# Noush , sometimes justice does prevail EXPLICIT CONTENT



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Hunt Saboteurs Praised by Judge after being Cleared of Aggravated Trespass - Hunt Saboteurs Association

THERE MAY BE VIDEOS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS THREAD , THAT SOME MAY FIND UPSETTING


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

That deer seemed to be humanely dispatched. Also doesn't look savaged to me. I've seen several deer with broken legs, it's mainly to do with disturbance and trapping the leg in something. 
A noisy group of rambler could just as easily have caused this, but of course there wouldn't have been a camera.
From that report and the lack of info in that report, it sounds as if the judge acted on personal opinion rather than points of law. 
I'm glad the terrier men put the animal out of it's distress. I truly believe that that is the right thing to do with a deer with a broken leg.

Having said all that, if this group of sabs were only being prosecuted for coming to the aid of the deer, then that is disgusting


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Well, the police are certainly not experts in this matter however Andrew Knight BSc. (Vet. Biol.), BVMS, CertAW, DipECAWBM (AWSEL), PhD, MRCVS, SFHEA  Professor of Animal Welfare and Ethics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester certainly is. In his independent report he states:

The deer was also recumbent on its back. A large (approximately 4 cm) puncture wound was visible in the groin region, and the surrounding fur was matted with fluid and clearly bloodied, demonstrating marked, recent trauma. The large size of the puncture wound, and the amount of bleeding evident, were highly consistent with a dog attack.

The appearance of the skin and fur in this case were very strongly consistent with such causation. The likelihood of alternate causes such as fences, barbed wire or brambles vary from extremely unlikely to completely implausible. 



I think Mr Knight has made it perfectly clear how the deer came about it's injuries .


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

tincan said:


> Well, the police are certainly not experts in this matter however Andrew Knight BSc. (Vet. Biol.), BVMS, CertAW, DipECAWBM (AWSEL), PhD, MRCVS, SFHEA  Professor of Animal Welfare and Ethics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester certainly is. In his independent report he states:
> 
> The deer was also recumbent on its back. A large (approximately 4 cm) puncture wound was visible in the groin region, and the surrounding fur was matted with fluid and clearly bloodied, demonstrating marked, recent trauma. The large size of the puncture wound, and the amount of bleeding evident, were highly consistent with a dog attack.
> 
> ...


But not what dogs/dog did it. If Alfie had come across a deer that had a broken leg that couldn't get away, I am 100% sure that he would have clung onto it until I got there. He would also almost definitely have caused injury consistent with an attack


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Mmmm

Andrew Knight BSc. (Vet. Biol.), BVMS, CertAW, DipECAWBM (AWSEL), PhD, MRCVS, SFHEA  Professor of Animal Welfare and Ethics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

Andrew Knight: Bio

However, Andrew has authored over 60 popular publications as well. The most interesting concern the medicine and husbandry of supposedly mythical animals. As the worlds most published veterinarian in this esoteric field, he is well on the way to becoming the first recognised specialist in Veterinary Cryptozoology (Dip. Crypt.), specialising in the medicine and surgery of animals considered extinct, or otherwise non-existent by (regrettably closed-minded) mainstream biologists.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

This part of the judges statement is very positive for the sabs:


> He also praised the saboteurs saying: "All of you contribute immensely to society not only in your working lives but in your free time. [on the day] You deserve high praise for managing yourselves and your behaviour."


Appears to make a nice change.

But perhaps a better 'expert witness' could have been found?

Having said that, I am curious about the injuries to the deer. Sadly, I've watched two of our dogs bring down a deer - they go for the throat first and lower limbs/abdomen second.


----------



## catpud (Nov 9, 2013)

One thing I don't understand on the sabs part - they wanted to ease the deers suffering? Does that mean that they were carrying weapons, guns specifically? If not they how exactly were they going to ease the animals suffering - sitting and talking to the animal to "comfort" it would do the deer no good at all - it's a wild animal, it doesn't particularly want human cuddles and kisses, and would probably have been terrified stiff at human contact. 

The only group who had the equipment to end the suffering were the people with the guns.



Edit also just watched the video at the end of the article - I see nothing inhumane in it, watched with no sound due to faulty speakers so just video, means I was not distracted by voices - I saw nothing cruel happening? Was there more footage?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> This part of the judges statement is very positive for the sabs:
> 
> Appears to make a nice change.
> 
> ...


Where did your dogs come from?

Most of the dogs I've seen after deer wouldn't even get close to the throat, they'd bring the deer down by catching at the back end and then holding on to anywhere they could get a bite. Wondered if yours had been feral

I was talking to one of the wardens on a section of the North downs and he said they were always dealing with deer caught by out of control dogs


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

same when they go after sheep, they go for the nearest part if they are chasing and only go for the throat/face/mouth if the animal is cornered.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

catpud said:


> One thing I don't understand on the sabs part - they wanted to ease the deers suffering? Does that mean that they were carrying weapons, guns specifically? If not they how exactly were they going to ease the animals suffering - sitting and talking to the animal to "comfort" it would do the deer no good at all - it's a wild animal, it doesn't particularly want human cuddles and kisses, and would probably have been terrified stiff at human contact.
> 
> The only group who had the equipment to end the suffering were the people with the guns.
> 
> ...


A pen knife could be used to kill a deer if the person knew what they were doing.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

My thoughts would be that a deer had been bitten by a dog and in the chase broke a leg and was PTS by shooting.

Says there was a puncture wound to the groin.....that would be a reasonable place for a dog to grab at it...

says the deer was savaged.......?? no facial injury, no bald patches, no fur everywhere. Says the leg was broken...but there were 4 still visible so not chewed or ripped off. No ripped skin, no blood on the deer or even where it was lying...but maybe there was and I couldn't see it cos the picture wasn't very clear.

I think a pack of hounds or even a group of pet dogs would have done far more damage than 1 puncture wound. 1 medium sized dog could have done this including breaking the leg.

Camera on the ready but no footage or sounds of hounds being around.

I am totally anti hunting but not totally convinced this was done by hunters.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

tincan said:


> Hunt Saboteurs Praised by Judge after being Cleared of Aggravated Trespass - Hunt Saboteurs Association


This is such good news! :thumbsup:

I remember this incident well, there was a riot over on twitter about it. Aw Tincan, I really appreciate you doing this thread for me. I really feared the worst for the sabs - for once justice really has prevailed. Surrey police are a disgrace, its not the first time they've defended the hunt wildlife criminals. So heartening to find a judge who appreciates the selfless & compassionate sabs. Loved what he said about them

_ "All of you contribute immensely to society not only in your working lives but in your free time. [on the day] You deserve high praise for managing yourselves and your behaviour." _

I will be doing a bit of digging & get back to this thread. lol


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

My two would attack a prone deer. If they came across a deer downed by a broken leg, I'm sure they'd have a very nasty go, seeing them take off that day they were missing overnight. Big dog chases and eats whatever he gets.

I imagine there's lots more to the story but the video shows a deer being efficiently and humanely dispatched. I don't think its a good idea to try to hover over a wild animal, it only stresses them hugely. 

There was a lovely vid the other day of hunt supporters/sabs working together to free a badger entangled in fencing; the poor creature was terrified and sped off as soon as it was freed.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> That deer seemed to be humanely dispatched. Also doesn't look savaged to me. I've seen several deer with broken legs, it's mainly to do with disturbance and trapping the leg in something.
> A noisy group of rambler could just as easily have caused this, but of course there wouldn't have been a camera.
> From that report and the lack of info in that report, it sounds as if the judge acted on personal opinion rather than points of law.
> I'm glad the terrier men put the animal out of it's distress. I truly believe that that is the right thing to do with a deer with a broken leg.
> ...


Is it your mission in life to try to get bloodthirsty knuckle draggers off the hook at any given opportunity Rona? lol Its not the fault of ramblers or some other random & obscure group you can think of. It was the HUNTS fault this poor deer was injured. I wonder how much 'distress' their lovely terrier men caused it dragging it around with its legs?



catpud said:


> One thing I don't understand on the sabs part - they wanted to ease the deers suffering? Does that mean that they were carrying weapons, guns specifically? If not they how exactly were they going to ease the animals suffering - sitting and talking to the animal to "comfort" it would do the deer no good at all - it's a wild animal, it doesn't particularly want human cuddles and kisses, and would probably have been terrified stiff at human contact.
> 
> The only group who had the equipment to end the suffering were the people with the guns.
> 
> ...


Sabs don't carry guns. Unsure how bad its injuries were the Sabs wanted to minimise its stress by covering its eyes & keeping quite & get it assessed by a vet. The hunt, aided by the police put a stop to that though.



lilythepink said:


> My thoughts would be that a deer had been bitten by a dog and in the chase broke a leg and was PTS by shooting.
> 
> Says there was a puncture wound to the groin.....that would be a reasonable place for a dog to grab at it...
> 
> ...


Heres a more in depth report Lily. It _was_ the hounds.

*Before we cover the police statement which show's a complete lack of knowledge and impartiality in it's own right we'll go over the statements provided. First of Mrs Dunsden (described in the statement as Hunt Leader) who states:*

_"The hunt was a trail hunt where a they had a previously scented trail for the hounds to follow. No live animals where to be hunted and if the hounds caught the scent of a live animal the master of the hounds would call off the dogs as per agreed procedure". _ *She goes on to note that * _ "Protestors were present and some had their faces covered". _
*One particular part of the statement is quite interesting:*

"The hunts leader and members have provided statements confirming that hounds did not the hunt the deer and when they realised they had found a deer the hounds were called off"

Blog | More than just Badgers | The Accidental Activist


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> This is such good news! :thumbsup:
> 
> I remember this incident well, there was a riot over on twitter about it. Aw Tincan, I really appreciate you doing this thread for me. I really feared the worst for the sabs - for once justice really has prevailed. Surrey police are a disgrace, its not the first time they've defended the hunt wildlife criminals. So heartening to find a judge who appreciates the selfless & compassionate sabs. Loved what he said about them
> 
> ...


maybe you have more info on this? sort of fill in the gaps? video I saw was not totally clear.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Is it your mission in life to try to get bloodthirsty knuckle draggers off the hook at any given opportunity Rona? lol Its not the fault of ramblers or some other random & obscure group you can think of. It was the HUNTS fault this poor deer was injured. I wonder how much 'distress' their lovely terrier men caused it dragging it around with its legs?
> 
> Sabs don't carry guns. Unsure how bad its injuries were the Sabs wanted to minimise its stress by covering its eyes & keeping quite & get it assessed by a vet. The hunt, aided by the police put a stop to that though.
> 
> ...


ah...thank you...posted and then saw your reply. thank you


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lilythepink said:


> maybe you have more info on this? sort of fill in the gaps? video I saw was not totally clear.


Did you see my previous post Lily?

.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Im confused Noush...... this "&#8220;The hunts leader and members have provided statements confirming that hounds did not the hunt the deer and when they realised they had found a deer the hounds were called off&#8221;" says they did NOT hunt the deer...... in fact nothing in your quote supports "it was the hounds".

Surely all of this is one persons word against the other? and each will have their own view point based on their own beliefs for or against hunting. I know had they Sabs and the Hunt come across an animal of mine in excruciating pain I would want it dispatched as the hunt did not covered and left for god knows how long until a vet could be found. Deer generally arent rehabilitated are they? Very doubtful this animal would have made a recovery.

Anyone out for a walk with dogs could have the horrible experience of their dog coming across a deer and either bringing it down if it was not already, or having a pop at an injured deer they found on the floor........ I know mine certainly would have had he been faster when 2 deer popped out of a hedge 2ft in front of him, at a rare time he was off lead.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> Im confused Noush...... this ""The hunts leader and members have provided statements confirming that hounds did not the hunt the deer and when they realised they had found a deer the hounds were called off"" says they did NOT hunt the deer...... in fact nothing in your quote supports "it was the hounds".
> 
> Surely all of this is one persons word against the other? and each will have their own view point based on their own beliefs for or against hunting. I know had they Sabs and the Hunt come across an animal of mine in excruciating pain I would want it dispatched as the hunt did not covered and left for god knows how long until a vet could be found. Deer generally arent rehabilitated are they? Very doubtful this animal would have made a recovery.
> 
> Anyone out for a walk with dogs could have the horrible experience of their dog coming across a deer and either bringing it down if it was not already, or having a pop at an injured deer they found on the floor........ I know mine certainly would have had he been faster when 2 deer popped out of a hedge 2ft in front of him, at a rare time he was off lead.


The huntsmen said the hounds were 'called off the deer'. Whether they chased it & caused it to break its leg might be debatable, but hounds frequently do target the wrong species. The dog bite marks debatable? I don't think so. It was left for 'god knows how long' because the police were too busy charging the sabs! Its their fault the deer was tormented and left to suffer, all the sabs wanted to do was help it. And yes, plenty of injured deer are treated & released back into the wild.

_During the trial a leading vet, Professor Andrew Knight, criticised the way the terrier men had treated the animal as they dragged it around by a broken leg and said it was almost certain its injuries had been caused by a pack of hounds. It became clear from video footage that the police had lied about the events of the day and the district judge in his summing up said that the hunt and police had caused unnecessary suffering to the deer due to their handling of the situation and that if the sabs had been allowed to help the animal they would have been able to reduce it's suffering. _

Anyway, the HSA have released the police video. How anyone can defend these disgusting people is beyond me.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1026208197407913



.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Even if this deers leg was broken by a pack of hounds, which we will never know, no one can prove intent can they? Could have been any of us walking our dogs........


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Very glad that, in this case at least, justice was served.

"Intent". Intent for cruelty.
This article was in The Economist a while back. Interesting reading.
Bagehot: The hunter and the hapless | The Economist


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Why is it so bloody hard to believe that folk do actually DRAG hunt? and they do not go out with the intent on ripping animals apart? that this was actually an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone walking with dogs, or blumming riding their horse with their dogs in tow. The sheer narrow mindedness astonishes me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> Even if this deers leg was broken by a pack of hounds, which we will never know, no one can prove intent can they? Could have been any of us walking our dogs........





Lexiedhb said:


> Why is it so bloody hard to believe that folk do actually DRAG hunt? and they do not go out with the intent on ripping animals apart? that this was actually an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone walking with dogs, or blumming riding their horse with their dogs in tow. The sheer narrow mindedness astonishes me.


Because they had terrier men with them

.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Even if this deers leg was broken by a pack of hounds, which we will never know, no one can prove intent can they? Could have been any of us walking our dogs........


Agreed. The area where I live is highly populated by deer & there are many instances of dogs chasing them (one of my own a few years ago unfortunately). Deer are often hit by cars & can then end up mile from a road dying of their injuries, as well as being injured jumping *****, getting caught in barbed wire, etc

Am not sure why the FB video is supposed to show 'inhumane' treatment though 

I saw the men lift the deer, assess it's injuries then see if it were able to run off. It may have been in shock & therefore not able to escape immediately (I have seen this several times with deer), surely if they had shot it then without giving it a chance then this would also have been deemed unacceptabe.

