Celebrating the demise of cruel stag hunting

Evolute

Pineapple_Boi wrote: »

but going into the forest to kill a fox with a gun? i thought we grew out of that millions of years ago

Lol dont think we had guns millions of years ago

If your going to eat what you kill I honestly don't see a problem with hunting.
However fox hunting with hounds I detest and think is pointless.
Only if you are going to eat the animal should you hunt it

Macha

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yeah, Thats fine and all, but do you have anything backin up your asertions? or is it just a case of hesaidshesaid........

As I have already stated, I am asking another poster to back up their claim. That is all.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Experience is the word I used.

Experience/anecdotes - same thing. I can tell you a story to back up pretty much anything.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, its not about opposition to it its about a style of posting that often appears in these types of threads, the Ban everything I dont like its inhumane, 'Wont somebody think of the children'(but means it) style of posting. the flip side of whqt you accuse me of;) sorta

I don't recall accusing you of anything.

Yet you have accused anyone who opposes stag hunting of being "brainwashed idiots" (even if they believe they have logical grounds for opposing it) and are just doing so because it's part of their general contrary world view? I could ask you to provide evidence for that as well but something tells me you would just answer my question with a question.

Evolute

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We are carnivores

Seriously now don't tell me you don't have veggies with your sunday dinner or all through the week.

We are omnivores because we eat both plants and animals

Mahatma coat

taconnol wrote: »

As I have already stated, I am asking another poster to back up their claim. That is all.

yeah, thats fine, but you are askin the OP to back their point, right,so you doubt them, all I am saying is, that, I as a casual observer am no more swayed by your argument and lack of supporting evidence than I am by the OP, have you got something I can refer to that gives your counterpoint more weight???

otherwise its just

Experience/anecdotes - same thing. I can tell you a story to back up pretty much anything.

I don't recall accusing you of anything.

Pardon me So, I misread your previous post.

Yet you have accused anyone who opposes stag hunting of being "brainwashed idiots" (even if they believe they have logical grounds for opposing it) and are just doing so because it's part of their general contrary world view? I could ask you to provide evidence for that as well but something tells me you would just answer my question with a question.

No, point missed, I am not saying everyone opposed to staghunting is a 'Brainwashed idiot' I'm saying that some of the posters in this thread are acting in a reactionary style without stopping to consider that there may be othe rpoints of view besides their 'self evident' righteousness

Mahatma coat

Evolute wrote: »

Seriously now don't tell me you don't have veggies with your sunday dinner or all through the week.

We are omnivores because we eat both plants and animals

well do ya count Pastry:D:D:D:D

not really a massive veg fan meself, cept the stuff I grow obviously

Macha

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah, thats fine, but you are askin the OP to back their point, right,so you doubt them, all I am saying is, that, I as a casual observer am no more swayed by your argument and lack of supporting evidence than I am by the OP, have you got something I can refer to that gives your counterpoint more weight???

I don't have a counterpoint or counter argument. I have not claimed that those opposed to stag hunting are in a majority. See the difference?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, point missed, I am not saying everyone opposed to staghunting is a 'Brainwashed idiot' I'm saying that some of the posters in this thread are acting in a reactionary style without stopping to consider that there may be othe rpoints of view besides their 'self evident' righteousness

To be honest there is as much if not more "reactionary style" and "'self evident' righteousness" in your posts as anyone else's in this thread.

robtri

I am not up on how stag hunting is performed these days, I assumed hunting stag and deers was done with a gun or crossbow? am I correct in this?
or is it done with dogs??


if its with a gun or crossbow, i personally don't have much of an issue, the majoprity of the time the deer does not suffer any more than it does if it is brought to a slaughter house....

if its chased with dogs then I am against it...

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

tou say 'culturaly significant; as if to dismiss it along the same lines as Druids cleppin around in the buff at newgrange, it more than that, we are carnivores, historically we either huntede stuff to eat or raised stuff grown from cptured and domesticted animals to eat, and even then Hunting has been what sustained people

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with hunting for food, provided it is done in a humane manner. Stag hunting does not fall into that category.

Mahatma coat

taconnol wrote: »

I don't have a counterpoint or counter argument. I have not claimed that those opposed to stag hunting are in a majority. See the difference?

so what IS your point then?

To be honest there is as much if not more "reactionary style" and "'self evident' righteousness" in your posts as anyone else's in this thread.

balance is important



ETA

eh lads, lets nt let this one stray off inta Fox huntin and shootin Pidgeons/crows etc...

this is about Shootin and eatin Deer

Macha

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so what IS your point then?

My, this is proving more complex than anticipated. Again, I have asked a poster to back up their claim. I can't really express it more simply than that.

And I must point out that you seem more concerned about this than the poster in question!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

balance is important

Indeed.

Mahatma coat

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with hunting for food, provided it is done in a humane manner. Stag hunting does not fall into that category.

Well then we agree in Principal :eek:

I therefore require a better definition of this 'Stag Hunting' concept.

