5,000 attend pro-hunting rally

harryd2

Just saw this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0327/breaking17.html

I was surprised to see such a turnout..
Didn't think there was such a motivated pro-hunting community in Ireland..

what is being done in their name is a major attack on the lifestyle of the ordinary people in the countryside

Has the obvious response of - the alternative been an attack on basic animal rights of Irish wildlife..
I hope the gov don't listen

It wasn't me!

harryd2 wrote: »

Just saw this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0327/breaking17.html

I was surprised to see such a turnout..
Didn't think there was such a motivated pro-hunting community in Ireland..

Has the obvious response of - the alternative been an attack on basic animal rights of Irish wildlife..
I hope the gov don't listen

Hunting, in all forms, is a seriously large part of Irish rural tradition. It's not some bastion of leftover imperialism or anything of the sort, as it's often characterised.

There's never been such vocal support for fieldsports as there is now, but the numbers have always been there. There are about 232,000 firearms licensed in the country, as a conservative estimate. The majority of these are for hunting. Hunting on horseback is still immensely popular as well, with the traditional hunt on December 26th still a visible part of Irish life.

The anti-hunting lobby is tiny. It always has been, comprised of a very few individuals. Its main strength is that it's always been extremely vocal, and for its size, it makes a lot more noise than those involved in fieldsports (I'm hesitant to use the term "hunting lobby", for such a thing does not, quintessentially, exist, while the anti-hunting groups certainly constitute a lobby). The key picture is of the relative sizes. The anti-hunt protesters were outnumbered in Waterford yesterday by about a thousand to one. Outside a coursing meeting in Clonmel a year or two ago, there was a protest, which they claimed was an enormous success, with an attendance of sixteen people, while the stadium they protested outside contained 20,000.

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem. There are a great number of mistaken views about the nature of killing involved in all sorts of fieldsports, and the important thing is to correct them where possible. The turnout yesterday demonstrates that rural sportspeople can be vocal where necessary. I heard John Gormley on the radio claiming that the fact that there were people protesting outside the conference meant the Greens were being effective in government. I don't know where he gets the impression that their role is to be so deeply unpopular, to be honest, but it's not for me to figure it out either.

I hope the Ward Union continue to hunt on. I hope traditional fieldsports continue to grow in popularity and that the administration of the countryside and its animals is left to the country people who understand it best, that people respect and admire our wildlife for what it is, rather than elevate it to some pedestal, failing to understand its subtle structures. What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

ISDW

I love where I live, as all of the local farmers have banned hunting on their land, and will come together to ensure it doesn't happen. These are rural Irish people, and they 'protest' by stopping it on their land rather than going to a political conference - I guess they're too busy looking after their rural way of life to take time off from it.

Maybe I misunderstand about the Ward Hunt, please tell me if I do, but are the stags not bred and then released so they can be hunted? If that is the case, I fail to see how it is management of the land. Obviously if that is not the case, then I still think there are more humane ways of controlling their numbers than chasing them before killing.

PaulB91

my personal view is that "hunting" in such forms as horse and hound is very outdated, and where i understand the need for keeping down certain forms of wildlife, is a pack of hounds and riders really the most humane form? for instance the Ward hunt from what i understand is the hunting of a stag whom's life is created purely for the hunt, i.e. they are farmed and then chosen from the herd by the hunt, released into the wild and chased down by horse and hound, i mean that's like breeding foxes and releasing them just to be hunted!

as for hunting foxes by horse and hound, i'm pretty sure that there is a more cost affective way than 40 or so hounds and 40 or so riders running across the countryside, knocking down fences and cutting wire fences in order to continue the hunt? I mean on what grounds are hunts still justified?

oh and i love the "leave the countryside to those who know it" argument, there are plenty of farmers against hunting mainly due to the damage it causes to their land - that is like splitting the country in two - people in towns and cities have as much say in the countryside as those in the country have a say in the towns and cities

Discodog

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem.

What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

Would you call digging up cubs & throwing them to hounds humane killing ?. or chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion ?.

The 1911 Act defines cruelty. It is illegal to "ill treat, infuriate or terrify" an animal or subject it to "unnecessary suffering ".

You may believe that there is no such thing as rights for animals but the law say different. The forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill which RISE oppose will bring Ireland in line with most European Countries who also believe that animals have rights.

Perhaps you would prefer Ireland to be the last outpost of cruelty ?.