Tbh am not sure what else they were supposed to do.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Why is it so bloody hard to believe that folk do actually DRAG hunt? and they do not go out with the intent on ripping animals apart? that this was actually an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone walking with dogs, or blumming riding their horse with their dogs in tow. The sheer narrow mindedness astonishes me.


Be careful now. If you give an example that there could have been another side to any story for balance, you'll be branded blood thirsty and on the side of the lowest cruel barstewards in the country and trying to wipe out our precious wildlife :eek6:


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> Be careful now. If you give an example that there could have been another side to any story for balance, you'll be branded blood thirsty and on the side of the lowest cruel barstewards in the country and trying to wipe out our precious wildlife :eek6:


Yeah got that................... 

There is obviously only ONE explanation - and that is that of the trespassers


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Be careful now. If you give an example that there could have been another side to any story for balance, you'll be branded blood thirsty and on the side of the lowest cruel barstewards in the country and trying to wipe out our precious wildlife :eek6:


If they weren't illegal hunting in the first place Rona - WHY did they have terrier men with them?. Balance that one! lol

Terrier men, like this compassionate human being!


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Anyway, the HSA have released the police video. How anyone can defend these disgusting people is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just watched it. Can someone please explain to me why it was wrong to shoot that deer?
If I had encountered a deer in that state I would have done the same thing (okay, would have called OH to come shoot it preferably) but no way would I have left an animal in distress like that. Only difference is I would have done it far quicker than they did and Id take the meat home to the dogs. 
Does that make me a disgusting person too?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> Where did your dogs come from?
> 
> Most of the dogs I've seen after deer wouldn't even get close to the throat, they'd bring the deer down by catching at the back end and then holding on to anywhere they could get a bite. Wondered if yours had been feral
> 
> I was talking to one of the wardens on a section of the North downs and he said they were always dealing with deer caught by out of control dogs


Sorry, only just caught up on this thread.
Our dogs were tall sight hounds (Saluki and Saluki-cross), following what I can only presume to be their instincts (as we certainly never taught them this) - go for the throat to bring the deer down and then go in for the kill.
It was a horrible, shocking sight and I was too far away to stop them (but close enough to see exactly what took place) .

We knew they could be killers of wildlife, but after that incident I did much more research on these dogs and that is the way they used to be trained to hunt. But the difference in them being trained to do this was that they were also trained to bring the prey down and then guard it until the hunters arrived.
Sadly, as we hadn't trained them in this way (and had no intention of doing so), they finished the job themselves 

Incidentally, I wasn't criticising the argument that this could have been something other than the result of the hunt - I was actually saying that it is difficult to say what happened to the deer with any certainty.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I just watched it. Can someone please explain to me why it was wrong to shoot that deer?
> If I had encountered a deer in that state I would have done the same thing (okay, would have called OH to come shoot it preferably) but no way would I have left an animal in distress like that. Only difference is I would have done it far quicker than they did and Id take the meat home to the dogs.
> Does that make me a disgusting person too?


No one knew how bad its injuries were at first. It was the police who prolonged its suffering by prioritising the arrest of the sabs.

.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Whats the difference between Terrier men as you describe and men out with terriers for exercise, with or without a hunt?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> Whats the difference between Terrier men as you describe and men out with terriers for exercise, with or without a hunt?


Keep digging (like the terrier men)

.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Keep digging (like the terrier men)
> 
> .


Or answer the bloody question...........


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> No one knew how bad its injuries were at first. It was the police who prolonged its suffering by prioritising the arrest of the sabs.
> 
> .


Okay, thats not what I was asking.

You posted that video to show how disgusting these people were. They may be disgusting people, but I see no evidence of them being disgusting by the video posted. I did watch it without sound, so maybe theyre saying hateful things that I didnt hear.
What I *saw* was some men taking a deer out of a ditch, evaluating injuries, allowing the deer a chance to get up and assess the deers condition, then upon seeing that the deer couldnt stand, they humanely dispatched the deer. I see no inhumane treatment, no deer dragged by a broken leg, no disgusting behavior.

And I would (and have) done similar in a similar situation. Then used the meat for the dogs.

Im sorry, Im against fox hunting but I dont see the evidence of cruelty or disgusting behavior in this particular video.

So I will ask again, what was wrong about shooting the deer?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> Or answer the bloody question...........


Ok.

Surrey Union hunt terrier men, 'exercising' the terriers IN a box ON a quad bike

Dig away....


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Ok.
> 
> Surrey Union hunt terrier men, 'exercising' the terriers IN a box ON a quad bike
> 
> Dig away....


You are once again missing the point with your single mindedness. I am not saying people do not hunt illegally- its quite clear that they do. You can not categorically say any chap, or group of chaps, with a terrier, or group of terriers out in the countryside, with or without a hunt, are there solely to kill small furries. 
IF I had stumbled across the pic you posted I would assume they were Sabs on that quad bike......

In the footage shown, there is no evidence of terriermen with dogs in boxes is there?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Okay, thats not what I was asking.
> 
> You posted that video to show how disgusting these people were. They may be disgusting people, but I see no evidence of them being disgusting by the video posted. I did watch it without sound, so maybe theyre saying hateful things that I didnt hear.
> What I *saw* was some men taking a deer out of a ditch, evaluating injuries, allowing the deer a chance to get up and assess the deers condition, then upon seeing that the deer couldnt stand, they humanely dispatched the deer. I see no inhumane treatment, no deer dragged by a broken leg, no disgusting behavior.
> ...


The sabs should have been allowed to cover it, and await a vet............ apparently.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> You are once again missing the point with your single mindedness. I am not saying people do not hunt illegally- its quite clear that they do. You can not categorically say any chap, or group of chaps, with a terrier, or group of terriers out in the countryside, with or without a hunt, are there solely to kill small furries.
> IF I had stumbled across the pic you posted I would assume they were Sabs on that quad bike......
> 
> In the footage shown, there is no evidence of terriermen with dogs in boxes is there?


I know you would :lol:



ouesi said:


> Okay, thats not what I was asking.
> 
> You posted that video to show how disgusting these people were. They may be disgusting people, but I see no evidence of them being disgusting by the video posted. I did watch it without sound, so maybe theyre saying hateful things that I didnt hear.
> What I *saw* was some men taking a deer out of a ditch, evaluating injuries, allowing the deer a chance to get up and assess the deers condition, then upon seeing that the deer couldnt stand, they humanely dispatched the deer. I see no inhumane treatment, no deer dragged by a broken leg, no disgusting behavior.
> ...


I didn't say shooting the deer was the wrong thing to do. I said these people are disgusting, they are, terrier men are the scum of the earth. They don't only treat wildlife brutally but their dogs as well. This is why the sabs didn't trust leaving the deer in their hands.

This case is about a police force protecting an illegal hunt, failing in their animal welfare role and arresting those who came to the aid of an injured animal. Corrupt.

A good article today about the case - Hunt protesters claim they were helping deer 'savagely' attacked by dogs - Get Surrey

.
.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> No one knew how bad its injuries were at first. It was the police who prolonged its suffering by prioritising the arrest of the sabs.
> 
> .


I get that bit. The police handling of the situation was not only biased against the sabs, but had no consideration for the suffering of the poor deer.

But the hunters did the right thing by shooting the deer to put it out of its misery after assessing its injuries.

We cannot say for sure whether the hunt was legal or illegal and we cannot say for sure how the deer received its injuries.

All we can say with this case is that _the police_ were totally wrong in how they handled the situation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> I get that bit. The police handling of the situation was not only biased against the sabs, but had no consideration for the suffering of the poor deer.
> 
> But the hunters did the right thing by shooting the deer to put it out of its misery after assessing its injuries.
> 
> ...


If they were only drag hunting they wouldn't need terrier men Silvi.

.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> If they were only drag hunting they wouldn't need terrier men Silvi.
> 
> .


Yes I know.

But there has to be some way to prove that this is happening, especially when it appears that there are some members of the judiciary that could be on the side of the sabs.

I fully realise the sabs' frustration over this, especially as they are getting less than no help from the police.

But it seems to me that they are like a small cry in the dark right now. And when their evidence can be questioned even on this, a pro-animal forum, I think that their message isn't getting across quickly enough.

This particular example digs up more confusion for all sides, because even those of us who are anti-fox hunting can still see that the hunters in this case did the right thing and were better equipped to do so than the sabs.

As I said, from this example, the only group who can be _proved_ to have acted badly were the police.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> I know you would :lol:
> 
> I didn't say shooting the deer was the wrong thing to do. I said these people are disgusting, they are, terrier men are the scum of the earth. They don't only treat wildlife brutally but their dogs as well. This is why the sabs didn't trust leaving the deer in their hands.
> 
> ...


I agree with you re terrier men being totally vile.

The picture of the quad bike is just that....somebody on a quad with a couple of metal boxes on it....and to anybody who has never seen this, how would they know what was really going on?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I know you would :lol:
> 
> I didn't say shooting the deer was the wrong thing to do. *I said these people are disgusting, they are, terrier men are the scum of the earth. They don't only treat wildlife brutally but their dogs as well. This is why the sabs didn't trust leaving the deer in their hands.*
> 
> ...


Here is the problem.
You make the claim in bold above. Which may be 100% accurate. However, the video you posted shows zero evidence of any of your claim.
There is no evidence in the video of:
- disgusting behavior
- wildlife being treated brutally
- dogs being treated brutally

So when you post a video and say "see? This just shows how these people are the scum of the earth" and I see a video of a deer being humanely treated and dispatched, it leaves a huge disconnect.

Enough of a disconnect to make people no longer listen when there is real cruelty going on. The boy who cried wolf sort of thing.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Here is the problem.
> You make the claim in bold above. Which may be 100% accurate. However, the video you posted shows zero evidence of any of your claim.
> There is no evidence in the video of:
> - disgusting behavior
> ...


This is the problem though, everyone involved are just people, one side are not the 'evil monster's that the other wants to make out.

I used to be involved in hunt sabbing in my late teens/early twenties & there are some vile people involved .... on both sides, just like other walks of life.

Personally I do not agree with fox hunting but am confused as to what this clip was meant to demonstrate. The men involved were (probably) better equipped to deal with a distressed deer as they were able to humanely destroy it, not sure what it would have achieved by letting other people near the injured animal


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> If they were only drag hunting they wouldn't need terrier men Silvi.
> 
> .


Nor shotguns ...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> Sorry, only just caught up on this thread.
> Our dogs were tall sight hounds (Saluki and Saluki-cross), following what I can only presume to be their instincts (as we certainly never taught them this) - go for the throat to bring the deer down and then go in for the kill.
> It was a horrible, shocking sight and I was too far away to stop them (but close enough to see exactly what took place) .
> 
> ...


Yes your dogs may have more instinct than the average pet and have the speed to put it into practice  Lets face it, most dogs wouldn't get anywhere near a deer unless it was trapped or injured.

No and I know you realised that there are many different reasons for a deer to be injured or caught by dogs


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> This is the problem though, everyone involved are just people, one side are not the 'evil monster's that the other wants to make out.
> 
> I used to be involved in hunt sabbing in my late teens/early twenties & there are some vile people involved .... on both sides, just like other walks of life.
> 
> Personally I do not agree with fox hunting but am confused as to what this clip was meant to demonstrate. The men involved were (probably) better equipped to deal with a distressed deer as they were able to humanely destroy it, not sure what it would have achieved by letting other people near the injured animal


The huntsmen, that's the people who live at the hunt kennels are usually the ones that are called by police to dispatch deer that are hit by a car. Maybe this is the reason the police were so keen to let them get on with dispatching the deer


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Nor shotguns ...


Thought it was a humane kiiler? 

Yep looked again. These people are very skilled and trained in what they do.

Fallen Stock - SURREY UNION HUNT


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

rona said:


> Thought it was a humane kiiler?


I was going to say, where was there a shotgun in that video?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> Thought it was a humane kiiler?


If it was a drag hunt why did they have terriers and shotguns with them?

Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs, being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.

The attack on the deer was a criminal act. Removing the deer's body from the scene was removing evidence and the police should not have allowed it to happen.

Anyway, this case has appeared before a judge and jury, with all evidence heard. The Hunt were exposed, the Police were disgraced and the sabs were exonerated.
That's the end of it.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> If it was a drag hunt why did they have terriers and shotguns with them?
> 
> *Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs,* being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.
> 
> ...


Has it? I don't think it is clear at all how the deer became injured :confused1:

Even so, is it fair to keep a terrified, distressed animal alive any longer in order to phone a vet, get them to the scene, etc .... this could be hours & in all that time the deer woruld be suffering


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> If it was a drag hunt why did they have terriers and shotguns with them?
> 
> Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs, being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.
> 
> ...


Where has the deer clearly been savaged by dogs? what evidence are you looking at that no one else is?

Where was the shotgun?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> If it was a drag hunt why did they have terriers and shotguns with them?
> 
> Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs, being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.
> 
> ...


I think I've answered all these hypotheses apart from the one about Terriers being present. There is no evidence to suggest terriers being present!!

A picture of a quad with boxes on doesn't constitute terriers being present

A humane killer would be taken in case of accidents involving hounds or horses. These people are licensed to deal with this


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> If it was a drag hunt why did they have terriers and shotguns with them?
> 
> Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs, being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.
> 
> ...


It was a magistrates court hearing.

But I do think we've been watching a different video


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> I think I've answered all these hypotheses apart from the one about Terriers being present. There is no evidence to suggest terriers being present!!
> 
> A picture of a quad with boxes on doesn't constitute terriers being present
> 
> A humane killer would be taken in case of accidents involving hounds or horses. These people are licensed to deal with this


Picture of quad bike is not even the same day is it?

As an aside I watched some animal rescue programme recently, chap turns up to a deer with a badly broken leg, he did exactly the same as the Huntsmen. Didn't try to free it, take it to a vet, just dispatched it, not with an injection.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Has it? I don't think it is clear at all how the deer became injured :confused1:
> 
> Even so, is it fair to keep a terrified, distressed animal alive any longer in order to phone a vet, get them to the scene, etc .... this could be hours & in all that time the deer woruld be suffering


The pool of blood behind it is a clue. That hasn't come from a barbed wire nick.

The police were there. They should have supervised. Instead, they just walked away.
They could have let the fellow with years of experience in caring for wild animals make an assessment of the situation. 
They shouldn't have let the terrier men make off with the body. If it was a dog attack that was a criminal offence and the deer was 'evidence'.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Where has the deer clearly been savaged by dogs? what evidence are you looking at that no one else is?
> 
> Where was the shotgun?


Try the link in post one.

