Ban snaring in Scotland

League Against Cruel Sports Video  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozIYKdcwkc&feature=related


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> Ban snaring in Scotland

Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
stress imposed by live trapping.

You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go. Bit
like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - but can be
contained by legislation, licensing and surveillence and comes a lot
cheaper for the taxpayer.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> Ban snaring in Scotland
>
>Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>stress imposed by live trapping.

I would not accept a compromise.

>
>You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
>authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go. 

My aim is to get a complete capture ban.

>Bit
>like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - but can be
>contained by legislation, licensing and surveillence and comes a lot
>cheaper for the taxpayer.

If we used the resources we're using in Afghanistan against the
importing of drugs at our borders then the drug problem could be
considerably reduced.  


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> Ban snaring in Scotland
>
>Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>stress imposed by live trapping.

Especially when it's unnecessary anyway. It's only a small but vocal
minority of lunatics who want to kill all wildlife anyway.

>You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
>authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go. Bit
>like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - 

It could be won if we could find a politician with balls. We live in
hope.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:28 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Ban snaring in Scotland
>>
>>Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>>offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>>replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>>stress imposed by live trapping.
>
>I would not accept a compromise.
>
>>
>>You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
>>authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go. 
>
>My aim is to get a complete capture ban.
>
>>Bit
>>like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - but can be
>>contained by legislation, licensing and surveillence and comes a lot
>>cheaper for the taxpayer.
>
>If we used the resources we're using in Afghanistan against the
>importing of drugs at our borders then the drug problem could be
>considerably reduced.  

I was stunned to see, certainly for our army, we are turning a blind
eye to the poppy growing and harvesting in Afghanistan. Which rather
makes the whole thing a pointless exercise!

On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>
> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>
> I would not accept a compromise.

So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
are more flexible than you.

> >You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
> >authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go.
>
> My aim is to get a complete capture ban.

If I were you I'd aim a bit more down wind, or you'll end up with wet
shoes ;-))

> >Bit
> >like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - but can be
> >contained by legislation, licensing and surveillence and comes a lot
> >cheaper for the taxpayer.
>
> If we used the resources we're using in Afghanistan against the
> importing of drugs at our borders then the drug problem could be
> considerably reduced.

Nope. Just push the street price up a bit more. So the junkies will
break into a few more houses, the insurance rates will rise, and taxes
will go up to employ more people at police stations to log details for
loss adjusters. Cheaper to give the poppy growers a carrot (the going
opium rate for a crop of anything else) and a stick (chance of losing
their poppy crop if they don't play ball)

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>>
>> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>>
>> I would not accept a compromise.
>
>So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
>are more flexible than you.

Perhaps not.

>
>> >You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
>> >authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go.
>>
>> My aim is to get a complete capture ban.
>
>If I were you I'd aim a bit more down wind, or you'll end up with wet
>shoes ;-))

Hunting with hounds was banned completely.

>
>> >Bit
>> >like the stupid "war-on-drugs" that can never be won - but can be
>> >contained by legislation, licensing and surveillence and comes a lot
>> >cheaper for the taxpayer.
>>
>> If we used the resources we're using in Afghanistan against the
>> importing of drugs at our borders then the drug problem could be
>> considerably reduced.
>
>Nope. Just push the street price up a bit more. So the junkies will
>break into a few more houses, the insurance rates will rise, and taxes
>will go up to employ more people at police stations to log details for
>loss adjusters. Cheaper to give the poppy growers a carrot (the going
>opium rate for a crop of anything else) and a stick (chance of losing
>their poppy crop if they don't play ball)

Not as simple as that.  There's too much money to be made out of
poppies and the farmers are not the ones in control.  Their minders
and agents are the warlords that are taking the mickey out of trained
armies.

Strict border controls is what's needed and ditch the EU.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>
> >> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
> >> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
> >> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
> >> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>
> >> I would not accept a compromise.
>
> >So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
> >are more flexible than you.
>
> Perhaps not.

