Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Giant Fox caught in Kent
Options
Comments
-
Parents notice fox in garden night one. Parents hear commotion in garden , see fox running out of garden night two. They wake in the moring to find said cat spread all over their garden.
They call their son who happens to be a vet and he comes to his parents house with a rifle, traps and kills the fox in a legal and humane mannor. Just because an animal died doesn't mean he violated his oath. At no point does the oath cover ''animals you hunt'', and at no point does the oath LEAGALLY cover animals that you trap in the course of hunting - a perfectly legal pasttime.
At no point have you given any proof of your viewpoint on his oath. You've stated that other vets agree with you. Well i can already show you one vet that doesn't without even canvassing and thats the professional who shot these two fox. You, instead of quoting legislation (a black and white leagal rule), repeat your own opinion on the matter (a self formed, legally irrelevant, viewpoint) based on you own moral interperatation of an oath you haven't taken.
If this Vet worked in an abbatoir and was involved of the dispatching of animals for the food chain would you have an issue with it DiscoDog?0 -
Personally wouldn't go near a vet who kills for fun in his spare time.everypenny wrote: »If this Vet worked in an abbatoir and was involved of the dispatching of animals for the food chain would you have an issue with it DiscoDog?
Vegeta; you didn't state your position. What do you think? Actually to all of the hunters. If you came across an abnormally large animal (as in twice the size) would you do the same as the vet? Taking his legal rights to kill it out of it, do you think he was right to do it?0 -
Personally wouldn't go near a vet who kills for fun in his spare time.
Vegeta; you didn't state your position. What do you think? Actually to all of the hunters. If you came across an abnormally large animal (as in twice the size) would you do the same as the vet? Taking his legal rights to kill it out of it, do you think he was right to do it?
Firstly the animal was neither abnormally large nor was it twice the size of an average fox. He was larger then average but not uncommon and already it has been found that fox have been captured and killed that were larger tehn the fox in this point.
In relation to wether he was right or not I believe it to be a moral and therefore a legally moot point. He was within his rights as a citizen to do so as he obeyed all laws in relation to the humane treatment of the animal before he quickly and legally killed it.
Therefore i as a hunter think he was right and within his rights to do so. IMHO of course.
For the entertainment of some i will refer again to fishing. If i had caught a large, or what i believed to be record breaking salmon, tuna, trout or whatever, then i would have no problem with didplaying my catch or even having it mounted.
So the question i have is:
If this (the fish) had been the case in question instead of a fox would you have any issue with it?0 -
Personally wouldn't go near a vet who kills for fun in his spare time.
Vegeta; you didn't state your position. What do you think? Actually to all of the hunters. If you came across an abnormally large animal (as in twice the size) would you do the same as the vet? Taking his legal rights to kill it out of it, do you think he was right to do it?
If I’m out fox shooting and I come across a fox and it presents me with a safe shot I’ll shoot it regardless of its size or other individual characteristics. Why? Because I’m fox shooting. The individual characteristics of a particular fox is of no importance to me and will not determine if I will shoot it or not. The only consideration I would have as to whither I will shoot fox or not would be the over all numbers of fox as a species. If, for some reason, fox numbers began to seriously decline then I would refrain from hunting them so as to protect and preserve them as a species. One individual within any species is irrelevant as long as the species as a whole is thriving and to my knowledge, the fox, as a species in this country is doing quite well despite individual foxes having been hunted and killed for generations.
Now before you tell me shooting individual foxes is cruel and that hunting for fun is cruel, consider mister fox himself;
A fox will hunt and kill and enjoy it. Quite cruel you might say. But what is it exactly that he enjoys? I doubt a fox has the mental capacity to comprehend the act of killing and the idea of death so you cannot say that he enjoys killing itself. Instead, the enjoyment comes from fulfilling his nature. It is part of a foxes design and nature to be a hunter.
Now consider me;
I will hunt and kill, and enjoy it. Quite cruel you might say. But what is it exactly that I enjoy. Yes I have the mental capacity to comprehend the act of killing and the idea of death but do I enjoy the act of killing itself? I can tell you I do not. Do I disdain the act of killing? Obviously not or I would not be able to hunt. It is simply the natural end to a successful hunt. Instead, my enjoyment comes from fulfilling my nature. It is part of my design and nature to be a hunter. It is part of Mans design and nature to be a hunter. Regardless of whither you can except that fact or not it is a fact. Some people have chosen to ignore that part of their nature and I have no problem with that. In fact that is one of the benefits of being human, we have choice. I choose to embrace my nature and will not apologise to anyone for it.