'They (the police) left the deer with the hunt terrier men who shot it."


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Try the link in post one.
> 
> 'They (the police) left the deer with the hunt terrier men who shot it."


NOT with a shot gun they didnt - seriously look at the FACTS

A pool of blood could have been from any kind of injury...... blood does not automatically equal dog attack


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> A picture of a quad with boxes on doesn't constitute terriers being present


Two men, cosying up on a quad bike, both wearing balaclavas ... With terrier boxes, apparently empty according to you.
I can't help thinking that's strange.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> 1) NOT with a shot gun they didnt - seriously look at the FACTS
> 
> A pool of blood could have been from any kind of injury...... blood does not automatically equal dog attack


1) My bad. You obviously know a lot more about killing things than I do. A rifle not a shotgun. Still doesn't explain *why* they're roaming the countryside with terriers, terrier men and rifles on a drag hunt.

2) Like what?
In the experts view the injuries were caused by dog attack.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I think there isn't enough of the video to make it clear to anybody watching it. too much confusion.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> 1) My bad. You obviously know a lot more about killing things than I do. A rifle not a shotgun. Still doesn't explain *why* they're roaming the countryside with terriers, terrier men and rifles on a drag hunt.
> 
> 2) Like what?
> In the experts view the injuries were caused by dog attack.


I dont see a rifle either (looks like a short silver gun to me)...... but the vid is terribly unclear.

There is NO doubt the dogs went for the deer (as many of our own beloved pets would have) - BUT noone has a clue wether they bought it down or found it injured on the floor. They must have been called off pretty quickly for it to still be alive


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> I dont see a rifle either (looks like a short silver gun to me)...... but the vid is terribly unclear.
> 
> There is NO doubt the dogs went for the deer (as many of our own beloved pets would have) - BUT noone has a clue wether they bought it down or found it injured on the floor. *They must have been called off pretty quickly for it to still be alive*


And only have *one* puncture wound..I struggle to see how anyone can equate one puncture wound with a savage dog attack.

The gun looked like a bolt gun to me, they would have carried it in case any of the dogs or horses seriously injured themselves.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

> You obviously know a lot more about killing things than I do.


I wish we could have these conversations without comments like this. And I mean that on both sides. This sort of thing just isn't necessary, nor communicative, nor kind


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I wish we could have these conversations without comments like this. And I mean that on both sides. This sort of thing just isn't necessary, nor communicative, nor kind


I just ignore it to be honest Ouesi....... its such a shame people get blinded by fiction without seeing the facts

I clearly skip about the countryside killing things daily........:confused1::confused1::confused1:


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> NOT with a shot gun they didnt - seriously look at the FACTS


This is what you posted. If you imply you're an authority on the subject and know better then others, don't be surprised if you get taken at your word.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Two men, cosying up on a quad bike, both wearing balaclavas ... With terrier boxes, apparently empty according to you.
> I can't help thinking that's strange.


Why 

Surely you don't expect them to take the boxes off just because they are on a hunt?

Those boxes may be ferret boxes.......still a legal pastime you know.

Also they may offer a ratting service to the local farms and transport their terriers on the quad. There are a myriad of answers to your question, some I'm sure I can't even think of


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> 1) My bad. You obviously know a lot more about killing things than I do. A rifle not a shotgun. Still doesn't explain *why* they're roaming the countryside with terriers, terrier men and rifles on a drag hunt.
> 
> 2) Like what?
> In the experts view the injuries were caused by dog attack.


Rifle?

You are kidding right?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> Why
> 
> 1) Surely you don't expect them to take the boxes off just because they are on a hunt?
> 
> ...


1) I would expect them to take their balaclavas off.

2) Wearing balaclavas?

3) Pizza delivery? Hermes agency?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> Rifle?
> 
> You are kidding right?


I've never owned, fired or held a gun, and I'm certainly no expert when it comes to destroying deer, foxes or anything else. 
Looking it up on Google apparently a rifle is the standard weapon of choice for these people.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> 1) I would expect them to take their balaclavas off.
> Why? The Sabs don't
> 
> 2) Wearing balaclavas?
> ...


It could have been cold 

They actually look like picnic baskets to me. Maybe they contained the riders mid morning munchies


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> This is what you posted. If you imply you're an authority on the subject and know better then others, don't be surprised if you get taken at your word.


So i know more about GUNS, NOT KILLING THINGS as you said whilst happily jumping to conclusions. I have never been shooting, but anyone can see its neither a rifle nor a shot gun. Im trying to see what is actually there, not what i want to see because im so wrapped up in hating these people for other reasons. A rifle probably is for a marksman at distance the weapon of choice, but its simply not what is in the vid.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> I've never owned, fired or held a gun, and I'm certainly no expert when it comes to destroying deer, foxes or anything else.
> Looking it up on Google apparently a rifle is the standard weapon of choice for these people.


So, you don't even know about the services the hunt provide?
The 1000s of animals that could suffer if they didn't offer that service? 
You don't know that deer should not be shot with a shotgun unless mortally wounded.

You don't know the dozens of reasons those boxes are on that quad

In fact you must have real trouble making an informed judgement


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

The deer was not killed with a rifle or a shotgun. I don't recognize the weapon used, but I know the barrel on it is far to short to be either a rifle or a shotgun.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

The gun was a variation of this









*Disclaimer: I am no expert in killing or guns, but I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing these a lot as I worked in the equestrian industry for 20+ years.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> So i know more about GUNS, NOT KILLING THINGS as you said whilst happily jumping to conclusions. I have never been shooting, but anyone can see its neither a rifle nor a shot gun. Im trying to see what is actually there, not what i want to see because im so wrapped up in hating these people for other reasons.


The topic we were discussing was the destruction of the deer by shooting.

'They left the deer with the terrier men who shot it.' The implication is clear.

You wouldn't be trying to play the 'town v country' and 'them and us' class cards would you?

The Boxing Day Hunts and their crowing about the 'massive' turnout in support of hunting, the usual 250,000. Assuming 50,000 were idly curious townies, that leaves 200,000. Great, but where are the other 96/97% of rural dwellers? A free event right on their doorstep, yet they don't show up ...

I'm a country boy. I know about the farmers who have had crops trampled and livestock frightened by marauding packs of dogs; pet cats ripped apart by out of control hounds; hounds wandering along railway tracks; and I'll never forget the time my father and I were told about a rogue hound that had "gone mad" and was running loose across the area killing livestock. We were asked (by a huntsman) to tell him if we saw it so they could shoot it and asked not to say anything to anybody as it would put the Hunt "in a bad light."

Sure they have their supporters, but many other country dwellers see them as arrogant bullies.

As for the other matter. I don't care how much money anyone has. I don't care if people want to dress up and ride about the countryside all day. It's just the terrorising and killing of beautiful animals - which is still widespread, despite the Hunting Act - *that* is what I object to.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm a country girl, what the hell has that got to do with anything...


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> So, you don't even know about the services the hunt provide?
> The 1000s of animals that could suffer if they didn't offer that service?
> You don't know that deer should not be shot with a shotgun unless mortally wounded.
> 
> ...


You're the expert, Rona.

I'm not - and I'm very glad about that.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> The topic we were discussing was the destruction of the deer by shooting.
> 
> 'They left the deer with the terrier men who shot it.' The implication is clear.
> 
> ...


Yes they shot it, which swiftly and humanely put it out of its misery. I dont see the relevance of the rest of your story......... just out of curiosity what side of the country/ townie fence do you perceive me to fall on?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> The topic we were discussing was the destruction of the deer by shooting.
> 
> 'They left the deer with the terrier men who shot it.' The implication is clear.
> 
> ...


But the humane thing to do was to shoot the deer 

Do you have any experience in wildlife rehab?
An adult deer with a broken leg is not a good candidate to be rehabbed. First, she would have to be contained and transported to a rehab facility. That in itself would be highly stressful and upsetting. Then she would have to be treated medically, with continued contact with humans which an adult deer who has never been tamed would find hugely stressful. Stressed deer tend to not eat, they tend to go sort of catatonic, they tend to die. Even if the medical intervention were successful (which is doubtful with a broken leg), the stress of confinement and being handled by humans would have been extremely upsetting, and IMHO caused far too much suffering.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> You're the expert, Rona.
> 
> I'm not - and I'm very glad about that.


No not an expert because like others on here. I've never shot a gun or ridden to hounds.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Is there any animal more nervous and highly strung than a deer? The deer was injured and had a broken leg. Yet it was hoisted and carried by the legs, and later had a grown man kneel full on top of it.... That is no way to treat an injured animal and was grossly irresponsible.
The police should have let the sab with experience in the matter make an assessment of the situation. If putting it down was the only option it could and should have been done en situ.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

They knelt on the deer to stop it from moving so they got a clean kill. Would you have preferred it if they just took pot shots instead?

I didn't see them carry the deer until after it was shot


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> They knelt on the deer to stop it from moving so they got a clean kill. Would you have preferred it if they just took pot shots instead?
> 
> I didn't see them carry the deer until after it was shot


Neither did I


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Is there any animal more nervous and highly strung than a deer? The deer was injured and had a broken leg. Yet it was hoisted and carried by the legs, and later had a grown man kneel full on top of it.... That is no way to treat an injured animal and was grossly irresponsible.
> The police should have let the sab with experience in the matter make an assessment of the situation. If putting it down was the only option it could and should have been done en situ.


I thought one of the men said he didn't think the leg was broken ... it may have been but not obvious. It may have had a spinal injury, it may have been in shock ... no one will really know but they made a decision as the animal was obviously very distressed.

I thought they handled the animal very well, am not sure how else they could have done this without it posssibly stuggling & injuring itself or any of the people trying to help. They moved it away then gave it the chance to run which then became obvious that it couldn't then made the decision to destroy it which was done very quickly ....

Upsetting as it was, I really don't see anything inhumane about this


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Hunt Saboteurs Association on Facebook. They have a fuller and clearer version of what happened, filmed by a policeman.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Hunt Saboteurs Association on Facebook. They have a fuller and clearer version of what happened, filmed by a policeman.


That's the one I watched


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Is there any animal more nervous and highly strung than a deer? The deer was injured and had a broken leg. Yet it was hoisted and carried by the legs, and later had a grown man kneel full on top of it.... That is no way to treat an injured animal and was grossly irresponsible.
> The police should have let the sab with experience in the matter make an assessment of the situation. If putting it down was the only option - and seeing the policeman's video, that was a bolt gun - it could and should have been done en situ.


Kneeling on the animal's side or neck is a common restraint procedure to try and minimize struggling. I have knelt on many a horse's neck who were cast in a stall or who needed to be restrained for a short time for whatever reason. It's not inhumane nor irresponsible.

Carrying the deer by the legs is another safe way to transport the deer out of the ditch on to a flatter, less obstructed area to see if she could get up and run off. Again, not inhumane nor irresponsible.

Seeing that she could not get up and run, really the only responsible thing to do is put her out of her misery. There is a term for it, that I can't recall right now, but many wild animals suffer a system-wide shut down that eventually kills them when captured, restrained, or even handled. Stress-induced death. You can't just fix the broken leg and rehab the deer. It doesn't work that way....


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> That's the one I watched


It's the one I watched too. A lot longer, and shows them moving the deer, seeing if she can get up, assessing the situation... I watched with the sound off, but it seemed to me like they weren't exactly in a hurry to shoot the deer, they tried to give her a chance to get her bearings and run off. They even re-positioned her to give her a better chance of getting up.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Kneeling on the animal's side or neck is a common restraint procedure to try and minimize struggling. I have knelt on many a horse's neck who were cast in a stall or who needed to be restrained for a short time for whatever reason. It's not inhumane nor irresponsible.
> 
> Carrying the deer by the legs is another safe way to transport the deer out of the ditch on to a flatter, less obstructed area to see if she could get up and run off. Again, not inhumane nor irresponsible.
> 
> Seeing that she could not get up and run, really the only responsible thing to do is put her out of her misery. *There is a term for it*, that I can't recall right now, but many wild animals suffer a system-wide shut down that eventually kills them when captured, restrained, or even handled. Stress-induced death. You can't just fix the broken leg and rehab the deer. It doesn't work that way....


Stress and capture myopathy
It's horrible to see, especially as everyone is pretty helpless once it starts


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Like this one who must have suffered horribly before it died 

Sad end as Tiggywinkles tries in vain to save deer carried home by Olympian Rutherford - Bucks Herald

Not criticizing Rutherford, he did what he thought was right for the deer, but often it's not in the interest of the animal

WI Rehabilitation - Wildlife Care - Capture & Restraint


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Stress and capture myopathy
> It's horrible to see, especially as everyone is pretty helpless once it starts


Thank you! Yes, it's not pretty, the organs basically shut down as the body floods with stress hormones. Some animals just can't cope with any type of human handling. Deer are one of them....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I haven't had time to look at all the posts on here as yet, but I will. I just wanted to post this video. Its the trailer to a three part documentary on foxhunting 'A Minority Pastime'. This short trailer gives a taste of how much they care about animals!

*~~~~~~~~ WARNING GRAPHIC SCENES OF HUNT CRUELTY ~~##*

[youtube_browser]/rVdpwaS8xOk[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

This is about the dispatching of an injured deer tho is it not? Not fox hunting in general


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> This is about the dispatching of an injured deer tho is it not? Not fox hunting in general


Partly. The sabs didn't trust the terriermen with the deer because people who get their kicks inflicting pain & suffering on animals don't tend to treat them with compassion -So the video shows the twisted mentality of these sadists. And terriermen are well known for being the lowest form of pond life.

.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

I honestly do not believe that , that deer was given a proper assessment , now these terrier men , should know how to ( you would think ) approach and give appropriate care , everyone knows a stressed / injured deer should have it's eyes covered , to reduce it's stress / suffering . Was this offered no it was not , the poor thing may have stood a chance , you can definitely see the difference from when it was laying upright on the floor , to how it became after they tried to shove it off into the undergrowth twice ! Do i think it was killed humanely , i guess under the circumstances yes . Do i agree with the management of it prior , i most certainly do not .


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Partly. The sabs didn't trust the terriermen with the deer because people who get their kicks inflicting pain & suffering on animals don't tend to treat them with compassion -So the video shows the twisted mentality of these sadists. And terriermen are well known for being the lowest form of pond life.
> 
> .


Focus on what happened. They killed it swiftly and cleanly, they reduced its suffering. On the basis of the vid how are they twisted sadists?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Partly. The sabs didn't trust the terriermen with the deer because people who get their kicks inflicting pain & suffering on animals don't tend to treat them with compassion -*So the video shows the twisted mentality of these sadists. * And terriermen are well known for being the lowest form of pond life.
> 
> .


Where?
I watched both videos.

Where is there evidence in either video of people who are sadists with a twisted mentality?

Terriermen are well know for being the lowest form of pond life? What kind of a statement is that?

