Forum menu
Because in the context of the whole piece of legislation- it's totally undermined and completely irrelevant!
Or does it possibly interfere with what you do? You seem very worked up on what you see as a piece of irrelevant legislation.
Not at all! I just get fed up with unchallenged remoaning 😉
I'm under no doubt about the sentience of animals- we care for enough of them 😆
The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.
& well deserved it is too!
"Ah yes, we recognise animals are marvellous sentient beings, aren't we wonderful human beings! Pardon? You want to stick a sword in one and chase it to a bloody and protracted death? No problem my friend! We can cater for you too!"
Then surely [i]that[/i] is the part that shouldn't be replicated into UK law, not the part about sentience?
That part is redundant because we won't be making laws that challenge [i]"the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States"[/i].
Sounds inefficient to me. Just ditch it and make something fit for purpose as and when required in the future. In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples 🙂
In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples
The implication is that our existing law is amply adequate. As Caroline Lucas said:
..It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it.The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division."
Simples
Someone using Simples, and quoting breitbart in another thread...the irony.
It was the first link that illustrated my point- I'm not fussy 😆
Look, let's stick to arguing the topic hey? Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.
Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?
Blind 'EU GOOD- TORY BAD!' behaviour no?
If AWA 2006 needs amending in the future to address a specific situation where animals not being treated as sentient is causing welfare issues, then that's one thing.
To get hung up on a word that has no applicable significance given the rest of the wording of the law- just seems pointless??
Caroline Lucas-
The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. "
Is also wrong!
AWA is all inclusive.
The welfare of all farmed animals is protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. The Act also contains a duty of care to animals - anyone responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to make sure the animal’s welfare needs are met.The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set minimum standards for all farm animals. These regulations replaced the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 on 1st October 2007. The new regulations are made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and are very similar to the previous regulations.
Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.
A Breitbart reading Gamekeeper wanting to get rid of EU laws on animal welfare shocker.
I thought I'd just get to the point.
Just thinking out loud here, but setting aside the word 'sentient', the suggestion seems to be that we could do better than the EU legislation by, for example, getting rid of the bit about respecting religion or tradition - that's the bit people are referring to when talking about stabbing bulls with swords and chasing them to death I presume?
So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch it get ripped to death in the name of sport? I presume 'doing better' would mean that any future debate about lifting the ban would be dead in the water?
As an aside, didn't Boris describe the push to ban bull fighting in Spain as political correctness gone mad?
Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?
Two different things, as I understand it.
The EU wording is a [b]Principle[/b], designed to inform the development of other laws and policies (i.e. it is from Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Part 1 - Principles: Title II - Provisions having general application")
As a guiding principle, I think it is fine and I understand why it is worded as it is (as discussed previously).
The AWA 2006 is an act of law, and is obviously far more prescriptive and exacting, going as far as to state [i]"animal" means a vertebrate other than man... [not] while it is in its foetal or embryonic form.. “vertebrate” means any animal of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata and “invertebrate” means any animal not of that Sub-phylum.[/i]
To answer your question, I was happy with the AWA (which implements specific protection for some domesticated animals) with the knowledge that there was also a general principle that allowed us to challenge new legislation that could be deemed harmful to animals.
I don't read Brietbart thanks, I linked it to illustrate a point that was being ignored.
At no point have I argued against the need for robust and effective animal welfare legislation though? In fact I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.
I get great results at what I do precisely because I treat the animals in my care with respect for their sentience thanks. The fact my charges are free to wander off wherever they please is testiment to their needs being met- I wouldn't have any otherwise 😆
So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch get ripped to death in the name of sport?
Yes, that is a clear example of [i]"customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage"[/i] part that crosshair objects to and I'd agree with him on that, it shouldn't be allowed.
I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.
Again, it is a Principle in a Treaty, not a law.
Apart from the fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case.... so I definitely didn't say fox hunting shouldn't be repealed 😆
(And Gamekeepers are the traditional enemy of the fox hunting landowner so I don't say that lightly 😆 )
fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case.