Now I described earlier my knowledge of : Deer hunting in the Wicklow mountains - as recounted by someone who did it for Sport, a solitary venture, ocasionanlly including a sniffer dog or two, mostly on the bits round Powerscourt that aint national park or someones house.

so what is it that the OP wishes to ban???????

Vegeta

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this is about Shootin and eatin Deer

Well I know you point is specifically about the shooting of deer but that is not what the OP is talking about.

It is the hunting of a stag by a pack of hounds as followed by people on horses. Same as what people consider fox hunting to be.

Lads don't get bogged down in arguing about support for either side of this argument.

If 1000 people from a city were polled and 1000 people at an IFA convention were polled the answers would probably be very different and you'd then argue about the specifics and relevance of the quoted material.

Mahatma coat

if they kill and eat the Deer wahts the issue??

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if they kill and eat the Deer wahts the issue??

how to put this.... how you you rather die,

a) by a bullet, generally quick and virtually painless...
or
b) slowly, by have lumps of your flesh torn off

the same consideration should be given to other creatures as well......

Mahatma coat

how would you rather live?

Frolicin about in the forest
or
in split between a half acre paddock and a sleatted shed


Humane is subjective

planetX

Guys you've gone totally off the point. The OP is about stag-hunting, as practised by the Ward Union Hunt in the Dublin area. A semi-tame stag is carted and transported out to where the hunt is arranged, is released and chased by riders and a pack of dogs, to the point of exhaustion. If cornered alive it is then packed up and carted off. That is if it hasn't jumped onto a road and nearly killed motorists, gone into a school playground with children present, or being mangled in barbed wire, all of which have happened. It is the most pointless 'sport' in this country, and constant attempts by supporters to deflect the argument into fishing and eating meat are not going to stop the opposition to their barbarism. They can find another way to entertain themselves.

Morlar

planetX wrote: »

constant attempts by supporters to deflect the argument into fishing and eating meat are not going to stop the opposition to their barbarism.

I do not see it as barbaric and would not be opposed to it. Each to their own.

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

how would you rather live?

Frolicin about in the forest
or
in split between a half acre paddock and a sleatted shed


Humane is subjective

this isn't about how it lives, this thread is about how it is hunted and killed

fairplay

Debates on the rights and wrongs of bloodsports always go the same way...when someone opposes recreational cruelty to animals the defenders always come back with all that stuff about tradition being sacrosanct, and "rural pursuits" having to be safeguarded. The two Fianna Fail TDs who have called for a Free Vote on the Staghunt ban cited the importance of preserving "rural pursuits".

I agree that killing an animal or a bird quickly for the purpose of providing food is very far removed from putting the creature through a lot of prolonged and totally unnecesary suffering for the sheer hell of it. That's why opinion polls on hunting/coursing almost invariably show that most Irish people are opposed to hounding animals to death or injury for sport...while not having the same objection to humane slaughter or using a gun to inflict instant death...whatever one's views might be on the wider issue of killing animals at all for any reason...that's for another seperate debate in my view.

But this "rural pursuit" thing...The Spring Show, the Ploughing Match, country fairs, tractor races, inter-county football or hurling matches are rural pursuits. As is shooting of game in the countryside.

But so is badger baiting (illegal I know but it still goes on), hare coursing, fox hunting, and stag hunting.

Can we not be against some rural pursuits and in favour of others?

Likewise, Dog fighting and dousing petrol over dogs or pet donkeys are urban pursuits that most people would find objectionable.

Tradition? If we are to preserve staghunting on "traditional" grounds, then why not bring back legal dog fighting, cock fighting, and badger baiting, or bear baiting (maybe not that one, we don't have bears)?

Or why not restore the grand old tradition of sending single mothers to religious concentration camps and encouraging the women who remain pure to dance at the crossroads (a few fields down from the nearest coursing field where, for some intriguing reason, the catholic clergy are present in big numbers!).

I had to laugh at the excuse given by the two FF TDs who support carted stag hunting...they mentioned that deer can cause a problem when the herds get too large and out of control!!!

How does chasing a deer for hours AND THEN RE-CAPTURING IT ALIVE AND RETURNING IT TO WHERE YOU FOUND IT HELP TO CONTROL DEER NUMBERS?

The case for staghunting is just so weak that even the best PR company on earth could hardly sell it...at least not to a rational, objective person who wasn't already involved in the activity.

Does a bvan on staghunting amount to a breach of civil liberties? Not unless the bans on those other "sports" I refer to were similarly unfair or draconian.

Personally, I dislike slaughterhouses...but stunning an animal and then killing it immediately is a darn sight more humane and acceptable in my view than terrorising and tormenting it for hours on end...

It's amazing to think that bankers, property developers, circuit judges, and other pillars of society are big into staghunting. You'd think people like that would be more responsible.

Evolute

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with hunting for food, provided it is done in a humane manner. Stag hunting does not fall into that category.

So wait if I see a stag and shoot it thats stag hunting. Can I ask if its dead quick how is it not humane?

fairplay

Evolute wrote: »

So wait if I see a stag and shoot it thats stag hunting. Can I ask if its dead quick how is it not humane?