Means what?

> >> >You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
> >> >authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go.
>
> >> My aim is to get a complete capture ban.
>
> >If I were you I'd aim a bit more down wind, or you'll end up with wet
> >shoes ;-))
>
> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.

Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
shots most "hunters" are.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:15:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>>
>> >> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>> >> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>> >> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>> >> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>>
>> >> I would not accept a compromise.
>>
>> >So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
>> >are more flexible than you.
>>
>> Perhaps not.
>
>Means what?

Means perhaps not.

>
>> >> >You will never succeed in getting a complete capture ban, so licensed
>> >> >authorisation that prescribes the methods is surely the way to go.
>>
>> >> My aim is to get a complete capture ban.
>>
>> >If I were you I'd aim a bit more down wind, or you'll end up with wet
>> >shoes ;-))
>>
>> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.
>
>Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
>increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
>shots most "hunters" are.

Of course they are and that's why shooting should be banned as well.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 7, 11:29 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:15:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>
> >> >> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
> >> >> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
> >> >> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
> >> >> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>
> >> >> I would not accept a compromise.
>
> >> >So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
> >> >are more flexible than you.
>
> >> Perhaps not.
>
> >Means what?
>
> Means perhaps not.

So you don't know what you mean, either :-(

<snip>
> >> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.
>
> >Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
> >increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
> >shots most "hunters" are.
>
> Of course they are and that's why shooting should be banned as well.

Unrealistic to expect this. Better to try for stronger regulation of
gun users in the first instance. Don't you care about a coming
generation of wounded foxes living in misery, simply because A/R
takes an inflexible position on hunting?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:36:32 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Feb 7, 11:29 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:15:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 6, 11:17 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> Ban snaring in Scotland
>>
>> >> >> >Would you accept compromise, though? Suppose the Scottish Parliment
>> >> >> >offered to enforce a ban by legislating for humane live trapping to
>> >> >> >replace it? Your AR associates have already complained about the
>> >> >> >stress imposed by live trapping.
>>
>> >> >> I would not accept a compromise.
>>
>> >> >So expect to see snaring continued indefinitely - unless legislators
>> >> >are more flexible than you.
>>
>> >> Perhaps not.
>>
>> >Means what?
>>
>> Means perhaps not.
>
>So you don't know what you mean, either :-(

Of course I do.  You should be able to see that I'm referring to what
you said I would expect to see.

>
><snip>
>> >> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.
>>
>> >Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
>> >increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
>> >shots most "hunters" are.
>>
>> Of course they are and that's why shooting should be banned as well.
>
>Unrealistic to expect this. 

You probably thought this about hunting with hounds a few years ago.
The ban has changed things dramatically.


>Better to try for stronger regulation of
>gun users in the first instance. 


Not at all.

>Don't you care about a coming
>generation of wounded foxes living in misery, simply because A/R
>takes an inflexible position on hunting?
>

This is why it needs banning.


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Feb 8, 10:50 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:36:32 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Feb 7, 11:29 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:15:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Feb 7, 6:07 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 03:25:45 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 7, 11:34 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:

 <snip>

> >> >> Hunting with hounds was banned completely.
>
> >> >Yet hunting of foxes by lamping, etc. wasn't, and seems to have
> >> >increased. Lots of mangy, limping foxes around to show what useless
> >> >shots most "hunters" are.
>
> >> Of course they are and that's why shooting should be banned as well.
>
> >Unrealistic to expect this.
>
> You probably thought this about hunting with hounds a few years ago.
> The ban has changed things dramatically.
>
> >Better to try for stronger regulation of
> >gun users in the first instance.
>
> Not at all.
>
> >Don't you care about a coming
> >generation of wounded foxes living in misery, simply because A/R
> >takes an inflexible position on hunting?
>
> This is why it needs banning.

Politics ensure that no blanket ban of the kind you want will appear
in our lifetime. Tightening up up the legislation is always feasible
using diligence coupled with rational argument.