Here's A Picture

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Surely portraying the RSPCA as a financial and political organisation, not all that interested in animal welfare, would have been very relevant to the hunting debate

 

 

Indeed it is, mate. Only two snags there; 1. We need to 'get out there' to do it ~ something I've never let past an oppertunity so to do. I've even had the rare 'privelige' of running smack into half a dozen would be Arsepca recruits who had fell into my local on the way back from their first enrollment / indoctrination session! I'm happy to report I - and my attendent Pit Bull (This, obviously being truly 'pre ban' - left a couple, at least, of them with extremely dark and soul searchingly brooding expressions and wringing hands

 

But, 2. As we leave the peer fed, comfy confines of places such as this, we have to then encounter, face up to and get past the simple fact that We are seen, by many, as 'Them' in the " Us and Them " game portrayed and nurtured by the very Arsepca and it's desciples we seek to counteract.

 

Present yeself to Joe Public as a " Hunter " there to tell them the truth about Arsepca / Peta and ye simply setting yeself up to come across as an axe grinding liar, out to convince them for ye own ends. Trying to batter Your enemy in order to better and freer be left to get on with the very activities They say they're out to prevent.

 

In short; Ye just make yeself look the mirror image of the Arsepca / Peta in oppossite. Who in hell would want to be percieved as baring the least resembelance to Their true counternance?!

 

Thus my advice is Always to just stick to the Facts and present them from a near neutral standpoint. As a person who Cares about animals. Not as one with a side line vested interest in choosing ones self which ones to go after. Present that Lurker as a much loved and well cared for Dog. Not a 3 x 3 hare machine ("Pre Ban") or a fox / deer destroyer.

 

Push that image Anywhere and ye doing their work for them.

 

 

 

 

Carry on, peeps. Nice to see some new voices getting involved now

[Caravan Monster 323]

Thus my advice is Always to just stick to the Facts and present them from a near neutral standpoint.

 

Absolutely Ditch; had the statistics that illustrate the workings of the RSPCA been directed toward neutral journalists at the time the hunting ban was being debated, and brought to the wider attention of the general public, the course of history could have been changed.

 

Interesting what you say about the RSPCA initiates you met- I've heard of several instances of hunt saboteurs and the like being turned away from their cause by reasoned persuasion in pubs and at parties. They must be very impresionable people.

 

Agree as how to present oneself regarding hunting- people tend to have drawn their conclusions already. Cracks me up though, how lurchers can be perceived: in my part of the country, people seeing my dog say 'ooh, isn' t she lovely, is she a rescue greyhound?', whereas the more rural parts of Cumbria I sometimes visit, and the greeting is normally 'caught owt?'

[undisputed 1,664]

This post really did make me think about WHY I keep dogs in the first place...but thats another story. Anyways just a couple of points I'd like to add and if I'm repeating anyones response I appoligise. I'm goning to stick to Lurchers and Terriers as thats my field. Hunting is prone to wee trends that emerge when someone has the idea that a particular x is better than another. That may be true and heres the rub. To many get their dogs for the wrong reason and have little or no idea as to how to get them to do the job properly in the first place. While I totally agree with the points made about the SPCA I think we need to get our own house in order as well. How many Lurchers and terriers havn't made it back home because they didn't live up to their owners expectations or didnt stay with their chosen quarry the allotted time it takes to earn the title of a good un? You only have to check out the greyhound and lurcher rescue sites to see how fickle the owners of these dogs are, and these are the "lucky ones" by that I mean they havnt found themselves with their heads smashed in or in a pond wrapped in a cloth sack weighed down with a few bricks. Maybe if folks took more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the actual training and ownership of their charges we might have a stronger voice when we turn our gaze outward and look at the practice of other organisations. Thats my 2p's worth so I'm away to put on the armour now...lol. And good post DS!

[J Darcy 5,871]

Theer is only one solution to the amount of animals being kilkled by the rspca...and thats to stop breeding more and more pets. Personally i would welcome a law that insisted that there was a "waiting" list for the pups/kits before conception....up to, say, 10 people.