Graces7

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Hunting, in all forms, is a seriously large part of Irish rural tradition. It's not some bastion of leftover imperialism or anything of the sort, as it's often characterised.

There's never been such vocal support for fieldsports as there is now, but the numbers have always been there. There are about 232,000 firearms licensed in the country, as a conservative estimate. The majority of these are for hunting. Hunting on horseback is still immensely popular as well, with the traditional hunt on December 26th still a visible part of Irish life.

The anti-hunting lobby is tiny. It always has been, comprised of a very few individuals. Its main strength is that it's always been extremely vocal, and for its size, it makes a lot more noise than those involved in fieldsports (I'm hesitant to use the term "hunting lobby", for such a thing does not, quintessentially, exist, while the anti-hunting groups certainly constitute a lobby). The key picture is of the relative sizes. The anti-hunt protesters were outnumbered in Waterford yesterday by about a thousand to one. Outside a coursing meeting in Clonmel a year or two ago, there was a protest, which they claimed was an enormous success, with an attendance of sixteen people, while the stadium they protested outside contained 20,000.

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem. There are a great number of mistaken views about the nature of killing involved in all sorts of fieldsports, and the important thing is to correct them where possible. The turnout yesterday demonstrates that rural sportspeople can be vocal where necessary. I heard John Gormley on the radio claiming that the fact that there were people protesting outside the conference meant the Greens were being effective in government. I don't know where he gets the impression that their role is to be so deeply unpopular, to be honest, but it's not for me to figure it out either.

I hope the Ward Union continue to hunt on. I hope traditional fieldsports continue to grow in popularity and that the administration of the countryside and its animals is left to the country people who understand it best, that people respect and admire our wildlife for what it is, rather than elevate it to some pedestal, failing to understand its subtle structures. What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

Much of this comes across as very condescending indeed. And not the perception and clear knowledge that many who are anti-hunting hold.

Killing for sport and not need is .. barbaric.

It wasn't me!

Discodog wrote: »

Would you call digging up cubs & throwing them to hounds humane killing ?. or chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion ?.

The 1911 Act defines cruelty. It is illegal to "ill treat, infuriate or terrify" an animal or subject it to "unnecessary suffering ".

You may believe that there is no such thing as rights for animals but the law say different. The forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill which RISE oppose will bring Ireland in line with most European Countries who also believe that animals have rights.

Perhaps you would prefer Ireland to be the last outpost of cruelty ?.

Since hounds kill in a humane manner, then yes, as a rule, it will be humane, much as other humane, if aesthetically unappealing, methods such as crushing of skulls with a blunt object, is humane. It isn't pretty, but that's not wrong. Personally, I'm a sportsman, and I have no inclination to dig out foxes. I also believe that a sporting pursuit demands that an animal that makes it to earth should be allowed sanctuary there. There are occasions where simple population control demands that earths be dug, but it's not a sport. I personally find it distasteful and would rather the rifle as a method of fox control.

Surely from what you're saying there it would be feasible to pursue charges of cruelty since a definition exists in the 1911 act in order to establish case law? Wouldn't that be a far more useful mechanism than the creation of further laws? You have to enforce what exists before you create more, otherwise there's no point to any of it.

I do not support cruelty to animals, I merely disagree with regard to descriptions of certain things as cruel. I don't agree with trespassing, and I know of many hunts which are very well regarded, who do not trespass, and who engage in their activities with the full support of their local farming community.

Graces7 wrote: »

Much of this comes across as very condescending indeed. And not the perception and clear knowledge that many who are anti-hunting hold.

Killing for sport and not need is .. barbaric.

I enjoy my hunting for deer, rabbits and birds, which I eat. I don't need to do it, as I could buy the meat, but I choose to be actively involved in the procurement of my own sustenance. I have no false illusions about where my food comes from, mountain side to table, and I regularly satisfy my conscience that there's nothing wrong with what I do. I believe it's important that people should have an understanding of this, and killing your own food is an excellent way for people to understand it. A lot of people will not be able to do this. While I would never go so far as to suggest that they shouldn't eat it if they can't kill it, I would go so far as to suggest that if they can eat it, but not kill it, then they really don't have a useful position from which to condemn anyone who can do both. What perception and clear knowledge do you refer to in any case?