Would it be okay for me to say something like "bull-breed dog owners are well-known for being dog-fighters"? Of course not. How is what you are saying different?
I know plenty of people who own terriers, who work terriers, who are not pond scum.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Partly. The sabs didn't trust the terriermen with the deer because people who get their kicks inflicting pain & suffering on animals don't tend to treat them with compassion -So the video shows the twisted mentality of these sadists. And terriermen are well known for being the lowest form of pond life.
> 
> .


Well, to be fair, when I was showing PRTs, there were two, fairly long in the tooth, Terriermen who used to show with me.

They didn't cuddle their dogs regularly, buy them fancy harnesses and allow them to sleep on their beds, but they undoubtedly loved and cared for their dogs.

I don't really think you can tar men who own terriers with one big brush.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Where?
> I watched both videos.
> 
> Where is there evidence in either video of people who are sadists with a twisted mentality?
> ...


~~~~~~~*WARNING GRAPHIC SCENES OF HUNT CRUELTY ~~~~~~*

Did you watch this video? [youtube_browser]/rVdpwaS8xOk[/youtube_browser][/QUOTE]



Sweety said:


> Well, to be fair, when I was showing PRTs, there were two, fairly long in the tooth, Terriermen who used to show with me.
> 
> They didn't cuddle their dogs regularly, buy them fancy harnesses and allow them to sleep on their beds, but they undoubtedly loved and cared for their dogs.
> 
> I don't really think you can tar men who own terriers with one big brush.


I don't mean regular men who own terriers, my oh had a lakie but he wasn't a 'terrierman'. I'm sorry I shouldn't have assumed everyone just knew what I meant. 'Terriermen' are the ones who send their terriers down the holes when the fox has gone to earth, the ones who dig the foxes out & throw them to the hounds or kill them in some other brutal way. Check out some of the videos on youtube - they really are the dregs of humanity.

Ex huntsman Clifford Pellow submitted his account of foxhunting to the Burns enquiry (Burns Inquiry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia incase you don't know what that is) he said its the terriermen he holds the most contempt for.

_ 
'Terriermen' says Pellow, 'are the thugs of the hunt. They are, quite frankly, a law unto themselves. They consider themselves in charge of things and completely indispensable. If you get too close when they are digging out and producing a fox - 90 per cent of the time by foul means - they become aggressive. I've heard them even tell a hunt master to bugger off and come back when they've finished.

'They are aggressive because, deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong and they believe you will see something and report them. What's in it for them is that they get the fox in the end. It doesn't matter whether they throw it to the hounds, bash it on the head with a spade or stick an iron bar through its guts. And I've seen it all.

'I've seen an iron bar stuck right through the lower jaw of a fox. "Whheeerrr, you bastard," this one said to me "The ****** won't get away now." And he, literally, had him pinned with an iron bar through his nose and jaw.' _


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

tincan said:


> I honestly do not believe that , that deer was given a proper assessment , now these terrier men , should know how to ( you would think ) approach and give appropriate care , everyone knows a stressed / injured deer should have it's eyes covered , to reduce it's stress / suffering . Was this offered no it was not , the poor thing may have stood a chance , you can definitely see the difference from when it was laying upright on the floor , to how it became after they tried to shove it off into the undergrowth twice ! Do i think it was killed humanely , i guess under the circumstances yes . Do i agree with the management of it prior , i most certainly do not .


This is just the way I felt about it x

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Focus on what happened. They killed it swiftly and cleanly, they reduced its suffering. On the basis of the vid how are they twisted sadists?


Just imagine if the next part of the process was videoed?  

Bleeding out and gralloching.

I don't really know how much more they could have done apart from covering it's eyes. You don't leave a deers legs flailing about when you move it because of the risk of injury both to yourself and the deer. You also wouldn't shoot it in a ditch!!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Just imagine if the next part of the process was videoed?
> 
> Bleeding out and gralloching.
> 
> I don't really know how much more they could have done apart from covering it's eyes. You don't leave a deers legs flailing about when you move it because of the risk of injury both to yourself and the deer. You also wouldn't shoot it in a ditch!!!


Have you seen this trailer Rona?

*~~~~~~#WARNING GRAPHIC SCENES OF HUNT CRUELTY ~~~~#*

[youtube_browser]/rVdpwaS8xOk[/youtube_browser][/QUOTE]


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/resources/000/824/486/On-farm_Killing_CattleSheep_PrintatHome.pdf

http://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/technical-notes/TN2-calves-human-dispatch-disposal-HSA.pdf

Notice that the Humane Slaughter Association recommends hunt servants alongside vets, RSPCA, police firearms officers and slaughter men as competent to dispatch stock


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Did you watch this video?


Up until the dog got hit by a car I did, yes. 
Ive seen enough violence, abuse, and horror to last me a lifetime thanks. And I personally wish people would put warnings on that sort of video for people like me who dont willingly subject themselves to upsetting images if we can help it. I see enough of it in real life.

And youre still not answering what about the video of the deer being dispatched proves any of your claims. I watched both videos, the deer was treated humanely under the circumstances.

If you have to embellish, bird-walk, outright lie, and character assassinate to make a point, you dont have much of a point to begin with.

The sad thing is, in this case, there is a great point to be made about hunting for sport, however its being totally lost in the usual mess these threads descend in to


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> It's the one I watched too. A lot longer, and shows them moving the deer, seeing if she can get up, assessing the situation... I watched with the sound off, but it seemed to me like they weren't exactly in a hurry to shoot the deer, they tried to give her a chance to get her bearings and run off. They even re-positioned her to give her a better chance of getting up.


Some confusion, as there are two videos (the sab one in post one and the police one on Facebook)

In the experts view, the deer had a broken leg (and its injuries were caused by dogs.)

You say you watched the police video *with the sound off*, which means you didn't hear the cries and squeals of the door as the terrier men handled and lifted it. 
Nor did you hear the police officer ask the elder of the two terrier man what he thought was wrong with the deer, he answered that it was just "tired" ... He then asked what he thought was the best thing to do next, the terrier man responded 'shoot it'.

The terrier man's caring concern may possibly have been influenced by a policeman filming their every move, something remarked on.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Deer was given the opportunity to flee. It couldnt. It was in pain. Why why why why would you cover it, leaving it in immense pain, and await a vets arrival when its suffering could be ended instantly, by a skilled person ?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Some confusion, as there are two videos (the sab one in post one and the police one on Facebook)
> 
> In the experts view, the deer had a broken leg (and its injuries were caused by dogs.)
> 
> ...


The expert who wasn't there and studies mythical animals?

Of course the poor thing squealed, it was frightened. 
Have you never heard a deer scream before? 
They scream if they aren't injured but trapped. Young deer scream if they've lost mum. Deer scream for all sorts of reasons


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Some confusion, as there are two videos (the sab one in post one and the police one on Facebook)
> 
> In the experts view, the deer had a broken leg (and its injuries were caused by dogs.)
> 
> ...


I dont want to hear the animals cries of distress! Im sorry but I really dont enjoy watching video after video of distressed animals in pain, being hit by cars, shredded by fox etc., and I find it rather disturbing that people actually video this sort of thing and post it. *shudder* But anyway...

If the terrier man said the best thing to do was shoot the deer, I happen to agree.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Can we all at least try to not have this thread closed please ... There are valid points on both sides . The intention of this thread was to show that Justice had been served for once , now whether some agree or disagree with that decision it was made and therefore stands legally . Surely anyone reading / commenting on here would expect to see videos that are extremely emotive to both sides .... That noted i will amend the title accordingly .


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Have you seen this trailer Rona?
> 
> [youtube_browser]/rVdpwaS8xOk[/youtube_browser]


[/QUOTE]

Hard hitting stuff, but that's how it is. And it's a million miles away from the gentlemanly 'Christmas card' image so many people sadly think is the reality.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Up until the dog got hit by a car I did, yes.
> Ive seen enough violence, abuse, and horror to last me a lifetime thanks. And I personally wish people would put warnings on that sort of video for people like me who dont willingly subject themselves to upsetting images if we can help it. I see enough of it in real life.
> 
> And youre still not answering what about the video of the deer being dispatched proves any of your claims. I watched both videos, the deer was treated humanely under the circumstances.
> ...


I don't tell lies, I don't need to embellish anything, the way the hunts treat animals IS sadistic. I can provide you with hours of footage, statements, accounts to back my claim up. And the Surrey Union hunt is notorious for illegal hunting. Perhaps you're different but I think like those sabs did. I wouldn't trust someone who dishes out cruelty on animals for fun to treat the deer humanely either. And imo they didn't.

,

.

.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Hard hitting stuff, but that's how it is. And it's a million miles away from the gentlemanly 'Christmas card' image so many people sadly think is the reality.


Nobody on this thread is defending fox hunting for crying out loud! I'm certainly not. I'm simply saying that the video posted in the link and on FB of the deer being humanely dispatched shows no proof of inhumane treatment or any of the other accusations.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I don't tell lies, I don't need to embellish anything, the way the hunts treat animals IS sadistic. I can provide you with hours of footage, statements, accounts to back my claim up. And the Surrey Union hunt is notorious for illegal hunting. Perhaps you're different but I think like those sabs did. I wouldn't trust someone who dishes out cruelty on animals for fun to treat the deer humanely either. And imo they didn't.
> .


Okay, what should have happened to the deer?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Hard hitting stuff, but that's how it is. And it's a million miles away from the gentlemanly 'Christmas card' image so many people sadly think is the reality.[/QUOTE]

Nothing to do with this deer 

Also, how many of those incidents were caused by sabs with hunting horns?

Do you know? I don't


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Nobody on this thread is defending fox hunting for crying out loud! Im certainly not. Im simply saying that the video posted in the link and on FB of the deer being humanely dispatched shows no proof of inhumane treatment or any of the other accusations.


That post wasn't addressed to you. Nor to anyone. It was a general observation.

If the deer had a broken leg, then carrying it, full body weight - as the video clearly shows - was an insane thing to do.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> That post wasn't addressed to you. Nor to anyone. It was a general observation.
> 
> If the deer had a broken leg, then carrying it, full body weight - as the video clearly shows - was an insane thing to do.


Once it was dead?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> That post wasn't addressed to you. Nor to anyone. It was a general observation.
> 
> If the deer had a broken leg, then carrying it, full body weight - as the video clearly shows - was an insane thing to do.


What should they have done? Left the deer in the ditch where it was harder for her to get up? Or put her on flat, level ground with more clear space for her to get up?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Once it was dead?


Here you go, This is the video

https://www.facebook.com/HuntSaboteursAssociation

All four legs were flailing


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Okay, what should have happened to the deer?


The police should have allowed the sabs to assess the deer(one of the sabs had experience working with animals), the police should have prioritised the deers needs before anything else instead of leaving it to suffer for half an hour. Pretty much what the judge said.



rona said:


> Nothing to do with this deer
> 
> Also, how many of those incidents were caused by sabs with hunting horns?
> 
> Do you know? I don't


I could have put money on this lol

Yes it must be the sabs fault - maybe it was ramblers though?, or conservationists even?. Might even be eagle owls it cannot possibly be the hunt responsible for all this cruelty.

,


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> The police should have allowed the sabs to assess the deer(one of the sabs had experience working with animals), the police should have prioritised the deers needs before anything else instead of leaving it to suffer for half an hour. Pretty much what the judge said.
> 
> I could have put money on this lol
> 
> ...


And huntsmen dont have experience of working with animals?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> And huntsmen dont have experience of working with animals?


They don't care about animals suffering though - that is the problem.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> The police should have allowed the sabs to assess the deer(one of the sabs had experience working with animals), the police should have prioritised the deers needs before anything else instead of leaving it to suffer for half an hour. Pretty much what the judge said.
> ,


Where did the deer suffer for half an hour?

If the sab (hunt saboteur?) had experience working with wildlife he/she would have known how unsuccessful adult deer rehab can be, and would have agreed that the best option was probably a quick death.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> They don't care about animals suffering though - that is the problem.


So you think the deer would have suffered less, if assessed by the sab, and then covered until a vet could be found?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Where did the deer suffer for half an hour?
> 
> If the sab (hunt saboteur?) had experience working with wildlife he/she would have known how unsuccessful adult deer rehab can be, and would have agreed that the best option was probably a quick death.


Vet report, it was 25 minutes to be more precise.

https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=surrey deer

ISSUU - Vet statement 150323 by ExposingAnimalCruelty

Unsuccessful to rehabilitate? Deer are rehabilitated all the time over here by people who know what they're doing. We have some fantastic wildlife hospitals.

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> So you think the deer would have suffered less, if assessed by the sab, and then covered until a vet could be found?


Yes I do. The sab would have followed the correct procedure when dealing with an injured deer eg covered its eyes, kept it warm & quite. It could possibly have been saved. Deer with broken legs, traffic injuries are saved all the time!

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

It's a wild animal not a pet that needs a cuddle when distressed. Someone sitting near it stroking and talking to it would have caused it immense stress


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> It's a wild animal not a pet that needs a cuddle when distressed. Someone sitting near it stroking and talking to it would have caused it immense stress


Who said anything about cuddling, stroking or talking to it?


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

rona said:


> It's a wild animal not a pet that needs a cuddle when distressed. Someone sitting near it stroking and talking to it would have caused it immense stress


Totally disagree with this , had the poor things head / eyes have been covered it's suffering would have diminished . So would it's stress levels .


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Vet report, it was 25 minutes to be more precise.
> 
> https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=surrey deer
> 
> ...


I read the report. Even if I were to overlook the surety that the injury was caused by a dog attack (which I dont agree with, having sewn up my own dog after he ran in to a tree - 5 stitches and a drain afterwards), the vet loses credibility at #8 and #9.

We rehabilitate deer here too. Doesnt change the fact that the many of them die from capture myopathy.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

tincan said:


> Totally disagree with this , had the poor things head / eyes have been covered it's suffering would have diminished . So would it's stress levels .


But that's not stroking or cuddling it is it? 

I've already stated that that could have been done for the poor thing


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Yes I do. The sab would have followed the correct procedure when dealing with an injured deer eg covered its eyes, kept it warm & quite. It could possibly have been saved. Deer with broken legs, traffic injuries are saved all the time!
> 
> .


I'm incredibly glad my, or any of my animals ends are not in your hands.....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I read the report. Even if I were to overlook the surety that the injury was caused by a dog attack (which I dont agree with, having sewn up my own dog after he ran in to a tree - 5 stitches and a drain afterwards), the vet loses credibility at #8 and #9.
> 
> We rehabilitate deer here too. Doesnt change the fact that the many of them die from capture myopathy.


And others make it.

DD (a lovely member on here) use to work at Tiggywinkles. They have saved many deer. Even amputated legs & deer have survived to be released.

Here is their advice for dealing with injured deer. Basically what the sabs wanted to do.

St Tiggywinkles - Deer Fact Sheet

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> I'm incredibly glad my, or any of my animals ends are not in your hands.....