Think you might want to look up what "fact" means rather that "sentience" .
I definitely didn't say fox hunting shouldn't be repealed
Eh????
But that is [i]exactly[/i] the kind of cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause that you were complaining about in the EU treaty!!
In fact, given that the UK Gov apparently proposed that Principle, it is probably a significant factor in why that wording was included in the first place!
It is also highly relevant to the discussion, because the AWA doesn't protect wild animals such as foxes.
Graham- No, I don't think it is. Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.
Bullfighting, baiting and fighting of other animals and some religious practices take an animal exclusively in your care and subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.
The fact you can legally hit a wild animal (including old foxy) with your car and not have to ensure it is speedily and humanely followed up and dispatched is proof that people don't really care about treating wildlife with the same stringent regard as animals solely in a humans care.
Any malpractice by hunts that questions the wildness of said fox or indeed the ability of it to escape capture to its full ability would then bring it in line with fighting and baiting in my mind.
But as pest control, finding a wild fox with a scent hound and killing it with overwhelming strength of numbers is absolutely ok.
Pest and predator control is always going to feature in our managed farmscape so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.
Ok, so the fox 'hunted ethically' dies quickly? But only after being chased in fear of its life and the point of desperation/exhaustion by a baying pack of hounds. Im afraid that sounds a lot like inflicting undue necessary suffering to me.
*editted to remove unhelpful sarcasm.
Hilarious, though after losing he argument on the facts (since not [u]all[/u] animals are sentient anyway) I suppose that switching back to good old class war and trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting (which, they may have forgotten, is widely practiced in several European countries despite their all conquering ‘sentience’ legislation) was inevitable
Just wait till they read what the ex-director of the League Against Cruel Sports has to say about the hunting ban 😀
Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.
Does it? I was under the impression that hunts went on for some time.
...subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.
A bit like chasing a wild [i]sentient[/i] animal with a pack of hounds until it is cornered or too exhausted to run, and then ripping it to pieces? For fun.
..so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.
That pesky Will of the People eh?
Apart from the fact it isn't suffering- provided it is free to escape to the best of its ability as I've already qualified.
A healthy fox on home territory with unstopped earths will make hounds look foolish every time.
And if it's earths are unstopped, it will soon be to ground where it can be dispatched anyway. (Humane terrier work is still legal don't forget).
That is highly specific and targeted pest control that far and away beats the alternative of shooting every fox you see until you get the 'problem' one.
I love how much people care about the 10-12,000 foxes killed by hunts pre ban compared to the 100,000 maimed and squashed by vehicles. Or does getting places in a hurry and getting stuff delivered from Amazon or making sure the supermarket shelves are stocked all fall under the cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause too 😉
Do give over ninfan.
There is no switching going on here.
Crosshair has argued for most of the day that the good work of the treaty was fundamentally undermined by [i]"the 'unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty' get out of jail card for the rest of Europe"[/i]
So him revealing that he is a supporter of fox hunting, which definitely falls under that same cultural or regional tradition clause, but notably isn't covered by the Animal Welfare Act, is highly relevant to the discussion.
...after losing he argument on the facts (since not all animals are sentient anyway)...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone being declared a winner or loser.
...switching back to good old class war...
No mention of class anywhere that I can see.
...trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting...
My mention of fox hunting was a genuine question as to how it would stack up against our apparent ability to create better legislation by removing the cultural/traditional/religious get out clause.
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. 😆
Just 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.
So 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!)
Here's one for you my friends 🙂
Are the prey of domestic cats classed as sentient beings??
I 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 😆
Another 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!)
Sorry, 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) 🙂
Here's one for you my friendsAre 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.
No, 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??
Whereas 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.
remember 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 ?
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.
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!
Am 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.
Am 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??
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??
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. 🙄
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.
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??
Ah 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.
So 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!)
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.
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).
So 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.