Discodog

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Since hounds kill in a humane manner, then yes, as a rule, it will be humane, much as other humane, if aesthetically unappealing, methods such as crushing of skulls with a blunt object, is humane. It isn't pretty, but that's not wrong. Personally, I'm a sportsman, and I have no inclination to dig out foxes. I also believe that a sporting pursuit demands that an animal that makes it to earth should be allowed sanctuary there. There are occasions where simple population control demands that earths be dug, but it's not a sport. I personally find it distasteful and would rather the rifle as a method of fox control.

Surely from what you're saying there it would be feasible to pursue charges of cruelty since a definition exists in the 1911 act in order to establish case law? Wouldn't that be a far more useful mechanism than the creation of further laws? You have to enforce what exists before you create more, otherwise there's no point to any of it.

I do not support cruelty to animals, I merely disagree with regard to descriptions of certain things as cruel. I don't agree with trespassing, and I know of many hunts which are very well regarded, who do not trespass, and who engage in their activities with the full support of their local farming community.

You are correct that, in law, there is enough legislation to pursue a legal case against hunting. The existing law does not set definitions in what defines suffering or set minimum standards. So for example a puppy farmer can say, & did on RTE, that his dogs did not need exercise. The new legislation should (we are waiting to see it) define minimum standards of care.

As someone who has lived in the countryside for all of my life I will always be at a loss as to why people feel a need to kill wildlife. When defending their sport the Hunts claim that they kill very few foxes. In the next breath they claim that their "sport" provides an effective method of control.

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

planetX

They got such a big turnout because they pulled in all sorts of other issues - farming, live export etc. Classic tactics of the bloodsports crowd, to detract attention from their own activity by surrounding themselves with other issues. If dogfighting was still legal they'd be claiming it was the thin end of the wedge, and banning it would collapse farming. That's what they're claiming for stag hunting. They make me sick.

crotalus667

ISDW wrote: »

I love where I live, as all of the local farmers have banned hunting on their land, and will come together to ensure it doesn't happen. .

that has happend in alot of places not really on account of the farmers not liking hunting (alot of people that ban it on their land hunt them selves) they tend to ban it because tourist hunting parties come threw and clear everthing out while causing damage to the property :mad:

ISDW

crotalus667 wrote: »

that has happend in alot of places not really on account of the farmers not liking hunting (alot of people that ban it on their land hunt them selves) they tend to ban it because tourist hunting parties come threw and clear everthing out while causing damage to the property :mad:

Maybe they do, but not around here.

I have no objection to people killing an animal humanely to eat, I am a meat eater, so can't be hypocritical about that. But I don't think tearing an animal apart would leave much to eat?

It wasn't me!

Discodog wrote: »

You are correct that, in law, there is enough legislation to pursue a legal case against hunting. The existing law does not set definitions in what defines suffering or set minimum standards. So for example a puppy farmer can say, & did on RTE, that his dogs did not need exercise. The new legislation should (we are waiting to see it) define minimum standards of care.

As someone who has lived in the countryside for all of my life I will always be at a loss as to why people feel a need to kill wildlife. When defending their sport the Hunts claim that they kill very few foxes. In the next breath they claim that their "sport" provides an effective method of control.

Both are technically correct, while being difficult to reconcile. If you want to kill a large number of foxes, you use a lamp and a rifle. No question whatsoever about that. If you want to selectively kill foxes which are older or weaker or less capable of protecting themselves and escaping, you use dogs. Rifle shooting can't be selective in the same way, so hunting with dogs is a more effective way from that perspective.

Minimum standards of care are great to see with regard to domestic animals. It becomes a lot more complicated where wild animals are concerned however, as hunting is going to continue to be a necessity in its various forms. You're seeking to prevent undue stress and suffering, as am I, because it taints my meat with adrenaline, rather than putting an animal out like a light. However, let's say I take a shot on the hill at a hundred and fifty yards, a nice handy shot, but at a very steep angle, which affects the trajectory of the bullet. My nice point of aim is based on it being a more shallow angle, so rather than obliterating the heart and lungs, I only smash the top bit of the lungs. That's still a dead deer, but it's not a perfect shot, and it'll have that bit more poke before it gives up the ghost. Now, I'd be a little miffed with that shot, because it could have gone more wrong if I made the same calculation and the bodged the shot a bit high, missing the vitals altogether, and since it would have been easily avoidable by correctly gauging the angle, it was an unnecessary error, which could have led to suffering. Happily, in this case, it didn't (hypothetical scenario, never bodged a shot yet) but it was a good faith judgement. Now, under a loose definition of unnecessary suffering, the suffering caused by that shot (and quickly ended by a follow up shot, obviously) could be deemed unnecessary, but it was a good faith error. Indeed, it would also be extremely impractical to legislate for standards of marksmanship and terrain reading abilities with failure to demonstrate these things in the hunt becoming a criminal offence. That would be a complete failure in terms of justice and a waste of legislative time, since it couldn't be practically enforced.