The simple fact is that both Mister Fox, and Mister Man are part of the same harsh reality of the Natural World. Just because you choose to ignore it or view it with rose tinted glass does not mean it doesn’t exist.
I can respect the fox and at the same time I can shoot the fox. So for me, there is no difference or contradiction with how that vet can care for the animals he treats and kill the fox he catches.0 -
Well you said any animal we trap is in our care. I am asking you to show where caring for a trapped animal is a requirement of us, which must be in legislation or else you are just making it up. Or where is it in a Vets Oath does it state that custody and care are the same thing.
Why don't you check yourself but my guess is that, in forming an oath, no one would ever imagine that a Vet would hunt because it would be totally opposed to his profession. Your attitude is that if the Oath doesn't mention it & you can debate the meaning of basic English then anything is allowed.Where did the Vet state the animal was in his care? What course of treatment had he prescribed for the fox?
It doesn't have to be on a course of treatment. He didn't state it because he shot it - he clearly didn't care about the fox yet he is supposed to care about the welfare of animals.I am challenging you on your statements about the Vets Oath and your fabrication of what it says AND your hypocrisy of same, stating it's ok for a Vet to fish but not shoot a fox.
I see you're back peddling on the fish statement already.
Clearly the fox was never in the Vet's care. Custody yes but custody does not imply the vet was caring for the fox.
The only one here who is fabricating or dreaming is you. You are free to interpret the role of a Vet in any way you like. Most people here use Vets & they do not need convincing.0 -
Advertisement
-
everypenny wrote: »Parents notice fox in garden night one. Parents hear commotion in garden , see fox running out of garden night two. They wake in the moring to find said cat spread all over their garden.
They call their son who happens to be a vet and he comes to his parents house with a rifle, traps and kills the fox in a legal and humane mannor. Just because an animal died doesn't mean he violated his oath. At no point does the oath cover ''animals you hunt'', and at no point does the oath LEAGALLY cover animals that you trap in the course of hunting - a perfectly legal pasttime.
At no point have you given any proof of your viewpoint on his oath. You've stated that other vets agree with you. Well i can already show you one vet that doesn't without even canvassing and thats the professional who shot these two fox. You, instead of quoting legislation (a black and white leagal rule), repeat your own opinion on the matter (a self formed, legally irrelevant, viewpoint) based on you own moral interperatation of an oath you haven't taken.
If this Vet worked in an abbatoir and was involved of the dispatching of animals for the food chain would you have an issue with it DiscoDog?
So Vet kills an animal with no proof that it even attacked the cat. I am amazed at how the hunters are now experts in Veterinary ethics. One of the frustrating things is that people do not read before they post so for the last time: The Vet Oath is not covered by legislation.
Again if you read you will see that I have no problem with animals being killed where it is necessary.0 -
... but my guess is that, in forming an oath, no one would ever imagine that a Vet would hunt because it would be totally opposed to his profession.
Your "Guess". Again opinion but no factual evidence to support it. So you're interpretation of an oath is ok but mine is wrong??? Nice!You are free to interpret the role of a Vet in any way you like. Most people here use Vets & they do not need convincing.
I stand corrected here though. I am free to interpret the oath as i like. But you seem to think that the vet in question cant. But i'm sure that the professional who studied for years before taking care of animals in his care for years doesn't know as much about Vetinary Care or the oath one takes as people who use vets. That is like saying that a hypochondriac is as knowledgeble of medicine and the hupocratic oath as his doctor.0 -
But what is it exactly that he enjoys?
Keeping himself alive. He doesn't do for enjoyment, he does it to survive. He has no other option.but do I enjoy the act of killing itself? I can tell you I do not.
Then don't do it. You have a choice, the fox doesn't.my enjoyment comes from fulfilling my nature.
