority of parliament hunted, otherwise some hunting would be deemed to be cruel.

everypenny wrote: »

I notice as well that when you make reference to hunting you try to use the word 'killing' instead. Hunting is far more then killing, as fishing is far more then catching and golf is far more than getting the ball in the hole.

Hunting involves killing but hunters try to dilute this aspect. You could not hunt if you objected to killing. It may be just part of the sport to you but it the crucial part to the animal. I actually admire hunters who have the honesty to admit that they enjoy killing.

everypenny wrote: »

So i don't see the point your making there in relation to the publishing of guides or leaflets.

The simple point is that for those of us who care about animal welfare we have heard the same thing over again.

everypenny wrote: »

Why he should be made into a pariah is beyond me.

Because a man who enters a profession that exists to treat animals with respect & to promote their welfare should not kill them without a very good reason. In this case there was a clear alternative so the killing was unnecessary.

I won't make him a pariah. If that happens it will be because a lot of people disagree with his actions. I heard today of two separate cases of people who bought injured foxes to the rescue & were concerned that they would just be killed.

Even if you could argue that he did nothing wrong in killing the fox he has still caused a lot of unnecessary hysteria about "killer foxes".

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

So then you have no problem with those who hunt food species such as rabbit, pheasant,duck, geese etc?

If food is the real reason then, in some cases, no. However I very much doubt that some of the people who say that they only hunt for food are really telling the truth. It's back to needing a reason to justify the killing.

I would have a big problem with captive bred bird shoots where the main necessity is to make money. I cannot accept that driving birds en mass is not cruel & totally pathetic.

Whispered

Discodog wrote: »

Because a man who enters a profession that exists to treat animals with respect & to promote their welfare should not kill them without a very good reason. In this case there was a clear alternative so the killing was unnecessary.

+1. It would be sad enough that this huge fox was killed instead of studied, but when the killer is a man who regularly has the welfare of peoples animals in his hands, it makes it seem worse. It may not be fair on the vet, but a person who is in an animal care profession really should, well care. Even if he didn't care less about the individual animal fair enough; as he may have seen it as vermin (or a photo op?) but about the species. Surely he realised that such an abnormally large animal would be of interest.

The article states the fox was trapped (the night after a normal sized one was trapped and killed), I fail to see where the hunting occured. A trap was set and the fox was shot in the trap?

Vegeta

Discodog wrote: »

What legislation ?. The Vet Oath isn't part of Law. It is an Oath of ethics that it required by the governing body.

Well you said any animal we trap is in our care. I am asking you to show where caring for a trapped animal is a requirement of us, which must be in legislation or else you are just making it up. Or where is it in a Vets Oath does it state that custody and care are the same thing.

The Vet had the animal in his custody & care to do with as he thought best according to his Oath.

Where did the Vet state the animal was in his care? What course of treatment had he prescribed for the fox?

Where does any piece of the oath state that an animal in your custody is automatically under your care?

If he did nothing wrong then why has his employer wiped him from the practice website ?.

That's not what I am debating, you'll also find I have never once gave my opinion on the right or wrong of the situation.

I am challenging you on your statements about the Vets Oath and your fabrication of what it says AND your hypocrisy of same, stating it's ok for a Vet to fish but not shoot a fox.

I see you're back peddling on the fish statement already.

Clearly the fox was never in the Vet's care. Custody yes but custody does not imply the vet was caring for the fox.