Tail Docking - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

First the outrage

Then you look into what it's all about

Then you either pick "Dont really know enough about it" or carry on with faux outrage

Alan has picked number 2 which is quite apt since he is a jobby

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

First the outrage

Then you look into what it's all about

Then you either pick "Dont really know enough about it" or carry on with faux outrage

Alan has picked number 2 which is quite apt since he is a jobby

 

I'd say Alan is more balanced than some of the Yes voting nutters on here........I guarantee if the tail docking wasn't an SNP supporting policy the above would be applicable to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tail-docking at 5 days old, against the wishes of animal welfare groups. Sounds like a great progressive move....

Bizarre for the SNP to raise this bill, when it was them who brought in the ban on tail-docking in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

First the outrage

Then you look into what it's all about

Then you either pick "Dont really know enough about it" or carry on with faux outrage

Alan has picked number 2 which is quite apt since he is a jobby

 

This post actually gets funnier with every read :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'd say Alan is more balanced than some of the Yes voting nutters on here........I guarantee if the tail docking wasn't an SNP supporting policy the above would be applicable to you.

Two statements

Both opinions based on knowing neither of the individuals concerned

Both completely shite

Bravo :lol:

Edited by Ally Bongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah had a look, as Biffer said there is no scientific evidence or Vet based momentum for this, so where did it come from?

in fact it's the opposite.

By any calculation, still far more animals need to be docked than are injured. So, even based on a pragmatic, utilitarian argument, it is still questionable whether this is acceptable. Surely it is better just to treat those injured, as then the total sum of overall harms would be far less than that caused by docking all puppies in a litter as a preventive measure.

and the various animal welfare associations

the BVA and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association opposed the proposed exemption from the ban, arguing that puppies suffer unnecessary pain as a result of docking and are denied a vital form of expression.

 

So the question to ask is this. Who carried this forward and why? There is no need for a change in legislation, so why have a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also looking at the voting

Tory and SNP voted for

Green and Lab voted against

 

Lib dems backed both sides

and some SNP abstained.I think one rebelled.

Also the reasoning seems to be

Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said: "We firmly believe that shortening the tails of puppies that are at risk of tail injury while engaged in lawful shooting activities in later life will improve the welfare of those dogs."

The Scottish Gamekeepers Association welcomed the move. Chairman Alex Hogg said: "The ban on tail docking in 2007 was made with good intentions but failed to account for working dogs, whose jobs are very specific. The welfare of these animals was compromised by the legislation and Scottish government deserve immense credit for taking a progressive, evidence-based step to rectify that today."

However the Dogs Trust and animal charities expressed disappointment. 

Except the only people saying that are gamekeepers. I'd really like to see what's happening behind the scenes here.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aaid said:

Anyone actually think the OP has any interest whatsoever in animal welfare. 

Squirrelhumper and presumably Parklife but i dont read his shite

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

Anyone actually think the OP has any interest whatsoever in animal welfare. 

I don't think he gives a feck. Doesn't make what he's saying any less valid. 

The vets and animal welfare groups who oppose this care about animal welfare. So maybe it'd be better to focus on their views, rather than Alan's. 

5 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Squirrelhumper and presumably Parklife but i dont read his shite

:(:lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is this from 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26900170

And there is this which gives pros and cons

https://sites.google.com/site/thepatterdaleterrier/health/tail-docking/the-pros-and-cons-of-tail-docking

As i said i do not know enough about it and do not need a dog to help with my work

Stopping dogs from working would appear to answer the dilemma but is that realistic ?

Dog breeds today are what they are because of human intervention (same with Cows too)

Why not breed one that doesnt have a tail ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

Anyone actually think the OP has any interest whatsoever in animal welfare. 

Who cares what they think. I'm discussing the Bill.

and I think i've got a possible source of momentum.

This Alex Hogg (who writes for the shooting times as well) appears to be the pleb that is sent out to brash the trees (take off all the lower branches so folk can move to shoot better). and basically prepare the terrain so folk can come in a shoot stuff.

Here's him reminiscing at how the "Boss" treats them so well now

Everybody enjoys lunch in our bothy as the boss has kindly supplied us with a large wood burning stove and two patio heaters which were designed for a pub and can fairly blast out the heat. Changed days from the seventies when twenty soaking wet beaters would be huddled round an old calor gas heater which only had one bar working and there was a snow drift blowing under the gap in the old door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ally Bongo said:

There is this from 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26900170

And there is this which gives pros and cons

https://sites.google.com/site/thepatterdaleterrier/health/tail-docking/the-pros-and-cons-of-tail-docking

As i said i do not know enough about it and do not need a dog to help with my work

Stopping dogs from working would appear to answer the dilemma but is that realistic ?

