- This topic has 269 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by DrJ.
-
Animals soon to be classed as 'not sentient' in Britain.
-
GrahamSFull Member
crosshair: you can’t really compare killing an animal by accident to deliberately hunting one with a pack of hounds.
It’s pretty obvious why people are not required by law to dispatch an animal they hit with a car: Imagine a car stopped on a busy A road whilst an elderly pensioner wrestles to put an injured stag out of its misery using a rolled up Reader’s Digest and a bag of Murray Mints. 😆
crosshairFree MemberJust to qualify Graham- what you are emotively describing is not what I endorse. Protracted hunting for entertainment has had its day. That said- watching hounds figure out the line of a fox is fascinating and there’s no reason people shouldn’t go and watch- providing that their amusement isn’t the raison d’être.
I think it’s one of the most misleading myth’s that the kill is anything other than a sideshow to a day’s hunting anyway. I know plenty of people who’ve hunted for years and never seen one. Getting access to cool jumps on private land is the main one for most horsey types and watching the hounds draw the coverts the appeal for most of the foot followers.
However, what I think a constructive repeal should allow and what I disagree falls under the cultural heritage loophole is the use of hounds in highly targeted pest control.
crosshairFree MemberSo fox welfare is important when it suits??
If the same pensioner hit a dog they would be guilty of an offence for not reporting it (or a horse, or an ass and some other stuff if I remember rightly!)
Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition
Latest Singletrack VideosFresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...crosshairFree MemberHere’s one for you my friends 🙂
Are the prey of domestic cats classed as sentient beings??
crosshairFree MemberI guess you’re going to have to decide whether Felix’s feline right to exhibit natural behaviour trumps that of a wild animal to get a quick and humane death 😆
Alpha1653Full MemberAnother genuine question here for you Crosshair (unlike Ninfan seems to suggest, this isn’t point scoring or anything like that, I’m genuinely interested): you mention the legal requirement to ensure an animal solely in a human’s car is dispatched if hit by a car, whilst this doesn’t apply to wild animals, and that this proves people care more about domesticated animals than wild. Firstly, I didn’t know there was a distinction (every day’s a school day and all that); but secondly, the law seems to suggest that it only applies to dogs, goats, horses, cattle, donkeys, sheep and pigs but no other domesticated animals i.e. no requirement to report hitting a cat. (And besides, the legal obligation is to report, not dispatch). Doesn’t that suggest that the distinction is there for animals that have some monetary value to the owner as opposed to emotional value?
(Incidentally, this is a real tangent away from the OP’s post so apologies!)
crosshairFree MemberSorry, I didn’t mean that you have to dispatch a domestic animal you hit but you do have to take responsibility for it. Whereas you are free to mow down wildlife with impunity 😆
I think Cats are exempt because if they weren’t, people would have to take better care of their actions (as in the moral dilemma I posed for you guys above) 🙂
Alpha1653Full MemberHere’s one for you my friends
Are the prey of domestic cats classed as sentient beings??
Hmmm…a curve ball! The obvious answer is that yes, of course the prey of a domestic cat is a sentient being (unless the cat is thick as mince and likes chasing rocks). But before you do what I think you’re about to do and draw the comparison between a cat exhibiting its natural behaviour of hunting, and a dog exhibiting its natural behaviour by chasing a fox, remember that we don’t deliberately keep cats to watch them decimate the local song bird population.
crosshairFree MemberNo, that’s not where I was going. More along the lines of- if you come down 8hrs after you last saw your cat and find a blackbird with one leg and half a wing hopping around your kitchen- are you responsible for it??
Alpha1653Full MemberWhereas you are free to mow down wildlife with impunity
Not that I want to ‘mow down wildlife with impunity’, but isn’t the distinction that someone owns a domesticated animal and has a financial interest in it the reason why it has to be reported? By definition, you can’t own wildlife.
crosshairFree Memberremember that we don’t deliberately keep cats to watch them decimate the local song bird population.
But now you mention it, is ‘keeping the mice population down’ a legitimate reason for ownership of a Cat ?
crosshairFree MemberNot that I want to ‘mow down wildlife with impunity’, but isn’t the distinction that someone owns a domesticated animal and has a financial interest in it the reason why it has to be reported? By definition, you can’t own wildlife.
Yes, absolutely. Welfare of the animal isn’t the primary driver but if the owner of the animal subsequently took it home and let it die in the garden/field in prolonged agony- they would be liable for prosecution under AWA2006. However, nobody has to take the same responsibility for a wild animal with the same injuries inflicted upon it in the same manner.
Surely that’s an omission if we think foxes etc are sentient? Somebody should take responsibility for these 100,000 very questionable deaths each year. Yet I don’t see many balaclava clad warriors down the side of the M4 after the night freight has done its damage!
Alpha1653Full MemberAm I responsible for the cat? Yes. The actions of the cat? Yes. The sorry state of the bird? Yes. For making a decision regarding the most humane course of action to deal with the bird (humane despatch / vets etc)? Yes.
