Challenges for shooting in animal welfare shake-up

[PeterHenry]

41 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

As quoted from the Field Sports channel 

Like many EU and EC rules, the rules are more to be admired for their intention than their real legal teeth. And when it comes to sentience, they only apply to livestock. Neither the EU/EC nor the government in England want to change the rules for wildlife.

 

So won't apply to game then? 

Well, pheasants in a pen count as livestock - that may be a little beside the point though, as their welfare is rarther high by most standards.

So as not to play devils advocate, I'm not particularly concerned by this law in and of itself - what I am concerned about is that - in say 10 years (for arguments sake) - some party or other, then in power, decides to build upon it. Traditionally, our laws concern themselves with animal welfare, not animal rights. From what I can see, this is the opening of the door to a more animal rights based approach. Animal sentience enshrined in law is only a hop away from animal rights enshrined in law. It dosent matter if the whole basis of animal rights makes no sense whatsoever (a right infers an obligation and the ability of both parties to understand that, etc), if parliament legislates for something, no matter how nonsensical it is, that thing ends up as law.

To use a well worn phrase, its rarther the thin end of the wedge.

[Lloyd90]

4 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Well, pheasants in a pen count as livestock

 

I believe that is incorrect. 

Also when released they count as wild birds. 

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

I believe that is incorrect. 

Also when released they count as wild birds. 

More than happy to be wrong on that point.

Like I said, I am more concerned with the sea change in attitudes, and this law seems to an symptom and/or component of that.

[Fellside]

12 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

More than happy to be wrong on that point.

Like I said, I am more concerned with the sea change in attitudes, and this law seems to an symptom and/or component of that.

I agree re sea change in attitude being a concern. We have no choice but to embrace it - and try to own our own space within this movement. 
 

P.S Your correct about pheasants being legally defined as livestock while penned. 

 

[ehb102]

On 15/05/2021 at 13:59, 12gauge82 said:

I think rather than fight this view, we as shooters should embrace it and lead the way in advocating animal welfare, which to a large extent I think we already do. To deny animals are sentient and have thought would be counterintuitive, it's obvious that they do. What shooter do you know that doesn't take it personally when we take a shoot and don't get an instant, humane kill? If they come after us on that front, where we as shooters, take humane shots on a small scale either for the table or to control pests that do damage or threaten other wildlife, they're going to have to go through mass farming and eating meat in general first. 

That is a very sensible post. The idea of the "dumb" animal is long disproved. Pigs play computer games. Gorillas communicate emotions in sign language.  Chickens can learn to read. Crows recognise themselves in mirrors. Anyone who had ever had a dog knows the truth of what is said. Time to take a good hard look at ourselves and make sure we can live with ourselves. 

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

That is a very sensible post. The idea of the "dumb" animal is long disproved. Pigs play computer games. Gorillas communicate emotions in sign language.  Chickens can learn to read. Crows recognise themselves in mirrors. Anyone who had ever had a dog knows the truth of what is said. Time to take a good hard look at ourselves and make sure we can live with ourselves. 

Yes and I witnessed  a pheasant doing The Times crossword last December - only moments before I shot it. 
 

[PeterHenry]

19 minutes ago, ehb102 said:

That is a very sensible post. The idea of the "dumb" animal is long disproved. Pigs play computer games. Gorillas communicate emotions in sign language.  Chickens can learn to read. Crows recognise themselves in mirrors. Anyone who had ever had a dog knows the truth of what is said. Time to take a good hard look at ourselves and make sure we can live with ourselves. 

I'm not disputing the sentience - I'm just concerned that it is now being enshrined in law. There are all sorts of things that we know to be true that are not legislated for - and likewise, a whole number of legal fictions - some serving a purpose and others not.

Can anyone answer me what the point of it being enshrined in law is? What does it achieve that animal welfare legislation alone would not, other than to serve as a way to advance the politics of animal rights?

37 minutes ago, Fellside said:

I agree re sea change in attitude being a concern. We have no choice but to embrace it - and try to own our own space within this movement. 
 

P.S Your correct about pheasants being legally defined as livestock while penned. 

 

👍

Edited May 20, 2021 by PeterHenry
Spelling

[Gordon R]

Whilst I suspect the motives of the people who pushed for these changes, I am not sure if they know what they are really getting into. Halal and Kosher killing would fall under this and that would open up a real can of worms.

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

Whilst I suspect the motives of the people who pushed for these changes, I am not sure if they know what they are really getting into. Halal and Kosher killing would fall under this and that would open up a real can of worms.

That's a good point. Most of the UK would see halal and kosher killing banned, I certainly would. 