Yes I bet you'd much rather the terriermen have them then somebody as cruel as me.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> I'm incredibly glad my, or any of my animals ends are not in your hands.....


  .................not very nice


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Yes I do. The sab would have followed the correct procedure when dealing with an injured deer eg covered its eyes, kept it warm & quite. It could possibly have been saved. * Deer with broken legs, traffic injuries are saved all the time!*
> 
> .


Does seem to be the case Secret World seemed to have high numbers alone this January

https://www.secretworld.org/news/deer-release-jan-2015


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Yes I bet you'd much rather the terriermen have them then somebody as cruel as me.
> 
> .


I just don't want life at any cost, I don't think anyone should, especially the owners of animals. How would the sabs have kept that deer quiet, if kneeling on it, and holding its legs are wrong?


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> And others make it.
> 
> DD (a lovely member on here) use to work at Tiggywinkles. They have saved many deer. Even amputated legs & deer have survived to be released.
> 
> ...


Yeah... I can't get behind rereleasing a 3 legged deer back in to the wild. But then I come from a land where we still have large predators.

We're going round and round. 
There is more than one way to treat an animal humanely, and I don't see anything inhumane in the video posted. There could have been atrocious behavior before and after, but the video itself shows nothing but a distressed deer being assessed and put out of it's misery. Something I do not object to.

There is more than one way to treat an animal inhumanely and prolonging an inevitable death is IMO one of them.

Terriermen may be nasty sorts, but in this video, I see no evidence of that.
Bottom line, as nice as it would be, these issues are not tidy little packages of "right" and "wrong" where the good guys are all good and the bad guys are all bad.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> I just don't want life at any cost, I don't think anyone should, especially the owners of animals. How would the sabs have kept that deer quiet, if kneeling on it, and holding its legs are wrong?


By covering it's head / eyes ... That's how .


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rona said:


> .................not very nice


Why? I don't believe in life at all costs. I wish we had the as ability to end human suffering the way we do animals when the time comes. I don't believe in months of suffering and pain in order to give any living thing a chance.


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

How many times , are folk not reading . This deer was absolutely NOT assessed properly by the Terrier men . The police just took their word as truth ... A lot of ignorance surrounds this deers demise .


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Yeah... I cant get behind rereleasing a 3 legged deer back in to the wild. But then I come from a land where we still have large predators.
> 
> Were going round and round.
> There is more than one way to treat an animal humanely, and I dont see anything inhumane in the video posted. There could have been atrocious behavior before and after, but the video itself shows nothing but a distressed deer being assessed and put out of its misery. Something I do not object to.
> ...


I come from a farming community...I have seen terrier men and never come across one with a gentle or nice reputation.

I could tell plenty stories of their activities which don't include digging down fox holes and badger setts and letting their terriers kill anything they find

They do have a rep for being vile and pond life...noushka is right on that..even members of our local fox hunt would say the same about them.

The injuries their dogs get are often horrific but their activities make it almost impossible for them to go to a regular vet. I have seen terriers with half a face...even saw one of a patterdale x with its jaw wired up and the owner bragging about how tough the little dog was as the owner wired the jaw without giving any painkiller or anaesthetic and the dog lived to tell the tale and fight foxes etc again.

Some terrier men are associated with the hunt..some just go out for the killing and the so called sport of their dogs ripping up a cornered fox or badger.

Badges are totally protected all over UK..unless of course the govt decides otherwise and allows a cull.

I saw the video clip....not enough info to convince me this was the hunt..as I already said...so, there must be more to this incident than has been shown in the video...more that was seen in court.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Does seem to be the case Secret World seemed to have high numbers alone this January
> 
> https://www.secretworld.org/news/deer-release-jan-2015


Secret World is an incredible place. Pauline Kindner is a saint  I love her, shes tried so hard to stop the cull, hasn't she? .



Lexiedhb said:


> I just don't want life at any cost, I don't think anyone should, especially the owners of animals. How would the sabs have kept that deer quiet, if kneeling on it, and holding its legs are wrong?


Neither do I. I love animals, but I believe in giving an animal a chance if someone qualified tells me they have one!

Like this - St Tiggywinkles - Deer Fact Sheet



ouesi said:


> Yeah... I can't get behind rereleasing a 3 legged deer back in to the wild. But then I come from a land where we still have large predators.
> 
> We're going round and round.
> There is more than one way to treat an animal humanely, and I don't see anything inhumane in the video posted. There could have been atrocious behavior before and after, but the video itself shows nothing but a distressed deer being assessed and put out of it's misery. Something I do not object to.
> ...


Though we have no large predators here, they're not released into the wild as such. But on estates where they can be monitored. I've seen deer looking in a lot worse state than that survive rehabilitation, so I disagree.

Terriermen are scum, the sabs no it, everyone who knows anything about foxhunting knows it.

.

.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

tincan said:


> How many times , are folk not reading . This deer was absolutely NOT assessed properly by the Terrier men . The police just took their word as truth ... A lot of ignorance surrounds this deers demise .


Deer in these parts are prolific. I see them every day either running through fields or dead at the side of the road. I love seeing them...so graceful, so gentle, so shy....but, sometimes there isn't time to hang around waiting for a vet.

Last winter, my daughter was driving my car down a country lane and a deer ran out and she hit it. It was a healthy roe buck in beautiful condition. We were travelling around 55mph, deer jumped onto my bonnet from behind some bushes. No chance to avoid it. It was dead on impact. Its not allowed to carry home a deer you hit...you can take it if someone else hits it though and it is on the road.

The only damage to the deer was a bit of fur missing and a bit of blood on its nose...but it was dead. We took it home to feed to dogs...the internal injuries were bad and all mush, no internal organs were complete apart from the heart.
My point is....it looks ok on the outside but you just never know what damage there is on the inside.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

tincan said:


> How many times , are folk not reading . This deer was absolutely NOT assessed properly by the Terrier men . The police just took their word as truth ... A lot of ignorance surrounds this deers demise .


You don't need to read, it's there in a video for all to see. It's just that some see it differently to others


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

rona said:


> You don't need to read, it's there in a video for all to see. It's just that some see it differently to others


Why are you confused ? That deer was not assessed properly , even if it's life could not be saved , they did absolutely nothing to ease it's suffering . You yourself agreed , it's head / eyes should have been covered ... The whole sad sorry episode was so wrong imo .


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

tincan said:


> Why are you confused ? That deer was not assessed properly , even if it's life could not be saved , they did absolutely nothing to ease it's suffering . You yourself agreed , it's head / eyes should have been covered ... The whole sad sorry episode was so wrong imo .


It looks as if it was assessed to me. Don't forget, these people deal with deer injured on the roads. In that area, I can assure you they will get an awful lot of call outs and have extensive experience.
We are a very high density deer area

If those hounds chase deer then they are really in trouble. They would bump into deer umpteen times a day. I've seen this lot quite a bit out and about, I've seen them exercising the hounds. I've had minor dealings with some of the huntsmen and the hunt servants and I've always found them quiet, polite, calm and the hounds under strict control.

Not met the terrier men though


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Surrey Police have issued a statement, they are reviewing hunt policing after they got rapped for this incident. Hope this means they'll stop being lackeys for the hunt now.

Statement regarding policing of hunt activity

Surrey Police is currently in the process of reviewing the force approach to hunting and the findings from this case and any lessons learned will be considered as part of the review. The Force recognises the right for people to assemble and protest in a public place and has always sought to facilitate peaceful protest while dealing proportionately with any unlawful activity.
The hunt season has now ended and we will seeking to engage with all interested parties to ensure that we are being fair and impartial in enforcement of the law in this area.

Statements


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Now the other hunt near me :hand:

They are very different, arrogant, ignorant, pompous

The hunt servant there let one of his dogs (not hounds) come and threaten my elderly mother a few years ago


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> Why? I don't believe in life at all costs. I wish we had the as ability to end human suffering the way we do animals when the time comes. I don't believe in months of suffering and pain in order to give any living thing a chance.


My Mum battled illness for years. What are you saying???

.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> And others make it.
> 
> DD (a lovely member on here) use to work at Tiggywinkles. They have saved many deer. *Even amputated legs & deer have survived to be released. *
> 
> ...


Really??? How irresponsible 

I read the factsheet & am still not sure how this could have relieved the deers suffering only prolonged it.

Also, have you ever tried to contact a nearest wildlife hospital when you are stuck in the middle of nowhere with little phone signal even if you do have the number?

I spent 2hrs one evening trying to find someone to help an ill swan whose partner had also died (suspected poisoning), I could hardly get a signal & when I did no one was interested , I was even offering to take it to them (although I was worried about hurting it as I had never handled a swan before.

In the end I had an RSPCA officer come out but it was too late for the swan unfortunately.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Really??? How irresponsible


Yes really..

Theres a herd of around 40 living in the grounds of a stately home in Buckinghamshire where Tiggywinkles release them after rehabilitation. You'd be surprised how well they adapt to having three legs - & how fast they can run!

.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> It looks as if it was assessed to me. Don't forget, these people deal with deer injured on the roads. In that area, I can assure you they will get an awful lot of call outs and have extensive experience.
> We are a very high density deer area
> 
> If those hounds chase deer then they are really in trouble. They would bump into deer umpteen times a day. I've seen this lot quite a bit out and about, I've seen them exercising the hounds. I've had minor dealings with some of the huntsmen and the hunt servants and I've always found them quiet, polite, calm and the hounds under strict control.
> ...


agree with this too.....always found the staff from the hunt to be ok...but then I was never a sab or ever stopped them doing what they were doing. I was asked more than once if we would allow the hunt across our land...always said no and this was respected too.

I found hunt staff to be very knowledgeable on horses.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

The eyes will only see what the eyes want to see!
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should!


Just gonna leave those there for now :thumbsup:


I love how some will generlise and lump everyone into the same little box that they want too so that it fits with their agenda...

All priests are pedophiles....well the press said a few have got themselves into hot water so that must mean that they are all involved, right?



If this had been a case where it was obvious that the hounds chased and bought down the deer (again ONE puncture would is NOT a savage attack by a pack of dogs) and it was clear that the hunt did not deal with the deer humanely then I wouldn't have even joined this thread, but the facts are clear to see for those that want to see


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Eyewitness says deer appeared to be more paralysed round hindquarters. A broken leg means that a 4 legged animal will generally hop/drag the leg, seen it more than once with horses. Flight animals will get up if at all possible. Eyewitness suggests that maybe deer had been hit by car and dragged itself into woods. Suggesting that a four legged flight animal should have a leg amputated, as a horsey girl, makes me absolutely cringe. I know deer aren't as big generally, but I think it's a bloody awful idea. 

One policeman tried to keep ten people from getting to the deer (quite right, it would have been unbelievably stressed) Police would not let the deer be shot until reinforcements arrived in case the scene was rushed and someone was hurt. Terrier man wanted to do it immediately but was not allowed. I don't care about the rights and wrongs of who should/shouldn't have been there, but I don't think it's fair to lay blame at the door of any individuals. The deer certainly doesn't look like it had been savaged by a pack of dogs.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> The eyes will only see what the eyes want to see!
> Just because we can, doesn't mean we should!
> 
> Just gonna leave those there for now :thumbsup:
> ...


Theres one major flaw in your comparison. Which is, ALL terriermen treat animals inhumanely. Its in their job description

No its rare we see you on hunting threads making excuses for hunters 

.



cinnamontoast said:


> Eyewitness says deer appeared to be more paralysed round hindquarters. A broken leg means that a 4 legged animal will generally hop/drag the leg, seen it more than once with horses. Flight animals will get up if at all possible. Eyewitness suggests that maybe deer had been hit by car and dragged itself into woods. Suggesting that a four legged flight animal should have a leg amputated, as a horsey girl, makes me absolutely cringe. I know deer aren't as big generally, but I think it's a bloody awful idea.
> 
> One policeman tried to keep ten people from getting to the deer (quite right, it would have been unbelievably stressed) Police would not let the deer be shot until reinforcements arrived in case the scene was rushed and someone was hurt. Terrier man wanted to do it immediately but was not allowed. I don't care about the rights and wrongs of who should/shouldn't have been there, but I don't think it's fair to lay blame at the door of any individuals. The deer certainly doesn't look like it had been savaged by a pack of dogs.


I'm assuming you have some FIRM evidence to support this story? Or else no one will believe you

(except the pro hunt brigade)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Theres one major flaw in your comparison. Which is, ALL terriermen treat animals inhumanely. Its in their job description
> 
> It is not in a terriermans job description to be inhumane...granted there will be some that choose to be inhumane but that isn't the same - It's things like that, that lose you your argument...
> 
> No its rare we see you on hunting threads making excuses for hunters


I do not support hunting for fun, never have and never will...I have never made excuses for hunters that break the law or trophy hunt.

Perfect example of the eyes will see what the eyes what to see!
Just because I do not agree with your standpoint in this instant does not mean I condone support hunting, it means I do not condone gross generisation...now if you have met every single terrierman in the country so that you were able to make that judgement then I will apologise, but yeah I know that won't happen because I know you haven't


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Theres one major flaw in your comparison. Which is, ALL terriermen treat animals inhumanely. Its in their job description
> 
> No its rare we see you on hunting threads making excuses for hunters
> 
> ...


I dont think anyone is making excuses for those involved in huntng but they are looking at evidence supplied & commenting.

I am not pro fox hunting & used to actively try & stop hunts but I do not think everyone involved in hunting is scum or that they ALL treat animals inhumanely .... its simply not true


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I do not support hunting for fun, never have and never will...I have never made excuses for hunters that break the law or trophy hunt.
> 
> Perfect example of the eyes will see what the eyes what to see!
> Just because I do not agree with your standpoint in this instant does not mean I condone of support hunting, it means I do not condone gross generisation...now if you have met every single terrierman in the country so that you were able to make that judgement then I will apologise, but yeah I know that won't happen because I know you haven't


Are you trying to tell me that sending terriers down earths after foxes, digging foxes out to kill them can ever be humane?  It can NEVER be anything but INHUMANE! ALL Terriermen are cruel ********. Its their job to be.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Can't remember ever having seen a hunt supporter on this forum


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Can't remember ever having seen a hunt supporter on this forum


:lol:

.........


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Its not often I come onto this section, so I don't really know how the general forum feel about the Hunting Law, but I'm really surprised to see so few people showing opposition to the sabs, particularly as there are quite a few horsey people and people who work their dogs.... Or are people to afraid to admit it because of an online lynch? Not a loaded question, just an enquiry from someone who rarely steps out of Dog Breeding these days


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tanya1989 said:


> Its not often I come onto this section, so I don't really know how the general forum feel about the Hunting Law, but I'm really surprised to see so few people showing opposition to the sabs, particularly as there are quite a few horsey people and people who work their dogs.... Or are people to afraid to admit it because of an online lynch? Not a loaded question, just an enquiry from someone who rarely steps out of Dog Breeding these days


In this instance I don't think you could be in opposition to any side. A dreadful occurrence made more difficult by the circumstances.
It seems to me as if everyone had the deers interests at heart but things got a little confused, meaning the poor thing suffered longer than it should


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

rona said:


> In this instance I don't think you could be in opposition to any side. A dreadful occurrence made more difficult by the circumstances.
> It seems to me as if everyone had the deers interests at heart but things got a little confused, meaning the poor thing suffered longer than it should


Not about this particular thing, but what about general forum opinion? Are their any against Sabs? I'm not trying to create a disagreement (and most definitely not trolling  ) but is the general opinion of the forum completely anti hunting and for the sabs?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> In this instance I don't think you could be in opposition to any side. A dreadful occurrence made more difficult by the circumstances.
> It seems to me as if everyone had the deers interests at heart but things got a little confused, meaning the poor thing suffered longer than it should


It suffered because the police were complicit with the hunt & too busy arresting sabs.

They have said they will now review hunt policing. We'll see...

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tanya1989 said:


> Not about this particular thing, but what about general forum opinion? Are their any against Sabs? I'm not trying to create a disagreement (and most definitely not trolling  ) but is the general opinion of the forum completely anti hunting and for the sabs?


In my experience, I would say most people who join these sort of threads are anti-sab & defensive of the hunt Tanya.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Tanya1989 said:


> Not about this particular thing, but what about general forum opinion? Are their any against Sabs? I'm not trying to create a disagreement (and most definitely not trolling  ) but is the general opinion of the forum completely anti hunting and for the sabs?


I'm anti fox hunting but not riding to hounds.
I'm against Sabs disrupting lawful pastimes. They can monitor without causing mayhem.
I must say, the only times I've run into sabs is when they are driving like manics around country roads putting all and sundry at risk.

Never ever seen the Surrey union hunt out of control or causing a problem and they used to travel through the farm I worked on. Not allowed to hunt the land and stayed on bridlepath with hounds under close control

I do form my opinions a lot on personal experiences rather than what I read


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> In my experience, I would say most people who join these sort of threads are anti-sab & defensive of the hunt Tanya.


I assumed, given the length of the thread, there must be some argument somewhere. I haven't read them all, but just an observation from sab/ hunt threads posted, they all seem to be multiple pages (and I get 40 posts to a page, I think)


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Tanya1989 said:


> Not about this particular thing, but what about general forum opinion? Are their any against Sabs? I'm not trying to create a disagreement (and most definitely not trolling  ) but is the general opinion of the forum completely anti hunting and for the sabs?


I am anti-fox hunting, but I refuse to take every claim printed by sabs or sab supporters as gospel truth without more to back it up.
I also don't like generalisations, or name-calling rather than evidence.

But what I find difficult on threads like this, is that when I question an article or an opinion promoted by sabs, I then feel obliged to assure everyone that I am anti-fox hunting.
I'll admit that may be just me who feels this way, but I'm not so sure...

There again, it's not really surprising as fox-hunting is bound to stir up very strong feelings...


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> In my experience, I would say most people who join these sort of threads are anti-sab & defensive of the hunt Tanya.


You've just added to the feelings I shared in my previous comment .


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Are you trying to tell me that sending terriers down earths after foxes, digging foxes out to kill them can ever be humane?  It can NEVER be anything but INHUMANE! ALL Terriermen are cruel ********. Its their job to be.
> 
> .


Again with the assumptions 
I am suggesting no such thing.
I doubt very much that sending dogs underground is in their job description as it is illegal now unless certain demands are met - again I am not saying that they are all squeaky clean because that would be a lie...just as saying all terriermen are cruel ******** is a lie.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> In my experience, I would say most people who join these sort of threads are anti-sab & defensive of the hunt Tanya.


Im not.....


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> I'm assuming you have some FIRM evidence to support this story? Or else no one will believe you
> 
> (except the pro hunt brigade)


Why would I care? You seem to think that I'm having a pop at the sabs, which I'm not. There was one police officer holding back ten people, they waited for reinforcements to shoot the deer so no-one would rush in and potentially get hurt. Either way, the deer suffered for longer than needed.

I'm certainly not trying to stick up for the hunt here: I fail totally to see how you seem to have come to that conclusion. It would be nice if you would occasionally consider that not everyone is madly anti-sab in every comment they ever make.

Reading four reports about a sab's minibus ending up in a ditch last week, two sab groups said it wasn't the first time it had happened, the driver had tried to go round another vehicle, then reversed when she couldn't make it and the bus tipped into the ditch, one group claimed she was forced off the road by the hunt followers/police. A hunt follower recorded the whole thing and the two sab groups saying she couldn't go round then reversed into the ditch were proved right. Four different witnesses, several different opinions, one truth evidenced by video. Not all sabs are truthful, not all hunters are truthful. Simple, really.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

I suppose a lot of the divided opinion probably comes from people brought up in different walks of life. What is normal for one isn't normal for all.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Again with the assumptions
> I am suggesting no such thing.
> I doubt very much that sending dogs underground is in their job description as it is illegal now unless certain demands are met - again I am not saying that they are all squeaky clean because that would be a lie...just as saying all terriermen are cruel ******** is a lie.


Got to say that the two terrier men that I knew personally where just as Noushka describes and I distanced myself from them as soon as I became aware.

They were nothing to do with the surrey union hunt.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Tanya1989 said:


> Its not often I come onto this section, so I don't really know how the general forum feel about the Hunting Law, but I'm really surprised to see so few people showing opposition to the sabs, particularly as there are quite a few horsey people and people who work their dogs.... Or are people to afraid to admit it because of an online lynch? Not a loaded question, just an enquiry from someone who rarely steps out of Dog Breeding these days


Im now anti fox hunting, but i have actually been out with surrey union, about hmmm, 22 years ago. Im also anti sab, because i don't agree with many of their practices


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> Got to say that the two terrier men that I knew personally where just as Noushka describes and I distanced myself from them as soon as I became aware.
> 
> They were nothing to do with the surrey union hunt.


Oh yes I can imagine it is a walk of life that attracts some "colourful" characters, but I can't buy into the "they are all evil" camp.
When one of our polo ponies became wedged in a ditch (a pheasant flew up in his face, he freaked and ended sideways in a 5ft+ ditch) it was the local hunt that came to our aid to help dig him out because the park warden wouldn't be able to get there for several hours.
If it wasn't for their terrierman I don't want to imagine what would have happened because the poor horse had given up when he realised he was stuck 

His dogs looked very well cared for and his love for them was obvious.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Again with the assumptions
> I am suggesting no such thing.
> I doubt very much that sending dogs underground is in their job description as it is illegal now unless certain demands are met - again I am not saying that they are all squeaky clean because that would be a lie...just as saying all terriermen are cruel ******** is a lie.


So just what is their job description now then? lol 'Drag'(trail) hunts still have terriermen - 'drag' hunts - such as the notorious Surrey Union hunt .

.

.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> In my experience, I would say most people who join these sort of threads are anti-sab & defensive of the hunt Tanya.


Rubbish. I have mentioned more than once that I think hunting foxes is unacceptable. I do, however, think that dressing up like a terrorist and disrupting legal hunts is unacceptable too, as is trespassing on private land and making outrageous claims such as the one group saying it was the police/hunt supporters who'd pushed the bus into the ditch with the other two groups saying it was basically bad driving, it had happened before and would no doubt happen again (think this was all on Liverpool sab page if you'd like to check) Yes, a policeman was leaning on the bonnet, no, I don't think he pushed it in! There are lots of outrageous claims on both sides, like one group claiming a hunt they were filming was illegally hunting: the hunt was miles away, how could they tell?



silvi said:


> I am anti-fox hunting, but I refuse to take every claim printed by sabs or sab supporters as gospel truth without more to back it up.
> I also don't like generalisations, or name-calling rather than evidence.
> 
> But what I find difficult on threads like this, is that when I question an article or an opinion promoted by sabs, I then feel obliged to assure everyone that I am anti-fox hunting.
> ...


Same, exactly, I've had to state that I strongly disagree with hunting foxes but some people clearly think I must be madly keen on hunting because I have a horse and friends who hunt. I have never hunted, nor will I. I was told my horse had been hunted before I bought him, that's what Irish horses do to back them, pretty much, saddle on, hunt for a season, ready to sell.

If my dogs flush a rabbit or bird and eat it, I won't try to stop them, I chose the breed for their abilities and that's just one of them. That probably makes me a bad person.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Terriers have more jobs than flushing foxes from the ground


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Oh yes I can imagine it is a walk of life that attracts some "colourful" characters, but I can't buy into the "they are all evil" camp.
> When one of our polo ponies became wedged in a ditch (a pheasant flew up in his face, he freaked and ended sideways in a 5ft+ ditch) it was the local hunt that came to our aid to help dig him out because the park warden wouldn't be able to get there for several hours.
> If it wasn't for their terrierman I don't want to imagine what would have happened because the poor horse had given up when he realised he was stuck
> 
> His dogs looked very well cared for and his love for them was obvious.


What no scars on the terriers faces?? How did they avoid that fighting with foxes underground?

,

.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> What no scars on the terriers faces?? How did they avoid that fighting with foxes underground?
> 
> ,
> 
> .


That's right ZERO scars on their faces...he probably avoided that by not sending his dogs to ground for foxes


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> Im now anti fox hunting, but i have actually been out with surrey union, about hmmm, 22 years ago. Im also anti sab, because i don't agree with many of their practices


Wait, you mean there are more choices that just pro-sab/anti-hunting and pro-hunting/anti-sab? What madness is this you speak of?! 

I'm opposed to hunting for sport.

I'm not opposed to my dogs hunting a meal or two.
I'm not opposed to my cats mousing.

I'm also a vegetarian, have been for about 3 decades now.

I'm not a fan of lazy logic, generalizations, and lack of critical thinking.
I'm not a fan of unfair treatment of fellow humans regardless of how I may feel about their personalities and/or choices in life.

And I'm not a fan of crazy rescue heroics for animals who would be better off humanely euthanized. Just because we can save an animal, doesn't always mean we should.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> That's right ZERO scars on their faces...he probably avoided that by not sending his dogs to ground for foxes


Oh so he wasn't actually a 'terrierman' then just a man who had terriers lol


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Hello brick wall, meet my head :mad2:


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Bates has a scar on his face from fighting with a skunk. 

No point to the above really, just felt like throwing that one out there


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Wait, you mean there are more choices that just pro-sab/anti-hunting and pro-hunting/anti-sab? What madness is this you speak of?!
> 
> Im opposed to hunting for sport.
> 
> ...


I know batsh*t crazy right?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Tanya1989 said:


> I suppose a lot of the divided opinion probably comes from people brought up in different walks of life. What is normal for one isn't normal for all.


I actually find these debates very instructive.
I'm a city girl who has nevertheless spent some time living in the country (and in a foreign country as well), so I have seen things from different sides.

In the city we see foxes every day. Cars even stop for 'fox families' as they cross the main road to get to the park. These foxes are almost tame and (despite annoying some of us by spreading smelly dustbin rubbish everywhere) are pretty much accepted as part of the urban community.

And then us city dwellers take our feelings about foxes to the countryside and no way can we agree with any argument to hunt them, or with any reason for killing a fox. And as for deer, there is no way we can comprehend injury to these beautiful creatures.

But our understanding of wildlife and how to treat injured wildlife (and what may or may not cause their injuries) is severely limited in most cases.

Yet from those who have spent most of their lives in the countryside, we can learn a great deal about different local customs.

For example, we lived for a while in the countryside ('urban regeneration' area) and when our dogs injured a deer, we called our local vet to pts the poor creature, but had we lived where my Mum was brought up (an old, traditional country town with several local hunts), we probably would have been advised to call someone from the local hunt.

And so on...

There is a divide in experience and perhaps this leads to a divide in understanding, but it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Am wondering how many people who can have such b&w views have actually had any direct involvement with either hunts or sab groups ....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> I actually find these debates very instructive.
> I'm a city girl who has nevertheless spent some time living in the country (and in a foreign country as well), so I have seen things from different sides.
> 
> In the city we see foxes every day. Cars even stop for 'fox families' as they cross the main road to get to the park. These foxes are almost tame and (despite annoying some of us by spreading smelly dustbin rubbish everywhere) are pretty much accepted as part of the urban community.
> ...


 I was grew up in a small village & have lived in the countryside all my life. Most people I know where I'm from that ive spoken to about this are also opposed to fox hunting (& polls have confirmed this). So it isn't only the majority of 'townies' who think hunting down animals for 'sport' is barbaric, but country folk as well.

.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> Am wondering how many people who can have such b&w views have actually had any direct involvement with either hunts or say groups ....


I wouldn't say that I have black and white views. I can appreciate why people don't like it, in the same way that I don't like irresponsible dog breeding... Each to their own, but if you don't like it, the law is the law and you still have to abide by it. Legal hunts are allowed and illegal ones aren't and "both sides" can equally be as bad as each other.... What I find disappointing is that people can only make a point by being violent.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rona said:


> The most interesting concern the medicine and husbandry of supposedly mythical animals. As the worlds most published veterinarian in this esoteric field, he is well on the way to becoming the first recognised specialist in Veterinary Cryptozoology (Dip. Crypt.), specialising in the medicine and surgery of animals considered extinct, or otherwise non-existent by (regrettably closed-minded) mainstream biologists.


Andrew Knight's 'Veterinary Cryptozoology' interests are tongue-in-cheek. He has written several light-hearted articles about it in the veterinary press. Not to be taken seriously.



Knightofalbion said:


> Given that the deer has clearly been savaged by dogs, being put down was probably the most likely outcome, but I would have preferred that call having been assessed and performed by a qualified veterinarian, or someone experienced in the care of injured wild animals.


Based entirely on the video, I wouldn't be comfortable saying the deer had clearly been savaged by dogs. I read Andrew Knight's report as well, and I couldn't agree fully with some of his observations (although I am not an expert witness). I have seen some pretty big holes in animals from barbed wire.

I'm not saying the deer was not attacked by dogs and was injured by barbed wire, but I'm not saying the opposite either. The evidence, in my eyes, isn't clear enough.



Knightofalbion said:


> You say you watched the police video *with the sound off*, which means you didn't hear the cries and squeals of the door as the terrier men handled and lifted it.


I think a frightened deer would have cried anyway if people approached or handled it at all.



> Nor did you hear the police officer ask the elder of the two terrier man what he thought was wrong with the deer, he answered that it was just "tired" ... He then asked what he thought was the best thing to do next, the terrier man responded 'shoot it'.