Whether this would work i dont know, but it would stop alot of peddling b*****ds in t their tracks.

 

How the RSPCA can push welfare when it is killing so many dogs is beyond me. They should plough all their money into the live animals rather than have it sat in the bank...isnt it time someone did an "undercover" film on their antics???

[leegreen 2,222]

because ultimately, as a trainer, it's you that's not made the grade.

 

we choose our dogs, not them us and as the old saying goes a good workman never blames his tools.

All dogs at our home stay even if they don't make the grade and if they don't make the grade or they don't live in harmony they will be found a home of equal quality as it is our duty as owners/dog lovers to do so, not the responsabilty of a the state or any other so called animal wellfare body. People take responsabilty of the animals YOU choose to keep.

[undisputed 1,664]

Are people aware of or had any dealings with these "dog trusts" that are springing up around us? Apparently its their policy never to put a healthy dog to sleep!

[Caravan Monster 323]

On the subject of the RSPCA, it looks like their freedom foods labelling has been exposed for what it really is: http://news.five.tv/news.php?news=639

 

Sounds like they were more interested in making money than actually improving animal welfare.

 

Undisputed- there are a fair number of regional lurcher and greyhound rescue/ rehoming charitable organisations around. Often, in an emergency, dogs can be put in 'foster' homes, until a suitable permanent home can be found, or else, you keep hold of the dog until they find a suitable home (which the charity has checked up on). It can take some time, and will normally require some time and effort on the part of the person wanting to get rid of the dog. This sort of brings us back round to the main point in the article which started this thread: there is no need to put down healthy dogs because there are homes to be found for them- kill 'shelters' are killing dogs because they can' t be bothered with the hassle of finding homes, and it' s easier and more cost efficient than having to bother feeding dogs and cleaning out pens.

[DogPaddle 0]

Hey DS, nice thread. I have just found it today and already I want to stay out of it. It touches a raw nerve with me and I have some very strong opinions on the matter.

 

I have taken in many unwanted dogs over the years and have spent countless hours with them, losing sleep over them, and hitting bankruptsy many times. I am very passionately against organizations like SPCA and mush with PRIDE and their equivilents. Also, I feel that there are no greater enemies to dogs than the Kennel Clubs and their "Breeders".

 

"In all actuality, show dog breeders are nothing more than a rich mans Puppy Mill, selling low quality dogs for very high prices."

 

It is nice to see a thread like this on the board, but I think this is as much of my opinion that I am willing to give at the moment. I gave up arguing my points long ago, because I have absolutely no talent in convincing anyone. Now I just do what I can to help, and leave those who just like to talk about it, to talk about it.

 

Thanks again for a decent thread.

[DogPaddle 0]

This post really did make me think about WHY I keep dogs in the first place...but thats another story. Anyways just a couple of points I'd like to add and if I'm repeating anyones response I appoligise. I'm goning to stick to Lurchers and Terriers as thats my field. Hunting is prone to wee trends that emerge when someone has the idea that a particular x is better than another. That may be true and heres the rub. To many get their dogs for the wrong reason and have little or no idea as to how to get them to do the job properly in the first place. While I totally agree with the points made about the SPCA I think we need to get our own house in order as well. How many Lurchers and terriers havn't made it back home because they didn't live up to their owners expectations or didnt stay with their chosen quarry the allotted time it takes to earn the title of a good un? You only have to check out the greyhound and lurcher rescue sites to see how fickle the owners of these dogs are, and these are the "lucky ones" by that I mean they havnt found themselves with their heads smashed in or in a pond wrapped in a cloth sack weighed down with a few bricks. Maybe if folks took more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the actual training and ownership of their charges we might have a stronger voice when we turn our gaze outward and look at the practice of other organisations. Thats my 2p's worth so I'm away to put on the armour now...lol. And good post DS!

 

[DogPaddle 0]

[ ultimately, as a trainer, it’s you that’s not made the grade.

IMPO, a dog is only as good as the person handling it.