To kill things. It may be your nature but thank God it isn't the nature of everyone.0 -
I know its not covered by legislation. Therefore he did nothing illegal. The basis of your opinion stems from your lay man understanding of the vets oath, and your moral views on hunting.So Vet kills an animal with no proof that it even attacked the cat. I am amazed at how the hunters are now experts in Veterinary ethics. One of the frustrating things is that people do not read before they post so for the last time: The Vet Oath is not covered by legislation.
Again if you read you will see that I have no problem with animals being killed where it is necessary.
I believe that you're giving this vet an awful diong based on your own personal beliefs. He has done nothing legally wrong, has in his opinion upheld the oath he took, and killed an animal he believed to have killed his cat.
I've read here from other posters in different threads on a + p that they'd advocate killing kids who killed a puppy. I love animals and would have probably stated that myself in the heat of the moment. But there doesn't seem to be any great discussion on this. You seem hung up on the fact that a vet, in the UK, committed something legal, on private land to an animal that he had evidence was involved in the killing and tearing apart of his pet cat.
I think its too high a standard to place. You seem to think that vets can't kill any animal. What if he had killed a rat with a rat trap. Would there be an issue then????0 -
Just a quick point, this happened in the UK, the law keeps getting quoted, but are people discussing UK or Irish law? I don't know what the UK law is in this case, but it just struck me that people are probably discussing this from an Irish point of view, rather than a UK one.0
-
Advertisement
-
Just a quick point, this happened in the UK, the law keeps getting quoted, but are people discussing UK or Irish law? I don't know what the UK law is in this case, but it just struck me that people are probably discussing this from an Irish point of view, rather than a UK one.
UK law allows for the shooting of foxes as they are not a protected species.0 -
Thanks to the hunters for their replies.Now before you tell me shooting individual foxes is cruel and that hunting for fun is cruel, .......
I choose to embrace my nature and will not apologise to anyone for it.
....... Just because you choose to ignore it or view it with rose tinted glass does not mean it doesn’t exist.
MACT1RE you are reading stuff into my post which is not there, I did not ask you to be apologetic, I did not tell you shooting foxes was cruel, and you have no idea what way I view anything, with rose tinted glasses or not. Please don't take offense to something you preceived me to have said. I have my views on hunting, but in no way insulted hunters, asked for an apology or gave any indication of viewing things with rose tinted glasses. I found a few points in your post a bit condescending, just as pet owners don't have the monopoly on loving animals, hunters don't have the monopoly on theharsh reality of the Natural World
Everypenny - if the fox was not particularly large, why the interest. I have read reports of one man shooting one fox which was a bit larger, sometime last year, but with nothing to back it up. Has something else come to light?
Do the hunters understand the distaste people might feel at the idea of a person, who you trust with your pets, taking joy in killing? I think my issue is, that I would like my vet to consider death as a last resort (in the case of illness). If he was comfortable with killing to the point of killing a healthy animal for no good reason, I would find it very difficult to trust him.
Vegeta, you keep mentioning the legalities of it, but I don't think a lot of people are judging it on legal grounds. Why do you think there has been such interest? Do you reckon it's because he's a vet who shoots, a vet who trophies dead animal, or because he was a man who killed an unusual fox?
Also if I can ask, when talking about shooting foxes, do you all mean out shooting, or trapping and shooting? Do you think there is a difference?
With regards to fishing, I have the same views on that as I do on hunting. That is mixed views, depending on how it is done and for what reasons.0 -
everypenny, the vast majority of people do not think that way and prefer to distance themselves from statements like that. As I said to homerhop, it's the problem of the noisy few making statements, then someone from another "group" taking that as a representative of how the whole group thinks.everypenny wrote: »I've read here from other posters in different threads on a + p that they'd advocate killing kids who killed a puppy.
(I did not read that particular post btw, which thread is it in? has it been reported?)0 -
The Law does not come into it because the actions of this Vet are governed by the RCVS.0
-
(I did not read that particular post btw, which thread is it in? has it been reported?)
You didn't read it because it was removed by the Mods. However someone decided to copy it to the Hunting forum - to show "what kind of people post there including discodog". However the poster "forgot" to mention that the post had been removed & the poster censured. Sadly the Hunting Mods didn't bother to check if such an offensive post
Maybe we need to go through all the hunting threads & pull out some segments. But we wouldn't do that because it would be childish.
The Hunting forum has some new rules & we are no longer welcome. I hope that we will continue to welcome all opinion here.
