Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2011, 05:40 PM

Mr Benyon: “There were good reasons why we overturned the ban. We have very high standards (of animal welfare requirements) for game birds as we would for all kinds of animals.”

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17848

I would be interested in what the 'very good reasons' for allowing battery breading of creatures solely for field sport is.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 19 2011, 06:56 PM

Money!!
A large number of people will unfortunately pay large sums of money for the "pleasure" of blasting innocent animals out of the sky.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 19 2011, 07:02 PM

If you didn't rear them you wouldn't see them in the fields, they are a game bird, introduced into this countryside for sport. By rights they should all be removed as they are a foreign species.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 19 2011, 07:04 PM

These aren't the ones in the fields are they?
These are the ones in battery cages?
Or are they released in the fields when it is time to blast them?
I'm sure there will be a "country sports" enthusiast on here who will enlighten / justify the process.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2011, 07:23 PM

I'd like to know what the good reasons are to rear pheasants in battery conditions.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 19 2011, 07:25 PM

Money, Andy. It is cheaper and more productive to rear in battery conditions.
Good reasons? There are none that I can see, but others who gain the aforesaid pleasure will surely disagree.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2011, 09:43 PM

Money is a good reason (for some), but I'd like to think it was the last reason and I believe it is not a good enough one on its own to justify lifting the ban. At the moment I cannot think of a good reason.

I realise this is a potentially hot discussion point, but if i had to eat what I kill, I'd have to be a veggie. Cows, chickens, pigs, and pheasants, have great personalities.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 19 2011, 10:19 PM

Sorry, now I'm confused. "but if i had to eat what I kill, I'd have to be a veggie. Cows, chickens, pigs, and pheasants, have great personalities." So this sounds, (and correct me if I'm wrong) like its all right so long as someone else kills it for you ?

let me pose a question, all these fluffy little pheasants we all love to see in the countryside, how do you all think they get there ?? just asking out of interests sake.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2011, 10:38 PM

No. What I am saying, is that I couldn't kill anything. I am not saying it is all right.


They've been naturalised. Furthermore, I fail to see how that justifies battery rearing birds to hunt for leisure.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2011, 10:44 PM

Like I said several times already, I'd like to know what were the good reasons why they overturned the ban.

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 20 2011, 11:34 AM

Obviously have never had the pleasure of meeting Richard Beyon.

On a serious point though, what is the issue with killing things to eat? I mean, after all, unwrap all of our modern day niceities and we are carnivores who need to eat meat as part of a diet suitable of growing up big and strong...

Animals should be kept humanely but ultimately I think there's nothing wrong with killing creatures to eat. After all, happens in the wild and if it didn't matter, why would animals spend billions of years evolving into killing machines?

Posted by: JeffG Sep 20 2011, 12:19 PM

Why "obviously"? He is not a particularly remote figure. I happened to see him walking along Cheap Street this morning. He also knocked on my door during the run-up to the last election.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2011, 01:29 PM

It seems you probably haven't read the story. This isn't just about killing things to eat.

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 20 2011, 03:02 PM

I'm aware.

Just that the posts in the topic were slightly related to that, hence my comment.

FTR I think it's not fair to rear animals just to kill them. Aside from Foxes, no-one cares about them.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 20 2011, 03:03 PM

No, it's about cruelly raising animals so that people can gain pleasure from killing things to eat!

Posted by: gel Sep 20 2011, 03:06 PM

Benyon hasn't the spine to disagree on this overturning of previous policy; I'm sure the set he mixes with, allied to fact he's a landowner will have had no influence

Presumably only has compassion for his dogs and not nature's other creatures, that
inhabit this planet with us.

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 20 2011, 03:30 PM

It's OK to kill something to eat it, and if you have fun while killing things then hey, that's fine by me.

If you kill something and don't eat it and go "HAR HAR", then not so nice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2011, 04:55 PM

While I don't support either, for me, shooting wild birds, or even worse, battery raised ones, for fun (where there are no legitimate conservation issues) is worse than fox hunting. I am also against fishing for sport and the keeping of exotic animals for pets.

A grumpy old git, me.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 20 2011, 10:13 PM

It says a lot about a person if they enjoy killing for fun .

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 20 2011, 10:27 PM

But people on this forum regularly go to KFC for their food, where do you think the chicken comes from ? Ole Farmer Mc Gregors place ? I think not. A serious case of double standards where animal welfare is concerned.

Posted by: xjay1337 Sep 20 2011, 10:31 PM

True.


Ah it's not OK to eat one of Colonel Sandersons cluckers but it is OK to eat Reginald the handpicked organic vegetarian chicken?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2011, 11:21 PM

What has this got to do with Richard Benyon MP, and his colleagues at Defra, allegedly reversing the decision to outlaw battery farming pheasants destined for target practice? I would like to know what his good reasons were.