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

I agree re sea change in attitude being a concern. We have no choice but to embrace it - and try to own our own space within this movement. 
 

P.S Your correct about pheasants being legally defined as livestock while penned. 

 

 

So they are! 

I do apologise, I was incorrect. 

 

Wild Justice is challenging the General Licence GL26 issued by Natural England to authorise the killing of Carrion Crows to prevent serious damage to livestock. Natural England chose to include gamebirds with livestock such as lambs and piglets in this licence.

The legal status of the Pheasant is complex and in this licence it appears that Natural England have made it even more contentious.

Captive gamebirds are livestock, just like captive chickens or captive turkeys. This works in the Pheasant’s favour if it is one of the millions of day-old chicks imported from the continent to stock shooting estates in the UK, or if it is a Pheasant in a rearing facility. As livestock, then the same animal welfare provisions apply to a Pheasant as to a domestic fowl. So a Pheasant needs space, and food, and water etc. All fair enough. 

2 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

More than happy to be wrong on that point.

Like I said, I am more concerned with the sea change in attitudes, and this law seems to an symptom and/or component of that.

 

My apologies Peter, I was incorrect on that one. I was thinking about when they are released and count as wild. 

[PeterHenry]

10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

So they are! 

I do apologise, I was incorrect. 

 

Wild Justice is challenging the General Licence GL26 issued by Natural England to authorise the killing of Carrion Crows to prevent serious damage to livestock. Natural England chose to include gamebirds with livestock such as lambs and piglets in this licence.

The legal status of the Pheasant is complex and in this licence it appears that Natural England have made it even more contentious.

Captive gamebirds are livestock, just like captive chickens or captive turkeys. This works in the Pheasant’s favour if it is one of the millions of day-old chicks imported from the continent to stock shooting estates in the UK, or if it is a Pheasant in a rearing facility. As livestock, then the same animal welfare provisions apply to a Pheasant as to a domestic fowl. So a Pheasant needs space, and food, and water etc. All fair enough. 

 

My apologies Peter, I was incorrect on that one. I was thinking about when they are released and count as wild. 

No problem, no offence taken 👍

[ehb102]

22 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

I'm not disputing the sentience - I'm just concerned that it is now being enshrined in law. There are all sorts of things that we know to be true that are not legislated for - and likewise, a whole number of legal fictions - some serving a purpose and others not.

Can anyone answer me what the point of it being enshrined in law is? What does it achieve that animal welfare legislation alone would not, other than to serve as a way to advance the politics of animal rights?

👍

Mostly to make people feel better. There's a heck of a lot enshrined in law that doesn't get enforced. 

[12gauge82]

23 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

I'm not disputing the sentience - I'm just concerned that it is now being enshrined in law. There are all sorts of things that we know to be true that are not legislated for - and likewise, a whole number of legal fictions - some serving a purpose and others not.

Can anyone answer me what the point of it being enshrined in law is? What does it achieve that animal welfare legislation alone would not, other than to serve as a way to advance the politics of animal rights?

👍

Animal welfare law has been advancing for hundreds of years and I see no reason that it won't continue to do so. My point is it would be a futile battle to deny what's obviously true, or to fight the inevitable. The shooting community should take ownership of animal welfare and showcase what we do for conservation. 

[PeterHenry]

On 21/05/2021 at 21:36, ehb102 said:

Mostly to make people feel better. There's a heck of a lot enshrined in law that doesn't get enforced. 

Ok, I'll go along with that - who are the people its aimed at making feel better though? I would suggest they are the kind of person very much opposed to shooting, etc

Yes, a lot of laws arnt inforced to the full - but once they are are on the statute books, and subject to some case law,  a lot can change.

23 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Animal welfare law has been advancing for hundreds of years and I see no reason that it won't continue to do so. My point is it would be a futile battle to deny what's obviously true, or to fight the inevitable. The shooting community should take ownership of animal welfare and showcase what we do for conservation. 

Yes, but theres a fine line between animal welfare and animal rights - I'm all for animal welfare legislation, but when that starts to cross over the line, our sport - and others - become endangered.

Edited May 22, 2021 by PeterHenry

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Ok, I'll go along with that - who are the people its aimed at making feel better though? I would suggest they are the kind person very much opposed to shooting, etc

Yes, alot of laws sent inforced to the full - but once they are are on the statute books, and subject to some case law a lot can change.

Yes, but theres a fine line between animal welfare and animal rights - I'm all for animal welfare legislation, but when that starts to cross over the line, our sport - and others - become endangered.

I agree but like I said earlier, if they come after us on welfare grounds, they'll need to go through mass farming and I would argue eating meat in general first. 