Yes, that was a bit odd. It obviously wasn't just tired, however, it was incapacitated. As ouesi has said, they gave her a chance to get up. Any deer capable of getting up at all would have been out of there like a shot, I would have thought. She was hurt.

The 'Best Practice' guides published through a joint effort by several organisations such as the British Deer Society and the Association of Deer Management Groups advise that all deer incapacitated through injury should be dispatched. In fact, the guidelines state:

_*"The welfare implications of transporting injured wild deer for veterinary treatment/rehabilitation are such that this should not be considered a practical option."*_



noushka05 said:


> The police should have allowed the sabs to assess the deer(one of the sabs had experience working with animals), the police should have prioritised the deers needs before anything else instead of leaving it to suffer for half an hour. Pretty much what the judge said.


I've missed the background to this. What experience working with animals did the sab in question have?

I am NOT pro-hunting (far from it), but I didn't feel uncomfortable with the dispatch of this animal as shown in the video, and there was insufficient evidence in the video alone to prove that the deer had been attacked by dogs. Just stating it as I see it.

I think the comment about the deer being 'tired' and therefore worthy of dispatch was weird and inappropriate, but the ultimate outcome was the right one for the deer under the circumstances, IMO.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I was grew up in a small village & have lived in the countryside all my life. Most people I know where I'm from that ive spoken to about this are also opposed to fox hunting (& polls have confirmed this). So it isn't only the majority of 'townies' who think hunting down animals for 'sport' is barbaric, but country folk as well.
> 
> .


But I wasn't saying that most townies are opposed and most countryside folk are pro fox hunting .
I was saying that we bring different life experiences to the debate and perhaps in how we understand the debate.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

Shoshannah said:


> The 'Best Practice' guides published through a joint effort by several organisations such as the British Deer Society and the Association of Deer Management Groups advise that all deer incapacitated through injury should be dispatched. In fact, the guidelines state:
> 
> _*"The welfare implications of transporting injured wild deer for veterinary treatment/rehabilitation are such that this should not be considered a practical option."*_


In many US states it is illegal to attempt to rehab adult deer. Fawns and yearlings, yes, if you have a wildlife rehab license, but adults no. And there is a high mortality rate in the fawns and yearlings. Deer just dont rehab well....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Shoshannah said:


> Andrew Knight's 'Veterinary Cryptozoology' interests are tongue-in-cheek. He has written several light-hearted articles about it in the veterinary press. Not to be taken seriously.
> 
> Based entirely on the video, I wouldn't be comfortable saying the deer had clearly been savaged by dogs. I read Andrew Knight's report as well, and I couldn't agree fully with some of his observations (although I am not an expert witness). I have seen some pretty big holes in animals from barbed wire.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your opinion, I know you're always fair & objective. I believe HSA are taking further legal action against Surrey hunt regarding the deers treatment. So I don't know if this means they have more evidence.

I'll try to find out exactly what area the sab works in. I guess the issue of the actual killing of the deer has somewhat detracted from the polices handling of this incident. The police failed this animal in their welfare role prolonging its suffering, arrested people who were trying to help it. The last 25 minutes of that deers life must have been terrifying. Plus the police had the physical evidence removed. Maybe the only good thing to come out of this sad affair is Surrey police will now act with impartiality at hunts.



silvi said:


> But I wasn't saying that most townies are opposed and most countryside folk are pro fox hunting .
> I was saying that we bring different life experiences to the debate and perhaps in how we understand the debate.


My misunderstanding, sorry about that Silvi.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I also find it extremely odd that someone can be so certain that an animal sustained a savaging from dogs even though the hunt disposed of the evidence


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Oh yes I can imagine it is a walk of life that attracts some "colourful" characters, but I can't buy into the "they are all evil" camp.
> When one of our polo ponies became wedged in a ditch (a pheasant flew up in his face, he freaked and ended sideways in a 5ft+ ditch) it was the local hunt that came to our aid to help dig him out because the park warden wouldn't be able to get there for several hours.
> If it wasn't for their terrierman I don't want to imagine what would have happened because the poor horse had given up when he realised he was stuck
> 
> His dogs looked very well cared for and his love for them was obvious.


Terrier men aren't always/usually hunt servants but people who follow the hunt


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I also find it extremely odd that someone can be so certain that an animal sustained a savaging from dogs even though the hunt disposed of the evidence


And probably very much enjoyed eating the evidence too


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> Can't remember ever having seen a hunt supporter on this forum


lol. they would do well to keep quiet about it then.....


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Oh so he wasn't actually a 'terrierman' then just a man who had terriers lol


all the terrier men I ever came across had dogs who were scarred.....from fighting mainly with foxes down holes but also attacking badgers...in fact, the terrier men I have known would tell you they prefer not to go after a badger cos their dogs are likely to get ripped up and then there is a big problem getting vet treatment cos they have to admit what they have been doing is illegal.

These men had a respect for their dogs for how well they performed...not love as we would describe our feelings for our pets.

I don't know of any of the dodgy characters that use their dogs in this way would openly admit to what they do and they usually keep their dogs away from members of the public


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Rubbish. I have mentioned more than once that I think hunting foxes is unacceptable. I do, however, think that dressing up like a terrorist and disrupting legal hunts is unacceptable too, as is trespassing on private land and making outrageous claims such as the one group saying it was the police/hunt supporters who'd pushed the bus into the ditch with the other two groups saying it was basically bad driving, it had happened before and would no doubt happen again (think this was all on Liverpool sab page if you'd like to check) Yes, a policeman was leaning on the bonnet, no, I don't think he pushed it in! There are lots of outrageous claims on both sides, like one group claiming a hunt they were filming was illegally hunting: the hunt was miles away, how could they tell?
> 
> Same, exactly, I've had to state that I strongly disagree with hunting foxes but some people clearly think I must be madly keen on hunting because I have a horse and friends who hunt. I have never hunted, nor will I. I was told my horse had been hunted before I bought him, that's what Irish horses do to back them, pretty much, saddle on, hunt for a season, ready to sell.
> 
> If my dogs flush a rabbit or bird and eat it, I won't try to stop them, I chose the breed for their abilities and that's just one of them. That probably makes me a bad person.


I think a lot of irish bre horses are sold as hunted in Ireland...cos it puts another £1000 on the price.lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> In many US states it is illegal to attempt to rehab adult deer. Fawns and yearlings, yes, if you have a wildlife rehab license, but adults no. And there is a high mortality rate in the fawns and yearlings. Deer just dont rehab well....


why is this? is this anything to do with the fact that so many people get injured every year picking up injured deer and putting them in cars or is there any other reason? Just asking.

My daughter picked up a dead deer on her way home from work early one morning. She picked it up and put it in the boot of her hatch back car and brought it home thinking the dogs could eat it. She heard a noise on her way home coming from the boot....and when she got here we carefully opened the boot and the deer was very much alive and sitting upright and looking at her. It had a broken leg...don't know what other injuries...we rang the vet and daughter took the deer down to the surgery...they PTS and the vet whinged at my daughter for picking the deer from the road when she could hav been injured herself...and quite rightly the vet whinged. dangerous.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> why is this? is this anything to do with the fact that so many people get injured every year picking up injured deer and putting them in cars or is there any other reason? Just asking.
> 
> My daughter picked up a dead deer on her way home from work early one morning. She picked it up and put it in the boot of her hatch back car and brought it home thinking the dogs could eat it. She heard a noise on her way home coming from the boot....and when she got here we carefully opened the boot and the deer was very much alive and sitting upright and looking at her. It had a broken leg...don't know what other injuries...we rang the vet and daughter took the deer down to the surgery...they PTS and the vet whinged at my daughter for picking the deer from the road when she could hav been injured herself...and quite rightly the vet whinged. dangerous.


OMG, I have heard of this before. I have picked up several dead deer as dinner for the dogs but they have definitely been dead ..... so far!!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> OMG, I have heard of this before. I have picked up several dead deer as dinner for the dogs but they have definitely been dead ..... so far!!


daughter thought this one was def dead cos it was out cold....but it wasn't.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Bates has a scar on his face from fighting with a skunk.


Brig has some impressive scars: he HD a couple of run ins with barbed wire. That stuff really ought to be banned, I hate it. 



lilythepink said:


> why is this? is this anything to do with the fact that so many people get injured every year picking up injured deer and putting them in cars or is there any other reason? Just asking.


I reckon the danger to humans but maybe mostly because they become so stressed and aren't good candidates for rehab.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2015)

lilythepink said:


> why is this? is this anything to do with the fact that so many people get injured every year picking up injured deer and putting them in cars or is there any other reason? Just asking.


A mixture of reasons.
Danger to humans is definitely one. Also the potential to spread disease and parasites with transport and ignorant handling practices.

But also its just bad news for the animal.
Aside from the risk of capture myopathy, you also risk habituating a deer to humans. Deer who become habituated to humans can become dangerous to humans, and also lose the instinct to flee from danger, find ways to feed themselves etc. Its bad for them, its bad for us.

Wild animals do best in the wild. Humans do best to leave them alone. Sometimes we try too hard to play god if you will, and try to fix things that mother nature takes care of herself. An animal seriously injured in the wild is meant to die and feed other animals, not be brought in to a sterile, strange environment and fixed so some human can feel good about themselves. 
That sounds harsher than I mean it to  But thats the basic gist of it IMHO.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Wait, you mean there are more choices that just pro-sab/anti-hunting and pro-hunting/anti-sab? What madness is this you speak of?!
> 
> Of course there are other choices. And some people disingenuously claim they oppose hunting with hounds when they are blatant hunt sympathisers.
> 
> ...





ouesi said:


> A mixture of reasons.
> Danger to humans is definitely one. Also the potential to spread disease and parasites with transport and ignorant handling practices.
> 
> But also its just bad news for the animal.
> ...


And some humans rescue animals because they care .



lilythepink said:


> all the terrier men I ever came across had dogs who were scarred.....from fighting mainly with foxes down holes but also attacking badgers...in fact, the terrier men I have known would tell you they prefer not to go after a badger cos their dogs are likely to get ripped up and then there is a big problem getting vet treatment cos they have to admit what they have been doing is illegal.
> 
> These men had a respect for their dogs for how well they performed...not love as we would describe our feelings for our pets.
> 
> I don't know of any of the dodgy characters that use their dogs in this way would openly admit to what they do and they usually keep their dogs away from members of the public


Exactly Lily. Send a terrier down a hole after a fox & its going to get scars. I don't believe anyone who says otherwise. And you are quite right, its a respect for the best terriers they have, not love. Just like dog fighters respect their best dogs. Terriermen are cut from the same warped cloth. And I wonder how many people on here would have trusted leaving that deer in the care of a dog fighter?

Foxes often bolt down badger setts so terriers are highly likely to encounter badgers, terriermen risk their dogs all the time. I have seen a terrier with half its jaw missing after such an encounter. Loads of pics on the internet of terriers with half their faces ripped off, one lovely little chap was even marching to save the badgers at a stop the badger cull rally. I have a picture in my album of him somewhere.

The terriermen you knew might have said they preferred their dogs not to encounter a badger, but the sad fact is foxhunting & badger baiting is inextricably linked.

.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Of course there are other choices. And some people disingenuously claim they oppose hunting with hounds when they are blatant hunt sympathisers.
> .


Y/ou really need to take a look at yourself my dear...your assumptions and insinuations really do not help your cause...It is comments such as this that completely turn people off from listening to a word you say.
If you can't show that you even read what people say without throwing out your own personal agenda then why should others listen to you?

No need to answer as I was done the moment you stopped listening to common sense :nonod:


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Noush, do you have personal experience of being out in the company of a local hunt? Do you know alot of people who hunt or are terrier men? Or do you just know alot of people opposed to hunting? Or do (did) you actively participate in sabbing? 

Whilst I can appreciate that people can have strong views regarding hunting without every having participated in any direct action themselves I do find it odd that people can make such blanket statements about those involved unless they themselves are very active in that scene.

And I do not think that just because others have a different point of view necessarily makes them 'the enemy'


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Y/ou really need to take a look at yourself my dear...your assumptions and insinuations really do not help your cause...It is comments such as this that completely turn people off from listening to a word you say.
> 
> If you can't show that you even read what people say without throwing out your own personal agenda then why should others listen to you?
> 
> No need to answer as I was done the moment you stopped listening to common sense :nonod:


No of course being dishonest could NEVER be another 'choice' could it lol

I know there are people on here against hunting but try to look objectively at all sides. I know there are people on here who claim they oppose foxhunting when they don't. I've probably been involved in most hunting threads to know who they are, Bernie.

...


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Does this extend to ARA's/sabs?


Of course it does, and it youd read my posts properly instead of through the biased lens of your agenda, you would see that.

Im sorry, I have to agree with StormyThai, the behavior you are displaying on this thread is one of the reasons I have over the years distanced myself from many AR groups. Even when I agree with the agenda, I cant agree with the tactics.

I dont want to get to the point that I am so blinded by hate for any one group that I develop unbending black and white thinking and forget to pay attention to the needs of the animals out there who need help. The deer in this case needed to be humanely dispatched. That is the bottom line - the needs of the deer.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> No of course being dishonest could NEVER be another 'choice' could it lol
> 
> I know there are people on here against hunting but try to look objectively at all sides. I know there are people on here who claim they oppose foxhunting when they don't. I've probably been involved in most hunting threads to know who they are, Bernie.
> 
> ...


There you go again...
Any reason for putting my name in there, apart from this "I'm better that you" vibe you throw out?

You lose the debate as soon as you make it personal..I'm out, have fun!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Of course it does, and it you'd read my posts properly instead of through the biased lens of your agenda, you would see that.
> 
> I'm sorry, I have to agree with StormyThai, the behavior you are displaying on this thread is one of the reasons I have over the years distanced myself from many AR groups. *Even when I agree with the agenda, I can't agree with the tactics. *
> 
> I don't want to get to the point that I am so blinded by hate for any one group that I develop unbending black and white thinking and forget to pay attention to the needs of the animals out there who need help. The deer in this case needed to be humanely dispatched. That is the bottom line - the needs of the deer.


This!

I used to be heavily involved with AR groups, including the HSA but there were certain views that I didn't agree with & actions I couldn't support but as alot of people involved were so B&W I had to leave. I couldn't be a part of a group consisting of who were so blinkered by their own sense of being 'right' that they dismissed anyone who objected, despite their actions getting more & more questionable

Although this was when I was in my late teens/early 20's (so ages ago!) & I realise views can change as we grow up (which is what happened with me), I do struggle how people can be so determined to be right that other views are not considered.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Noush, do you have personal experience of being out in the company of a local hunt? Do you know alot of people who hunt or are terrier men? Or do you just know alot of people opposed to hunting? Or do (did) you actively participate in sabbing?
