Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on September 19, 2018, 01:24:45 PM
-
The stink of hypocrisy here is like that of some dodgy fishcakes left out in the heatwave.
Co-incidentally I watched the programme about Marina's rescue last night. Beautiful creature.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/19/rspca-seal-charity-fish-farms-seals
-
The stink of hypocrisy here is like that of some dodgy fishcakes left out in the heatwave.
Co-incidentally I watched the programme about Marina's rescue last night. Beautiful creature.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/19/rspca-seal-charity-fish-farms-seals
Keep their noses out of Scottish affairs. They have no jurisdiction here; we have the SSPCA.
They can comnt all they want, but stay out of Scottish matters.
-
Keep their noses out of Scottish affairs. They have no jurisdiction here; we have the SSPCA.
They can comnt all they want, but stay out of Scottish matters.
That's all you care about, isn't it? Ffs.
-
That's all you care about, isn't it? Ffs.
Nothing to do with independence, Rhi. I have a friend who worked for SSPCA, and he is constanty annoyed that the telly ads for RSPCA up here syphon mony to that charity, wheras SSPC is deprived. This goes way before devolution, by the way. Many people up here left cash in their wills to RSPCA, in the mistaken belief that the group had jurisdiction in Scotland...meaning that SSPCA could not - and cannot - cope with all animal cruelty matters up here. Again, this is a long standing problem, and would not exist if the two charities were merged into one UK-wide group. SSPCA tried on several occasions to start moves in that direction, but RSPCA refused - on 'legal grounds'. I suppose they might have a point; the legal system here is not the same as that in England&Wales, and some of the laws on animal cruelty differ here as well - again, laws passed by Westminster pre-devolution. Here's an (admittedly old news) article from the Groniad: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/03/animal-welfare-rspca-sspca
-
It could be the RSPCA or the Save the Cute Seals Look At Their Pretty Eyes Society.
-
Nothing to do with independence, Rhi. I have a friend who worked for SSPCA, and he is constanty annoyed that the telly ads for RSPCA up here syphon mony to that charity, wheras SSPC is deprived. This goes way before devolution, by the way. Many people up here left cash in their wills to RSPCA, in the mistaken belief that the group had jurisdiction in Scotland...meaning that SSPCA could not - and cannot - cope with all animal cruelty matters up here. Again, this is a long standing problem, and would not exist if the two charities were merged into one UK-wide group. SSPCA tried on several occasions to start moves in that direction, but RSPCA refused - on 'legal grounds'. I suppose they might have a point; the legal system here is not the same as that in England&Wales, and some of the laws on animal cruelty differ here as well - again, laws passed by Westminster pre-devolution. Here's an (admittedly old news) article from the Groniad: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/03/animal-welfare-rspca-sspca
I doubt many people have heard of the SSPCA. As Scotland is still very much part of the UK, maybe it would have been sensible if the RSPCA was transcendent in that part of Britain too, then it wouldn't miss out.
-
I doubt many people have heard of the SSPCA. As Scotland is still very much part of the UK, maybe it would have been sensible if the RSPCA was transcendent in that part of Britain too, then it wouldn't miss out.
Well, they've been around since 1839!
https://www.scottishspca.org/about/
-
Isn’t the point that the RSPCA is allowing the slaughter of seals, even lactating mothers, in the production of its ‘approved’ farmed salmon?
-
Well, they've been around since 1839!
https://www.scottishspca.org/about/
However, the RSPCA trumps them where familiarity is concerned.
-
It would depend whether the seal in question was part of an endangered species or overpopulation or not. After all, farmers routinely shoot foxes, rats, crows, rooks, etc, even in spring or summer - when they are breeding. When feral pigeons are exterminated for causing disease to 'free range' poltry, there is lttle outcry. Had the seals been endangered, or in population decline, that might have been different. Here, there are areas where there is an overabundance of seals - that's why sightings of orca in those areas have increased; but the occasional kill from an orca won't dent the population. I suspect that, in a fw years, to preserve the health of the population, some seals, like red deer, will have to be culled.
-
Brilliant piece of double speak
Seal shooting is not culling it’s about humane pest control
Whether you describe this as culling or not, the seals are still dead.
-
Culling is a minefield, really. I know nature reserves which do it, for example, crows, mink, foxes, to protect young birds. But then you get the awkward issue of commercial firms doing it, mainly with predators, and of course seals are that. But it seems distasteful, especially if cruelty free farming is being touted. Local farmers trap magpies and kill them, I find it horrible, especially if you see a Larsen trap, which has a live bird in it, to attract others. But of course magpies are predators. (You can buy traps on Amazon)! I don't know where to draw the line.
(Cross post with Jim).
-
It reminds me that a gamekeeper was given a license to shoot a number of buzzards, to protect pheasants. This caused shockwaves to go through the birding community, as buzzards have only just got back to Eastern England. The same thing has happened with cormorants, well, with a Tory govt, landowners will tend to be favoured. People spend a fortune fighting these cases, as with badgers.
-
Yes. Culling to keep a population healthy is one thing. Culling to protect commercial interests is something else. Especially all year round.
If it happens then the RSPCA should not endorse it.