What can be better for animal welfare than one that is free, only taken on small scale, and that either needs controlling or is causing a nuisance anyway? 

[PeterHenry]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree but like I said earlier, if they come after us on welfare grounds, they'll need to go through mass farming and I would argue eating meat in general first. 

What can be better for animal welfare than one that is free, only taken on small scale, and that either needs controlling or is causing a nuisance anyway? 

Re your second paragraph - I agree entirely.

Re the first - goverments pander to minoritys because they need swing voters. Those who are idiologicaly opposed to eating meat are a growing minority, where as the one we are a part of is a decresing minority. I hope we can reverse our situation - perhaps idealy people would largely, or in part, switch from factory farmed meats to game. I say this as someone who on top of their 'day job' also runs a small farm. However, I dont hold out a great deal of hope.

Regardless of the logic behind your argument (which I entirely agree with), political will / arithmatic trumps everything. And this just looks - to me - like another step towards a political settlement that will do away with fieldsports for good

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Re your second paragraph - I agree entirely.

Re the first - goverments pander to minoritys because they need swing voters. Those who are idiologicaly opposed to eating meat are a growing minority, where as the one we are a part of is a decresing minority. I hope we can reverse our situation - perhaps idealy people would largely, or in part, switch from factory farmed meats to game. I say this as someone who on top of their 'day job' also runs a small farm. However, I dont hold out a great deal of hope.

Regardless of the logic behind your argument (which I entirely agree with), political will / arithmatic trumps everything. And this just looks - to me - like another step towards a political settlement that will do away with fieldsports for good

Totally get your points, I just think we need to turn it on its head and be on the front foot arguing our points using reason and logic. 

Trying to fight new legislation which has the backing of main stream media, the general public and the likes of packham, is imo futile and will only lead to us losing even more. 

[Scully]

13 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I agree but like I said earlier, if they come after us on welfare grounds, they'll need to go through mass farming and I would argue eating meat in general first. 

What can be better for animal welfare than one that is free, only taken on small scale, and that either needs controlling or is causing a nuisance anyway? 

Isn’t this the ultimate aim though? To stop us eating meat? It takes little steps ( like the blockading of McDonalds outlets in another thread ) and if McDonald's believe the anti meat campaign or anything to do with the environment, will have a detrimental effect on their business, they’ll cater to it. 
All it takes on our part, to allow it to gather momentum and succeed, is for us to do nothing. 
There are many different factions pushing for the same agenda in the name of various causes, and they can and will use any angle to achieve them. 
There is no doubt that animals are sentient beings ( my dogs certainly are ) all this amounts to is just how far we allow this knowledge to effect how we exploit animals. 
The shooting of animals for sport is hugely controversial, yet fishing is portrayed as fine. It amounts to the same thing, but for some reason is acceptable to the point where the BBC were debating only a couple of week ago, whether it should be available on the national health as a treatment for all manner of mental health issues. The same could be argued for shooting ( and i for one know it’s monumental in my mental health well being ) but who’s going to stick their head above the parapet to point this out? Certainly not our orgs, so who? 
We have a long and never ending uphill struggle to keep doing the things we do, against many people with many agendas, who want to stop us doing just that, and frankly, the way we’re going, I can’t see us surviving for much longer. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Scully

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Isn’t this the ultimate aim though? To stop us eating meat? It takes little steps ( like the blockading of McDonalds outlets in another thread ) and if McDonald's believe the anti meat campaign or anything to do with the environment, will have a detrimental effect on their business, they’ll cater to it. 
All it takes on our part, to allow it to gather momentum and succeed, is for us to do nothing. 
There are many different factions pushing for the same agenda in the name of various causes, and they can and will use any angle to achieve them. 
There is no doubt that animals are sentient beings ( my dogs certainly are ) all this amounts to is just how far we allow this knowledge to effect how we exploit animals. 
The shooting of animals for sport is hugely controversial, yet fishing is portrayed as fine. It amounts to the same thing, but for some reason is acceptable to the point where the BBC were debating only a couple of week ago, whether it should be available on the national health as a treatment for all manner of mental health issues. The same could be argued for shooting ( and i for one know it’s monumental in my mental health well being ) but who’s going to stick their head above the parapet to point this out? Certainly not our orgs, so who? 
We have a long and never ending uphill struggle to keep doing the things we do, against many people with many agendas, who want to stop us doing just that, and frankly, the way we’re going, I can’t see us surviving for much longer. 

Cant fault any of that and I quite agree. But I think that's why we need to try and showcase what we do and show shooting and it's benefits in a positive light rather than try to deny what is obviously true, which is animals are sentient. If we try to deny that, we will certainly loose.