As for keeping the mice population down, I’m pretty sure that’s not the main reason why people keep cats so it’s a moot point. In fact, God knows why people keep cats…
On that note, as fun as this is, I have a work deadline approaching so TTFN.
crosshairFree MemberAm I responsible for the cat? Yes. The actions of the cat? Yes. The sorry state of the bird? Yes. For making a decision regarding the most humane course of action to deal with the bird (humane despatch / vets etc)? Yes.
So at what point does your right to choose to unleash your Cat into the environment- given its known history as a bird slayer/maimer differ from that of a huntsman choosing to cast off his hounds?
Provided the huntsman is right with his hounds when they kill to ensure a quick clean death, how is this any more irresponsible or less compatible with the rights of wildlife as sentient beings than the cat owners actions- given that the average cat owner has no idea what their beloved pet is up to and what pain and suffering it is inflicting when they hear the cat flap rattle??
KlunkFree MemberProvided the huntsman is right with his hounds when they kill to ensure a quick clean death, how is this any more irresponsible or less compatible with the rights of wildlife as sentient beings than the cat owners actions- given that the average cat owner has no idea what their beloved pet is up to and what pain and suffering it is inflicting when they hear the cat flap rattle??
you might have a point if the owner was following the cat round the garden giving it encouragement and cheering every kill then smearing the birds blood on the faces of their children. 🙄
crosshairFree Memberyou might have a point if the owner was following the cat round the garden giving it encouragement and cheering every kill then smearing the birds blood on the faces of their children.
Ah so it’s not actually a cruelty issue with you personally then- just a cultural prejudice??
Cruelty by cat owners is acceptable because it’s done in passive ignorance??
KlunkFree MemberAh so it’s not actually a cruelty issue with you personally then- just a cultural prejudice??
Nope the difference is the cat owner is not making a sport out of it. The cat owner is not taking enjoyment in the misery and suffering of the bird.
Alpha1653Full MemberSo you’re trying to equate a huntsman who breeds hounds with the express intent of hunting foxes, who encourages them to pick up a scent of a fox and chase it, and who encourages the hounds to kill said fox with someone who owns a cat primarily, I’m guessing, for reasons other than catching birds/mice etc? There is quite a clear distinction between the two so I don’t really see your point.
(Second time lucky, I’m retiring from this debate as I have work to do and I really must resist the urge to see what the reply is!)
crosshairFree MemberNope the difference is the cat owner is not making a sport out of it. The cat owner is not taking enjoyment in the misery and suffering of the bird.
And nor do hunters. Hence my distinction between fox hunting and baiting.
Do you not see the hypocrisy here? The Cat owner is ACCEPTING misery and suffering of wildlife whereas an ethical hunter goes out of their way to avoid it.
The sport in fox hunting disappeared long ago but it’s credentials as an essential tool for pest control still remain (hence the legal exemption for hunting with two hounds).
crosshairFree MemberSo you’re trying to equate a huntsman who breeds hounds with the express intent of hunting foxes, who encourages them to pick up a scent of a fox and chase it, and who encourages the hounds to kill said fox with someone who owns a cat primarily, I’m guessing, for reasons other than catching birds/mice etc? There is quite a clear distinction between the two so I don’t really see your point.
There isn’t a distinction for anyone pursuing the moral argument in my opinion. Both are deliberately risking the death of a sentient being. The difference is, one is doing so responsibly with due regard for the speed and efficiency of the kill and one is doing so in at best, naive ignorance and at worse wilful disregard for the situation that is likely to unfold.
JunkyardFree Memberthat is the worst justification i have read in a while
One has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
I wish you the best of luck convincing folk….you are going to need it
crosshairFree MemberSo 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Yet 10-12,000 foxes are an ethically repugnant crime against sentience??
Stripping back the cultural prejudices, please tell me why one is morally acceptable in relation to the non-essential death/suffering of a sentient being and one not??
Are you saying if I kept a fox hound and let it out at night unattended you wouldn’t care if it killed a fox or not??
epicycloFull Membercrosshair – Member
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?…Full marks for brilliant whataboutery.
I’m impressed by your concern for animal welfare, I presume you’re a vegan.
crosshairFree MemberIt’s not whataboutery though. It’s moral equivalence. And that’s crucial in a discussion about how we treat wildlife in the context of law.
Apparently the hateful Tories were hoping to drop sentience from the animal welfare discussion to enable their sick hunting fetishes but actually, they were just mindful that 8 million cat owners are in fact evil criminals if we follow the appliance of the sentience argument to its logical end point 😆
sbobFree MemberOne has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
Which are still nothing to do with the meaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
💡outofbreathFree Membermeaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
Agree:
“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
If we leave we won’t be formulating EU policies so we don’t need a law to tell us how to do so, which presumably is why the mainstream media didn’t bother with the (non-)story.