It's interesting how in the USA HUNTING is deemed to refer to SHOOTING...but they don't call it shooting, nor do they call someone who shoots a deer or a bird or whatever a shooter...they call him a hunter.

In Ireland and Britain on the other hand we generally assume that "hunting" means using packs of hounds to chase a wild animal...

It's a bit like how we talk about the windscreen of a car and in the USA it's called a windshield. It's just a cultural difference.

Shooting a stag in Ireland is NOT "stag hunting" as far as the general public is concerned. It's just someone shooting a stag, presumably because he wants the meat.

By the way, people who use guns to kill animals in the USA RESENT being called shooters...they insist on being called hunters!! A shooter over there is someone who's generally into guns...it could be for target practise, marksmanship events or whatever...

What John Gormley wants to abolish is the hounding of CAPTIVE, semi-tame stags to exhaustion and injury...in the process posing a risk to public safety. Have a look at the staghunting video on www.banbloodsports.com

I don't agree with everything the Greens do, or stand for, but I applaud stopping this incredibly crass and deliberately cruel activity.

Evolute

Thats were the confusion was then sorry about that cheers for clarifying that "fairplay".
Stag hunting with dogs and a semi tame stag is sick and perverted.

Mahatma coat

OK, if they dont kill and eat it then its not Hunting, its faffin about in the forest being the Hunters version of a 'Walt'

as for hunting by simply chasing the animal to exhaustion on foot without guns or horses, thats one of the oldest types of hunting, and something I'd like to do someday.

But yeah in my book if you dont kill and eat it then yer a tosser, we could just as easily release one of them into the forest and hunt him down.

doctor evil

robtri wrote: »

b) slowly, by have lumps of your flesh torn off

Not very balanced, when the fox is caught it is quickly killed by the lead hound and the rest of the pack may eat it. I see no difference in a hunt chasing a fox or a natural predator (such as wolves, if they were to be reintroduced) chasing. Numbers of chasers are irrelevant! Foxes are very clever and often have no trouble out witting hounds (doubling back, crossing
water, fields that have been spread with slurry)

doctor evil

planetX wrote: »

That is if it hasn't jumped onto a road and nearly killed motorists, gone into a school playground with children present, or being mangled in barbed wire, all of which have happened.

Unfortunately a lot more animals have gotten onto roads and caught up in barbed than have in the Ward Hunt. I can imagine the children thought it was great excitement to see the stag there, it would have been over protective parents and Joe Duffy whingers that freaked. Do you have a link to the incident of a motorist nearly being killed?

It is the most pointless 'sport' in this country, and

TBF you can apply that to any sport.

doctor evil

fairplay wrote: »

It's amazing to think that bankers, property developers, circuit judges, and other pillars of society are big into staghunting. You'd think people like that would be more responsible.

A lot of jockeys/stable lads go out with the Ward, it is not one 'class' (hate that word) of people.

doctor evil

fairplay wrote: »

www.banbloodsports.com

Not the most balanced of sources!

we'llallhavetea_old

my dad "hunts" deer, he shoots them and them brings them home for food.
he actually didn't believe me when i told him about these sickos that hunt them around with dogs to the point of exhaustion.
its disgusting and i don't think any huntsman wants to be tarred with the same brush as these vile backward pigs.

robtri

doctor evil wrote: »

Not very balanced, when the fox is caught it is quickly killed by the lead hound and the rest of the pack may eat it. I see no difference in a hunt chasing a fox or a natural predator (such as wolves, if they were to be reintroduced) chasing. Numbers of chasers are irrelevant! Foxes are very clever and often have no trouble out witting hounds (doubling back, crossing
water, fields that have been spread with slurry)

thats BS... the fox is not killed quickly.......
if you cannot see no difference between a hunt chasing an animal or a natural predator chasing a predator, there is something seriously wrong there.....

ConsiderThis

Death is the wild is rarely a good death. If you have ever witnessed an animal dying from "natural" causes in the wild then you'd realise that it is usually cruel and painful, often taking days with the animal in pain and open to predators to make the suffering worse. Many starve to death who are not attacked by other animals in their weakened state.

One of the problems with the urbanisation of life is that many of us buy meat in nice plastic packets in the supermarket, with little or no understanding of how it got there, or how the animal lived or died. And so, it's natural we conclude that any animal who is killed by man must be worse off than those who die from natural causes.

Does a fox who dies from natural causes have a less painful and better death than one who is killed by a pack of hounds? Or a stag who is stalked?

Death is never nice, but it's a fact. And if a fox, or a stag, is killed by us or through natural causes, it's not always clear which is the better death. A knee jerk reaction that it must be better for a fox, or stag, for example,to die from natural causes simply ignores the fact that many animals which die from "natural" causes die painfully and cruelly and, often, the pain lasts for days.

I don't expect many here will acknowledge that, and will just conclude that it must be wrong for man to kill, in any circumstances, and it's better to leave them to die of "natural" causes.