"There are also some rules specific to this forum:
1. This is a hunting forum so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts;
you are going to be offended. If you must post, please remember the first rule of the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another.
2. Posting in Hunting to troll users in Animal Welfare or Animal&Pet Issues is not acceptable; nor are regular posters from Hunting who troll in those forums.
In both cases, infractions and/or bans may be given by mods in both forums even if the user only posted in one forum.
Apologies Mods. This post probably should of been in Feedback however I was replying to a specific question.0 -
everypenny, the vast majority of people do not think that way and prefer to distance themselves from statements like that. As I said to homerhop, it's the problem of the noisy few making statements, then someone from another "group" taking that as a representative of how the whole group thinks.
(I did not read that particular post btw, which thread is it in? has it been reported?)
Yes, it was reported and removed by your mods the day after it was posted.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056140953 (post 9) but is was removed due to the fact that it was deemed racist instead of advocating illegal activity.
I understand and agree that the vocal (violent????) minority steal the headlines. I also appreciate the fact that we can have an open debate with free flowing opinion on this subjectYou didn't read it because it was removed by the Mods. However someone decided to copy it to the Hunting forum - to show "what kind of people post there including discodog". However the poster "forgot" to mention that the post had been removed & the poster censured.
Maybe we need to go through all the hunting threads & pull out some segments. But we wouldn't do that because it would be childish.
The post was removed discodog because of the poster on the hunting forum reporting it. He wasn't knocking A+P OR its posters, just telling people to be wary of this paticular poster because of the statements he had made. This was an individual reference to the poster and not to every poster on A+P.
I am of the believe that you actually have a ''them or us'' opinion of posters on this forum. It sounds very antaganistic and an attempt at stiring. Especially to me as i have two dogs, have had dogs all my life, but also enjoy hunting. Does this mean that i can't post on YOUR thread or do you just view me as an outsider posting here? I didn't realise that A+P was your house, or that your opinions were law (legislation???)0 -
everypenny wrote: »Yes, it was reported and removed by your mods the day after it was posted.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056140953 (post 9) but is was removed due to the fact that it was deemed racist instead of advocating illegal activity.
I understand and agree that the vocal (violent????) minority steal the headlines. I also appreciate the fact that we can have an open debate with free flowing opinion on this subject
The post was removed discodog because of the poster on the hunting forum reporting it. He wasn't knocking A+P OR its posters, just telling people to be wary of this paticular poster because of the statements he had made. This was an individual reference to the poster and not to every poster on A+P.
I am of the believe that you actually have a ''them or us'' opinion of posters on this forum. It sounds very antaganistic and an attempt at stiring. Especially to me as i have two dogs, have had dogs all my life, but also enjoy hunting. Does this mean that i can't post on YOUR thread or do you just view me as an outsider posting here? I didn't realise that A+P was your house, or that your opinions were law (legislation???)
Read my last post.
The offending post was removed in A&P.
Now how about we respect Seamus & keep on topic. If any hunters want to discuss what happened in which thread we do have a feedback thread in this forum.0 -
good God0
-
The Hunting forum has some new rules & we are no longer welcome. I hope that we will continue to welcome all opinion here.
"There are also some rules specific to this forum:
1. This is a hunting forum so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts;
you are going to be offended. If you must post, please remember the first rule of the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another.
2. Posting in Hunting to troll users in Animal Welfare or Animal&Pet Issues is not acceptable; nor are regular posters from Hunting who troll in those forums.
In both cases, infractions and/or bans may be given by mods in both forums even if the user only posted in one forum.
The Hunting forum has some new rules & we are no longer welcome. I hope that we will continue to welcome all opinion here.
"There are also some rules specific to this forum:
1. This is a hunting forum so if you're anti-hunting, don't post and don't read any posts; you are going to be offended. If you must post, please remember the first rule of the shooting forums - Be Civil to one another.
2. Posting in Hunting to troll users in Animal Welfare or Animal&Pet Issues is not acceptable; nor are regular posters from Hunting who troll in those forums.
In both cases, infractions and/or bans may be given by mods in both forums even if the user only posted in one forum
Its amazing how one hit of an enter key can change the tone of a post really.
Very objective quoting of the new forum i think.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Keeping himself alive. He doesn't do for enjoyment, he does it to survive. He has no other option.
