Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guten abend.

So, blood sports? What's your take on them, from bull fighting in Spain,.hare coursing in Ireland and stag hunting in England. Badger cull anyone?

If expressing belief through a glass window doesn't do it for you, then you are cordially invited to a talk on fox hunting at the Blue brick cafe, 7.30pm 8th December. It would be great to see pro-hunters there for a balanced discussion.

Hope you can all make it,

Tom

For more info or to chat about hunts drop me a line [email protected]

Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

It would be great to

> see pro-hunters there for a balanced discussion.

> Hope you can all make it,


Tom - if you do a search, you'll find there's a previous thread asking if there are any hunters in East Dulwich. There weren't. And not many of the pro-hunting persuasion either. So am not sure if you're likely to get a 'balanced discussion' going.


I know you are really passionate about animals and their welfare but I'd love to see you start a thread about something else too.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> It would be great to

> > see pro-hunters there for a balanced

> discussion.

> > Hope you can all make it,

>

> Tom - if you do a search, you'll find there's a

> previous thread asking if there are any hunters in

> East Dulwich. There weren't. And not many of the

> pro-hunting persuasion either. So am not sure if

> you're likely to get a 'balanced discussion'

> going.

>

> I know you are really passionate about animals and

> their welfare but I'd love to see you start a

> thread about something else too.



You are forgeting trollthehunter?

In the UK, how many foxes, badgers, deer, hares and other things with pretty faces are killed for sport a year? I have no idea. Ten? A thousand? 100,000?


And how many pigs, cows, sheep, fish and birds for the pot?


About a billion apparently.


In the parlance of the hunter, aren't the guns trained on the wrong target?

I'm not actively pro-hunting, but I'm very pro-freedom, and I've never been entirely persuaded by the anti arguments. Bear baiting (for example) is predicated on cruelty and exploitation, and is essentially, indefensible; fox hunting isn't.


So, Tom, what are your views on badger culling?


Badger cull

Fox hunting maybe illegal but it's virtually an unenforced law. Most hunts applied the rules until local police forces explained (again) that they did not have the time and resource to observe and prosecute.


I'm not pro but a huge amount of parliamentary time was wasted on a massive fudge.

Huntsmen/women often tell us about the good service they provide by getting rid of Dozens of foxes each year.


Benefiting farmers and pet owners....


But..


As soon as someone suggests they are slaughtering dozens of defenceless animals each year...


They reply, "We only take one or two foxes each year. Most foxes get away unarmed."


Funny that..


Fox.

More fozes are killed by cars than hunts - so yes DulwichFox your right, they can't use the 'its to protect my chickens' argument.


Sorry i shouldnt have added badger culling, it isnt a sport. I dont agree with it, because a) I dont think it will work b) its to protect cattle, and I dont believe in keeping cattle.


Im very suprised to see such an anti-hunt react from people, whats the difference between hunting and killing a fox and keeping a cow in a shed all its life and then cutting its throat?


Tom


ps. just for you katie i'll go and post about something else in the general section, keep your peepers open!

Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Im very suprised to see such an anti-hunt react

> from people, whats the difference between hunting

> and killing a fox and keeping a cow in a shed all

> its life and then cutting its throat?

>

> you really can't see any difference at all between foxes being hunted for fun and cows being killed for food?

>

my point is, you dont need to eat meat, you dont need to hunt foxes, however people still kill them for fun (whether thats sport or food).


how do you justify killing a cow, but not a stag? bit like the dog/pig argument, why not eat your dog?http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_veggie/ALL/2563//

Thomas Micklewright Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> my point is, you dont need to eat meat, you dont

> need to hunt foxes, however people still kill them

> for fun (whether thats sport or food).

>

> how do you justify killing a cow, but not a stag?

> bit like the dog/pig argument, why not eat your

> dog?http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_vegg

> ie/ALL/2563//


I have eaten my dog !


(in a weird way)


NETTE:-$

TM - "my point is, you dont need to eat meat, you dont need to hunt foxes,"


Well Tommy, you don't NEED a lot of stuff... y'know?


TM - "how do you justify killing a cow, but not a stag?"


I would kill and eat both - long hanging and slow cooking is the answer for an older stag.


TM - "why not eat your dog?"


My 'largely carnivorous' dog and I (assuming I had one) have the same viewpoint - we try only to eat vegetarians.


Still, chin up Tommy - no matter how naive you are there is always someone more cloud-bound than yourself...


*waves at Aq. Mn. who is attempting to tie pink ribbons onto a crack squirrel*

I tend to think that killing an animal in the field is a much better way to put food on the table than the meat section of Sainsbury's - certainly in terms of natural animal welfare - but it's not terribly practical for most of us. BUT, I don't think of shooting a stag, or pheasant, or even rabbit (vermin in my mind but tasty nevertheless) as a sport. And even if you do get enjoyment out of it, that's a long way from bull fighting which is entirely for the pleasure of killing. If they gave you a slice off the rump to take home afterwards I'd be a lot happier with the idea.


I would agree with maxxi about only eating vegetarians (dogs/people?) but if you've ever seen what a free range chicken will eat given the chance you'll realise the rules aren't quite as simple as you thought.

sounds kinda creepy nette.


thanks for all those that turned up for the meteing re. blood sports, very intersting to hear the fox hunting law has has little effect on stopping hunting, and we need to really push for a tighten on the loop holes Mr Blair left in the bill.


If you would like to find out more about hunters breaking the law have a look at:

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/

OK, so I'm going to have to ask this. Why waste so much time worrying about a few foxes when there are thousands of factory farmed chickens suffering a far worse existence?

I guess because fox hunting (which I personally think is disgusting) is perceived to be a rich man's sport and so it's easily press worthy.

Of course there are a few posh twits who love to race across the English countryside and revel in the final bloodbath but the number of foxes killed (maimed/suffering) are so small (relatively) that it seems a disproportionate amount of energy (and money) to spend on something when that same effort could do so much good elsewhere.

Why not picket the chicken and chip shops in Lordship lane? The cruelty that intensive factory farming of chickens causes is so much greater in a single week than the total amount of suffering of the national population of foxes in a year.



p.s. If anyone were to open a free-range chicken and chip shop, I'd go there every week.

I try to cover all issues peter. If every month I held a group meeting about factory farms no one would turn up. Variety is the spice of life ...

However I agree chicken shops are the biggest animal welfare issue in ED.and something I will persue after meat free days. The problem is, they are a chain and not a local independent shop and don't even return letters or calls. They give nothing back to ed, only take.

Any ideas how to go about encouraging them to improve animal welfare?

Tom

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...