Dog breeds today are what they are because of human intervention (same with Cows too)

Why not breed one that doesnt have a tail ?

Dude how many times have you been told to check your sources, and yet all you do is google till you see something that you think agrees with you (see quoting right wing nutjobs cause on one thing they said the same thing)

That site you linked is

"Hello from us and a woof from the dogs!
Welcome to the online home of Taylor Made Patterdale Terriers.

We are a Patterdale Terrier breeder and an information kiosk based in Devon and Surrey, in the United Kingdom."

it's this dude Zak%20%28109%29.jpg?height=150&width=200 and his wife who like patterdale terriers and sometimes breed them.

You really need to take a step back, you're a total fanatic now.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The points of contention are unnecessary pain and loss of expression. All led by some forelock tugger who somehow got it passed in parliament despite the lack of scientific evidence or the support of Vets and charity groups. Pretty good politicking.

Every good propagandist knows you leave animals alone, humans can get really weird about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, phart said:

Dude how many times have you been told to check your sources, and yet all you do is google till you see something that you think agrees with you (see quoting right wing nutjobs cause on one thing they said the same thing)

That site you linked is

"Hello from us and a woof from the dogs!
Welcome to the online home of Taylor Made Patterdale Terriers.

We are a Patterdale Terrier breeder and an information kiosk based in Devon and Surrey, in the United Kingdom."

it's this dude Zak%20%28109%29.jpg?height=150&width=200 and his wife who like patterdale terriers and sometimes breed them.

You really need to take a step back, you're a total fanatic now.
 

Och away yersel tae fvck

Thats me done

 

 

Edited by Ally Bongo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Alan bought this up, I'm down a rabbit hole of Gamekeepers stuff now, dawn raids by police searching for poisons as Raptors have been poisoned (i.e. birds of prey, so they don't take the rich landonwers pheasants/grouse/quail etc.

From the BBC Landward programme episode 11.

The segment opened with Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species at RSPB Scotland, who told the interviewer, “Bird of prey poisoning is particularly associated with driven grouse moors in the upland of Scotland, in the central and eastern highlands, parts of Perthshire and also down in the southern uplands”.

The interviewer, Dougie Vipond, asked: “So who is doing this? Who is killing the birds?”

Orr-Ewing: “Well, it is estate employees, gamekeepers who are usually involved, but they are only employees, they are acting under the direct instructions so ultimately it is the landowners that are responsible for this”.

 

So Gamekeepers sing landowners tunes, it's only the Gamekeepers asking for this,and they sing the tune of the landowners. So therefore we have a possible driver for this in Parliament, also other clue is the Tories voting for it too.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nuts, it's bedlam up north.

Scottish ministers’ attempts to defeat wildlife crime are unravelling thanks to gamekeepers boycotting government meetings, and the abandonment of prosecutions over the apparent killing of birds of prey, according to wildlife campaigners.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) has pulled out of meetings of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime in Scotland (PAWS) because it doesn’t trust wildlife campaigners.

We can also disclose that the Crown Office has decided not to begin proceedings on a case involving three allegedly poisoned buzzards on a Perthshire estate. This is the fourth case of alleged raptor persecution to be dropped in the last month. Between 2010-2015, 73 birds of prey were killed by poison alone in Scotland. In other cases, peregrines, hen harriers, buzzards, red kites and tawny owls have been shot since April 2014...

...The row comes against a background of rising concern about repeated failures to prosecute bird of prey cases. The Crown Office has recently dropped three cases. Now the Crown Office has rejected a police plea for prosecution after three allegedly poisoned buzzards were found at Edradynate estate near Aberfeldy in Perthshire.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15299366.Rural_Scotland_at_war_over_illegal_killings_of_birds_of_prey/#comments-anchor

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 You instantly know its a wrong ein when the Tories and the Fibs vote for it.

I don't know enough about it, or animal welfare in general, but going from the basics and evidence from vets, it seems a horrible law, and just why the SNP brought this in seems very strange.

Winning back the tartan Tories? If so, nae thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Irony of Alan bringing this up is it seems the Tories are even more bawdeep in it than the SNP. So for every lash he give the SNP his own back takes 2.

 

Go to love the hate that drives the i'll take 2 lashes to see you take 1 mentality. No sorry got to pity it not love it, my bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (and my instinct is to say that surely treating a small number of injured dogs is better than making a lot more suffer unnecessarily), it is a political faux pas.  The SNP government should not have touched this with a bargepole.  Who is the idiot that put this on the agenda?  Whoever it is, they should be sacked.  If dogs are getting injured doing something, surely the sensible answer is to stop people making them do that something?  Utterly stupid decision to bring this forward.  Can the decision be reversed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...