Incorrect. He does it because it is part of his natural instinct. Survival is the basis for him having a natural instinct but he doesn’t understand this. He can only act on his instinct regardless of whither he is in need of food at that particular moment or not. The same way my cat will hunt and kill mice and small birds even though his belly is full from the food I have provided for him.Then don't do it. You have a choice, the fox doesn't.
Correct, I do have a choice and I choose to embrace my natural instinct to hunt. Killing the prey animal is just the inevitable outcome of that. And that is as natural as what the fox does. Just because I have the capacity to comprehend my nature doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes wrong or that I should deny or be ashamed of it.To kill things. It may be your nature but thank God it isn't the nature of everyone.
Incorrect. Just like Mister Fox, it is in my nature to hunt, again killing the prey animal is just the inevitable outcome of that. It is also in your nature but until you go hunting you will not understand that either. If you decide not to do that I can respect that also.
I must say, you seem to have very little real understanding of the natural world which you profess to care so much about.0 -
Thanks to the hunters for their replies.
MACT1RE you are reading stuff into my post which is not there, I did not ask you to be apologetic, I did not tell you shooting foxes was cruel, and you have no idea what way I view anything, with rose tinted glasses or not. Please don't take offense to something you preceived me to have said. I have my views on hunting, but in no way insulted hunters, asked for an apology or gave any indication of viewing things with rose tinted glasses. I found a few points in your post a bit condescending, just as pet owners don't have the monopoly on loving animals, hunters don't have the monopoly on the "harsh reality of the Natural World "
My first paragraph was in direct reply to your post. The remaining paragraphs were a general reply to the thread0 -
What total, utter, and complete rubbish.
Well you are entitled to your perceptive biased view - do you ever shoot ?. I wonder how many pet owners would continue using a Vet if they knew that he hunted. There is a campaign being mounted against the Vet including a protest at his practice. Clearly people do not approve.0 -
One can tell that people don't approve from the open discussions that we've had here. But just because someone disagrees with the actions of someone else doesn't make those actions wrong.Well you are entitled to your perceptive biased view - do you ever shoot ?. I wonder how many pet owners would continue using a Vet if they knew that he hunted. There is a campaign being mounted against the Vet including a protest at his practice. Clearly people do not approve.
At the end of the day, the only true yardstick is law. He did not legally mistreat or hurt any animal. His breech of oath is only in your own opinion. The man who took the oath has a different opinion of that oath. You attempt to vilify him based on your opinion, as i'm sure a lot of people are.
This in my view is sentencing without trial. These protests are an over reaction and he has done nothing to deserve that.0 -
Incorrect. Just like Mister Fox, it is in my nature to hunt, again killing the prey animal is just the inevitable outcome of that. It is also in your nature but until you go hunting you will not understand that either. If you decide not to do that I can respect that also.
I must say, you seem to have very little real understanding of the natural world which you profess to care so much about.
Maybe I evolved & you didn't.0 -
I wonder how many pet owners would continue using a Vet if they knew that he hunted.
I, as a pet owner, would not even consider that when choosing my vet as one thing has nothing to do with the other.There is a campaign being mounted against the Vet including a protest at his practice. Clearly people do not approve.
That does not surprise me.:rolleyes:0 -
Maybe I evolved & you didn't.
In your higher eveolved state then us mere mortals Discodog, would you humble us with the answer to the question that i had asked before.
Would you, or any other poster infact, have an issue if he had killed a mouse or a rat with a trap?
Discodog, have you ever set a mouse trap or a rat trap in your life???0 -
Maybe I evolved & you didn't.
Again you show very little understanding of the natural world of which the Species of Man is a part. Man has not evolved much, genetically speaking, since the development of farming and agriculture, before which the only source of meat to be found was through the Hunt.0 -
Advertisement
-
everypenny wrote: »One can tell that people don't approve from the open discussions that we've had here.
Again you don't read. I have constantly posted & urged the Mods here not to block any opinion.
If the RCVS consider that the Vet has acted unethically or bought the profession into disrepute then they will judge him.
Whether any practice could risk employing him might be another matter. Vets are in a type of retail business. They depend on customers & would not want to alienate a percentage of their clientèle.0
Advertisement