> 
> Whilst I can appreciate that people can have strong views regarding hunting without every having participated in any direct action themselves I do find it odd that people can make such blanket statements about those involved unless they themselves are very active in that scene.
> 
> And I do not think that just because others have a different point of view necessarily makes them 'the enemy'


I know terriermen, my cousins hubby was a sab in the late 70's early 80's, she went with him on occasions , I have friends who are sabs now. Sorry Cleo, but i think killing animals for fun is disgusting, it can never be justified imo.

Can you honestly say that sending a terrier down a hole after a fox can ever be humane? that dogs don't get injured?

What other group could get away with allowing their dogs to run amock? can you imagine if someone came on here and said their dog had been running out of control on roads, or had killed a sheep or a cat or whatever? they'd be jumped on on here!

.

Its not just 'animal rights nutters' like me lol, even a lot of farmers hate the hunts.

*Hunting From A Farming Perspective*

Our latest blog is by a guest writer involved in commercial farming.

I was lucky enough to be born into a family which viewed all animal life as important  not just human life. That didnt make us vegetarian, but it did mean that we liked animals to be treated properly and with respect. And in a family of animal lovers, I was always considered the ultra  walking out of restaurants where live lobsters were kept trussed up, banning foie gras from the family table, insisting on free-range produce and while at school, joining the campaign to ban the export of live calves.

We were also involved in farming and I saw from an early age the yobbish way the hunt people behaved. When I was elected MP for a coal mining seat in 1983, hunting wasnt a big issue. But during my time in the Commons, its importance grew until, by 1997, it was almost as divisive as Europe for the Tories, with the small minority of anti-hunt MPs being hounded by the well-organised and funded pro-hunt MPs.

Youre going to lose your f***** seat at the election, a pro-hunt MP told me early in 1997, and were going to make f**** sure you dont get another!

Nice guy! But it didnt change my mind.

Foxes are vicious killers, we are told. Well, so are humans. At least foxes dont have an ethical sense of right and wrong  they kill by instinct and for survival.

Foxes kill lambs and chickens, the hunt defenders go on. Ive farmed most of my life and its rare for a fox to take a healthy lamb. They do take chickens, but properly managed free-range flocks have refuges  and I always find apparent concern for chickens strange from people who merrily eat battery eggs.

Anyway, weve driven wild animals to the margins and taken most of the land for our own use. Can we blame them for trying to survive by occasionally nabbing some of the animals we over-feed ourselves with?

Perhaps the least convincing of the hunt lobbys poses is that of friends of the environment and representatives of country folk. My local hunt is 80% wealthy city people. Very few of the local farmers join in and a good proportion of people where I farm dislike the hunt  just as many Conservatives do.

Pro-hunt lobbyists often argue that foxes damage other country sports by taking pheasants. Anyone who has witnessed modern driven shoots, with black clouds of fattened birds lumbering into the air for range-rovered bankers to blast out of the sky will know how little these country sports have to do with the environment  or sport for that matter. I always thought that sport was a matter of well-matched opponents meeting with the same equipment and rules. On that basis, perhaps we should arm the pheasants and the foxes.

But I digress. I have seen hunt and hounds and their followers rampage all over the land, through nature reserves, scattering flocks of sheep, terrifying pets and children, holding up traffic on major roads as their packs howl out of control  even crossing high speed rail lines. They have little regard for private property  in recent years I have had to take my local hunt to court for riding across growing crops when I had expressly asked them not to come onto my land.

Earlier this year, their pack charged, out of control, through a breeding flock on my land, breaking down fences, while their followers trespassed on foot and on quad bikes. Eventually I managed to get compensation from them. Friends of the countryside? I dont think so. Less well-connected yobs end up with asbos or tags.

Once upon a time, bear baiting and cock fighting was considered a traditional British pastime and defended as such. So, come to think of it, was slavery. I look forward to the day when people look back on fox hunting with the same disgust as they now look back on those pursuits, once so-cherished by the type of people who remain unspeakable.

Conservatives Against Fox Hunting


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Your latest post shows brilliantly that you have listened to ZERO of what people have said..Not one person has said hunting for fun is ok, not one person has said that sending terriers after foxes humane!


But there ya go ranting on 
Sorry, now I am done!


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> This!
> 
> I used to be heavily involved with AR groups, including the HSA but there were certain views that I didn't agree with & actions I couldn't support but as alot of people involved were so B&W I had to leave. I couldn't be a part of a group consisting of who were so blinkered by their own sense of being 'right' that they dismissed anyone who objected, despite their actions getting more & more questionable
> 
> Although this was when I was in my late teens/early 20's (so ages ago!) & I realise views can change as we grow up (which is what happened with me), I do struggle how people can be so determined to be right that other views are not considered.


Same here...
In my college years I was active with several AR groups and I am thankful for what I learned from them, it has made me a much more conscientious consumer.

However, I just couldnt continue with some of the more aggressive stances and tactics that really dont serve anyone, including the animals theyre purported to save. And of course forgetting also that humans are animals too, and deserve to be treated humanely also


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> I know terriermen, my cousins hubby was a sab in the late 70's early 80's, she went with him on occasions , I have friends who are sabs now. Sorry Cleo, but i think killing animals for fun is disgusting, it can never be justified imo.


But I wasn't agreeing with fox hunting ...neither were any of the other posts I read .... 

I was arguing that you can't state that all terrier men are scum of the earth though, the men in the video clip acted in the deers best interests (IMO), how can that be wrong?

I admitted in another thread that I let Roxy kill moles that she digs up in my garden, I would rather she didn;t but they are ruining my garden so when she does get them I'm not dsipleased .... maybe that makes me scum as well though

Years ago everything was B&W for me, who would thought now that I am friends with a local butcher & have friends who have hunted in the past as well as those who have been sabs, I know people who attend shoots, etc .... I may not have the same views as these people but none of them are monsters & to portray people as such doesn't help win any debates ... IMO


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> This!
> 
> I used to be heavily involved with AR groups, including the HSA but there were certain views that I didn't agree with & actions I couldn't support but as alot of people involved were so B&W I had to leave. I couldn't be a part of a group consisting of who were so blinkered by their own sense of being 'right' that they dismissed anyone who objected, despite their actions getting more & more questionable
> 
> Although this was when I was in my late teens/early 20's (so ages ago!) & I realise views can change as we grow up (which is what happened with me), I do struggle how people can be so determined to be right that other views are not considered.





ouesi said:


> Same here...
> In my college years I was active with several AR groups and I am thankful for what I learned from them, it has made me a much more conscientious consumer.
> 
> However, I just couldnt continue with some of the more aggressive stances and tactics that really dont serve anyone, including the animals theyre purported to save. And of course forgetting also that humans are animals too, and deserve to be treated humanely also


So in spite of most police forces being hunt sympathisers, how come the vast majority of serious assault convictions have been on the hunt members?

Violence breeds violence.



StormyThai said:


> Your latest post shows brilliantly that you have listened to ZERO of what people have said..Not one person has said hunting for fun is ok, not one person has said that sending terriers after foxes humane!
> 
> But there ya go ranting on
> Sorry, now I am done!


See ya

,


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> But I wasn't agreeing with fox hunting ...neither were any of the other posts I read ....
> 
> I was arguing that you can't state that all terrier men are scum of the earth though, the men in the video clip acted in the deers best interests (IMO), how can that be wrong?
> 
> ...


Well anyone who sends their dog down a hole to face a fox or a badger is scum of the earth to me. And that is what ALL terriermen do.

.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> So in spite of most police forces being hunt sympathisers, how come the vast majority of serious assault convictions have been on the hunt members?
> 
> Violence breeds violence.
> ,


Okay, youre going to have to help me here...
What does your response have to do with anything Cleo or I said?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> So in spite of most police forces being hunt sympathisers, how come the vast majority of serious assault convictions have been on the hunt members?
> 
> Violence breeds violence.


Yes it does.

And Cleo and Ouesi were saying that they withdrew from the AR groups because of their aggressive tactics.

So I don't see what the argument is here.

Sure, it does appear that when there is a violent fracas between hunt members and sabs that the sabs are more likely to be prosecuted and any violence by hunt members _may_ be ignored.

And yes, I've seen similar things in action for myself when on political rallies.

But the debate here was about what happened to the deer and a few people on this thread, including me, think that the poor creature was humanely dispatched.

That's the only disagreement I have with the original subject of this thread anyway....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> But I wasn't agreeing with fox hunting ...neither were any of the other posts I read ....
> 
> I was arguing that you can't state that all terrier men are scum of the earth though, the men in the video clip acted in the deers best interests (IMO), how can that be wrong?
> 
> ...


Just to clarify I dont think everyone who is a butcher or who hunts is a monster either.

However Terriermen are on par with dog fighters. They send their terriers to down holes to fight foxes. Terriermen from hunts are often involved in Badger baiting. Maybe I'm a bit odd, but i cannot see another side, they enjoy inflicting pain & suffering on defenceless animals. I don't want to try to understand them, I cant abide them.

.

.

.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Just to clarify I dont think everyone who is a butcher or who hunts is a monster either.
> 
> However Terriermen are on par with dog fighters. They send their terriers to down holes to fight foxes. Terriermen from hunts are often involved in Badger baiting. Maybe I'm a bit odd, but *i cannot see another side*, they enjoy inflicting pain & suffering on defenceless animals. I don't want to try to understand them, I cant abide them.


The video you showed as proof of terriermen being inhumane shows the other side. It shows them behaving humanely towards the deer. 
It doesnt show them enjoying inflicting pain and suffering on a defenseless animal. It shows them assessing an animal with understanding of the animals needs.

This is the black and white thinking Im talking about.

I dont know any terriermen personally, and it may very well be that in 99.9% of the cases they are inhumane, evil excuses for human beings. But in this one example, I dont see it. And if I dont see inhumane treatment, Im not going to call it inhumane treatment regardless of how I might feel about the people involved.

Those guys did the right thing by the deer, and however any of us feel about terriermen as people doesnt change the fact that what they did for the deer was humane.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I might be wrong but i think what noush is saying re. terriermen is this. Even if they did right by the deer, she still sees them as scum because of what they do. Just because they did one good thing doesn't make them nice people.
Feel free to correct me noush.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Just to clarify I dont think everyone who is a butcher or who hunts is a monster either.
> 
> However Terriermen are on par with dog fighters. They send their terriers to down holes to fight foxes. Terriermen from hunts are often involved in Badger baiting. Maybe I'm a bit odd, but i cannot see another side, they enjoy inflicting pain & suffering on defenceless animals. I don't want to try to understand them, I cant abide them.





ouesi said:


> The video you showed as proof of terriermen being inhumane shows the other side. It shows them behaving humanely towards the deer.
> It doesnt show them enjoying inflicting pain and suffering on a defenseless animal. It shows them assessing an animal with understanding of the animals needs.
> 
> This is the black and white thinking Im talking about.
> ...


Now if we could just find a way to make these arguments meet in the middle, we would be getting somewhere .

No one is saying that we have to get down and personal with terrier men to 'understand' them. What I'm saying anyhow is that even when you thoroughly dislike someone for something they do, that is still no excuse for accusing them of being inhumane when (in this instance) they are not.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Y/ou really need to take a look at yourself my dear...your assumptions and insinuations really do not help your cause...It is comments such as this that completely turn people off from listening to a word you say.


Exactly and I know who she's hinting at!

The unfortunate thing with sabs is the emotive language and the way they present and conduct themselves-unlikely to garner sympathy from those who are undecided. Watching a North Tyne sab at the weekend, I was amazed at his behaviour. He walks into the back of a horse and promptly moans that the rider backed the horse into him: the rider was totally unaware that someone was behind him and IME, my horse does precisely the same backing into me all the time! Classic horse reversal, it's part of their behaviour-surely sabs have learnt this? He then trespasses on a farm which has nothing to do with the hunt and the owner escorts him off and the sab films him and the female sab gets all ar$ey with the owner for daring to ask her to leave, persistently asking him to remove his hand when clearly his hand is nowhere near her. I despair.

The point of this thread was to say that the sabs were cleared of trespassing and that the deer should have been and was humanely despatched, sooner than 25 minutes of it being stressed would have been better (according to the expert vet, Andrew whatshisface), "Another likely cause [for the very high level of distress shown by the deer] would have been extreme fear in the close presence of people whom the deer could not escape."


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't know about the police officers concerned with this case or the police officers from this particular area but generally speaking I think most police officers don't have a clue about wildlife, hunting and sabs cos they concentrate more on traffic and more urban problems.

Most people...police or not...are clueless about what to do if they come across this sort of thing.

Some dogs locally escaped and went onto a small holding, chased geese, killed turkeys and ducks and hens. The geese were badly ripped up, the rest or most of them were dead and dying.

A neighbour called the owner at work and also called the police.

The police called for a vet.

The owner arrived before the vet and went to kill the remaining dying birds by pulling their necks...apart from the geese cos they are so hard to kill in this way.

The policeman insisted she stopped and waited for the vet.

Vet arrived within the hour. Vet was asked to PTS all remaining injured birds.

Vet said she would have been more humane pulling the hens necks..cos lethal injection for a bird takes time.

So, police called the vet...vet is paid per 15minutes cos this is a smallholding and not domestic...who gets the bill? was the policeman right or wrong? he did what he thought best at the time.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Just to add here, that I do listen to what Noush says and she has brought my attention to a lot of the cruelty which goes on in the hunting world and to the injustice and flouting of the law which does sometimes occur.
Without posters like Noush, this forum would be a poorer place for information on some forms of animal cruelty.
(as it would be a poorer place if it did not have alternative views and information as well)

I'm just not into name-calling that's all. From either side of the debate.
And I'm always critical of one-sided views, because they never give us the whole picture.

I much prefer to look at both sides of an argument, because otherwise we are blind sided and can't argue effectively.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

silvi said:


> Just to add here, that I do listen to what Noush says and she has brought my attention to a lot of the cruelty which goes on in the hunting world and to the injustice and flouting of the law which does sometimes occur.
> Without posters like Noush, this forum would be a poorer place for information on some forms of animal cruelty.
> (as it would be a poorer place if it did not have alternative views and information as well)
> 
> ...


me too...but I am so opposed to hunting for sport that nothing would ever sway my mind on this subject.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2015)

lilythepink said:


> me too...but I am so opposed to hunting for sport that nothing would ever sway my mind on this subject.


I too am 100% opposed to hunting for sport. I don't see anyone on this thread supporting it though?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I too am 100% opposed to hunting for sport. I don't see anyone on this thread supporting it though?


neither do I...it was just a comment.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

'collusion between Surrey Police and the Surrey Union Hunt over the illegal hunting and killing of a deer'

^^ Quote from South Devon Sabs FB page: at no point has anyone said that the deer was definitely hunted. Making claims like this helps no-one's cause.


----------