I’d be very interested in what the case for leaving it in was? Or were they arguing for leaving it in but heavily amending it?
kerleyFree Memberthat is the worst justification i have read in a while
They are all pretty bad because there is no justification. You can justify why you need to control a population but you can’t justify the method.
Tom_W1987Free MemberCrosshair is right, cat owners are collectively guilty of wanton ecological genocide. Cats kill wildlife like Nazis kill Jews. The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn’t cat owners be?
We can clearly see that they are evil, as evidenced by the following picture.
Thus it stands to reason that the only solution to the cat question is
outofbreathFree MemberThey are all pretty bad because there is no justification.
Article 13 specifically states the justification:
respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage
So yeah, we might think blood sports are bad, but if countries have hunting/sport fishing/falconry/bull fighting as part of their legislative /administrative provisions or customs or religious rites or cultural traditions or regional heritage then it’s justified according to Article 13.
crosshairFree MemberSo relating all this back to the original article in the OP, it seems a total non-issue.
We have learned-
Article 13 already allowed all the things people are claiming the Tories are seeking to bring in with the pesky word ‘sentience’ out of the way.
By definition, Article 13 can’t apply if we’re not in the EU.
The RSPCA were being disingenuous with their descriptions of the impact Article 13 has had on forming animal welfare policy in Europe.
If you run over a mans ass you must report it.
Cat owners are worse than fox hunters.
/thread 🙂
Three_FishFree MemberSo 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Funny how so many people deny it. The distinction of the moral argument lies in the acceptance: the fox ‘hunter’ is actively seeking the death of the animal; the cat owner accepts that the animal they home will kill an undetermined number of other animals. I’m not particularly interested in which is ‘worse’ – one could really argue either way with some substance.
The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn’t cat owners be?
Well, yes, in a sense. The collective guilt (some prefer to call it responsibility) has remained strong in German socio-politics and informs many attitudes and decisions. As Edmund Burke said so long ago:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
GrahamSFull MemberRead back a bit in the thread if you haven’t already oob, we’ve been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the “get out clause”.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/how-brexit-could-strip-your-pets-their-rights
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/animals-should-never-be-treated-as-our-equals-f5gbrsvdl
MPs vote that ‘animals can’t feel pain or emotion’ as part of Brexit bill
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/mps-voted-animals-cannot-feel-pain-emotions-brexit-debate/
Richard Dawkins schools the government for voting that ‘animals can’t feel pain or emotion’
Full debate is here:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15a.475.0Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it’s okay, it’s covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Which is blatantly untrue as that act doesn’t mention sentience and only covers domesticated animals.
Again, Article 13 doesn’t allow or disallow anything. It is a guiding principle in a treaty. It exists to be discussed and debated while defining laws and policies.
Practically none of the EU legislation applies once we’re not in the EU – the whole point of the “copy-paste bill” is to replicate it into UK domestic legislation, amending the wording as required.
As were Farming UK, British Vets Assoc, Compassion in World Farming, the Green Party and Michael Gove?
And not forgetting that pesky “80% of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU” stat.
Malvern RiderFree MemberGraham S:
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it’s okay, it’s covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
There was more from Raab, and it sadly concluded the (very brief) debate. His stated contention was that the clause* would risk ‘legal confusion’.
To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty
*As I’m not sure if or not Lucas’ proposed Clause 30 embodied the whole of article 13 (including the regard for tradition and religion) or simply the regard for sentience – I’m now actually on the fence without that knowledge. It was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
The vote split (sorted by party): 😯
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-11-15&number=40&showall=yes#voters
A big PS – f anyone takes the time to read that whole session especially the bulk regarding (sic) envisioned (sic) policy on the environment on exit – 😐
GrahamSFull MemberIt was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
Yep, we’ve literally discussed it in more depth here than they did in the parliamentary debate.
Which is a bit crap really, but that’s the crux of the issue: they have a metric crapload of legislation to copy-paste and very little time to debate it properly.
Malvern RiderFree Member^ agreed, if by ‘very little time’ you actually mean ‘darkly comic, farcically f***all’ time’.
The future is so bright I have to now wear blinkers. Having made the time to actually read the entire debate (at 5am this morning) – I’m now left with an overwhelming, increasing fondness for the late, great Terry Pratchett and his ‘Disc World’ series.
outofbreathFree MemberRead back a bit in the thread if you haven’t already oob, we’ve been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the “get out clause”.
Whoops, missed all that. Wasted my time. 🙁
Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
We never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Plus, as you say:
Article 13 doesn’t allow or disallow anything.
GrahamSFull MemberWe never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Indeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy.
So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
outofbreathFree MemberIndeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy. So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
Great, so we’re agreed article 17 isn’t appropriate for that because it doesn’t apply when making UK law.
The topic ‘Animals soon to be classed as 'not sentient' in Britain.’ is closed to new replies.