Lets just see that allegation again:

Tory MP Richard Benyon and his colleagues at Defra allegedly reversed the decision to outlaw battery farming pheasants destined for target practice.

Does anyone know what those good reasons were. So far we have had cost as one reason. Presumably there are more?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 21 2011, 04:05 PM

Nope, money, that's it!.
Same reason we keep chickens in battery cages - cheap eggs.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 05:47 PM

He said reason'S'. It could be argued that battery farming allows more people to afford food, so there is a certain amount of justification about that, but I can't think what is justifiable about battery reared target practice.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 21 2011, 07:01 PM

Surely easier to ask him the reasons than speculate?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 07:15 PM

I don't know about that... speculation is easy!

How does one ask things like this?

Posted by: JeffG Sep 21 2011, 09:55 PM

How can anyone justify battery farming, whatever it's for?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 10:00 PM

While I didn't justify battery farming, it is a reasonable argument when the results mean people could eat who otherwise would not be able to. That isn't to endorse it as not cruel.

Anyway, let's get back to the point: allegedly the coalition government have reversed the decision to ban battery farming of birds being reared for target practice.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 21 2011, 10:20 PM

I think you'll find that KFC is eaten and therefore a food.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 10:22 PM

And your specialised subject is the bleedin' obvious?

Anyway, let's get back to the point: allegedly the coalition government have reversed the decision to ban battery farming of birds being reared for target practice.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 21 2011, 10:26 PM

Not everything that is eaten is food. Some people eat mud, coal, metal.........

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 21 2011, 10:27 PM

And some people even eat KFC ! God knows why. Anyhoo back to the thread. They are being bred for "Hunting" very different to "target practice"

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 10:30 PM

I see little difference.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 21 2011, 10:33 PM

Game birds reared for hunting are released into the wild and hunted from there, birds(such as doves) raised for target practice are shot at at point of release, completely different practice. I won't call it sport.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 21 2011, 11:07 PM

You see one being shot at the point of release and the other being released and then 'beat' into gun fire as completely different? I don't. Anyway what do you think are the very good reasons Tory MP Richard Benyon was on about when explaining his department Defra's decision to reverse the ban on battery rearing these birds?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 22 2011, 08:58 PM

Ok, I know that for someone not up on the countryside it can be a little difficult to understand but there is a difference, believe me. Also not all pheaseants are beaten into the guns, a lot of shoots (particularly smallish consortium and privat shoots) the birds are released into the wild, allowed to semi naturalise and then "walked up" chalk and cheese spring to mind.

As for battery rearing of any creature, should be banned, totally ! We always reared ours in pens in the woods. More work and more cost but beter birds at the end of the day.

Richards reasons ? Dunno, why don't you take the time to enquire ? seems best as you are so incensed by the issue.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2011, 09:23 PM

How do you know my back ground? My parents used to hunt and patronise landed gentry. My brother used to go beating.


I'm incensed by your unhelpful distracting comments. How do you know I haven't asked? 'Benny' your mate is he? Anyhow, this might just be my childish idea of embarrassing well healed Tory toffs?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 22 2011, 09:29 PM

A, therefor you should be aware of the difference, and

B, If you had asked, why are you asking again on the forum ?

C, carefull, your roots are showing

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2011, 10:26 PM

Knowing the difference, doesn't mean I 'see' a difference: breed birds unkindly, release them and then shoot them.


Maybe to embarrass?


Those that used to vote Tory? Yes.


Tory MP Richard Benyon and his colleagues at Defra allegedly reversed the decision to outlaw battery farming pheasants destined for target practice.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 22 2011, 11:22 PM

So ask him why, O sorry you already did, according to you anyway. I do love people who shout on forums ! And who exactly do you seek to embarrass. Basically its an issue which you seem to have very little in depth knowledge of so you merely continue to keep making irrelevant posts in order to provoke a response.

Your parents used to "patronise landed gentry" now you maintain the family tradition by patronising us.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2011, 09:54 AM

If you don't know then why reply with irrelevant comment?

Tory MP Richard Benyon and his colleagues at Defra allegedly reversed the decision to outlaw battery farming pheasants destined for target practice.

Does anyone know the good reasons Richard Benyon was referring to? Perhaps there are good reasons, regrettably either the NWN didn't ask why, or if they did, didn't report it.

For the record, this is in reference to the alleged reintroduction of battery farming of birds that are destined to be shot out of the sky for primarily recreational purposes.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 23 2011, 12:18 PM

Isn't RB a landowner? Maybe he owns a few pheasant shoots. Maybe they rear the birds in this way on his land.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2011, 12:42 PM

So that's two 'good reasons'!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 23 2011, 12:42 PM

One is enough.