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

It's really not. I mean, you only have to look at the numbers turning out in Clonmel for the example I gave earlier. No diversity of issues there at all, just coursing. And again you had a ratio of a thousand to one and better for the fieldsports group. For the matter of it, I don't know of any hunt within a long distance of me wearing red coats. Know quite a few with beautiful green ones, some tans and some black ones. The notion that it's a hangover of imperialism just doesn't stick. Both forms of hunting have their place. Provided the hunts don't stray onto land they're not allowed on, I've no problem. Nobody has the right to be on land they've no permission to be on, rather a large pet peeve of mine.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

With drag hunting there is often less access to land. Drag hunting is a different sport, instead of having breaks/checks it is a lot more full on and can just keep going often covering more land, sometimes this can mean a change of horse.

Look at the letters in papers, it is the same names that pop up. Look at each animal rights group, the names names pop up. I fully support animal welfare but am under no illusions about animal rights.

I really doubt there was no stag/deer hunting or fox hunting before the Normans. Hunting is hunting regardless of whether or not followers are on horseback. Hunting with scent hounds has been around since the Egyptians.

Would you prefer if the pink (which is what it is referred to) coat is green?

This smacks more of preconceived notions about other people than anything else.

Just because land may be closed to hunting doesn't mean it is not hunted at all (with the exception of sanctuaries). Those that close it may hunt it themselves or give permission to a few.

Whispered

I'm delighted this debate is being held with such good manners and less of the usual hysteria surrounding such discussions.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I enjoy my hunting for deer, rabbits and birds, which I eat. I don't need to do it, as I could buy the meat, but I choose to be actively involved in the procurement of my own sustenance. I have no false illusions about where my food comes from, mountain side to table, .......... I believe it's important that people should have an understanding of this, and killing your own food is an excellent way for people to understand it.

I am absolutely anti cruelty, I personally fnd hunting distasteful, as I find aspects of animal farming distasteful.

My father hunts, with both dogs and a gun, what he kills he eats and he has more respect for he countryside than most people I know. While I find it difficult to "excuse" it (not that it's my place to excuse my father) he very rightly pointed out that the game he kills, has had a better life and quicker death than a chicken dinner. It's thanks to this I don't eat any meat. It kind of had the opposite effect to what he hoped. I fully agree with the notion that more people would be vegetarian if they had to kill their own animals. But it's easy to turn a blind eye to cruelty when it comes nicely packaged with a sell by date.

I think game hunting for food (rabbits, deer, phesants) is in a different category to the likes of fox hunting which is purely about the sport of hunting and killing. Aren't humans the only animal which does that, or do others do it too (I'm thinking killer whales might for some reason). In my mind, hunting for food is natural and no worse, perhaps better, than what happens in slaughter houses all over the country, hunting for the sake of killing is simply, as Graces said....barbaric.

convert

PaulB91 wrote: »

my personal view is that "hunting" in such forms as horse and hound is very outdated, and where i understand the need for keeping down certain forms of wildlife, is a pack of hounds and riders really the most humane form? [...]

as for hunting foxes by horse and hound, i'm pretty sure that there is a more cost affective way than 40 or so hounds and 40 or so riders running across the countryside, knocking down fences and cutting wire fences in order to continue the hunt? I mean on what grounds are hunts still justified?

Hunting with hounds is the most natural form of hunting. Hounds naturally prey on quarry, such as foxes, hares, deer, rabbit, mink, to name but a few, the same way as wolves or dingo do in the wild. It's in their nature, just like a cat will chase and kill birds, rats, mice, etc., except the hounds will kill their prey instantly rather than playing with it for hours.

Discodog wrote: »

There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

I really, really hope that this is some form of a joke! Do you really believe that Ireland has no history prior to the arrival of the Normans to Ireland in 1169? :eek: Not to mention that hunting didn't exist here before that date?

planetX wrote: »

They got such a big turnout because they pulled in all sorts of other issues - farming, live export etc. Classic tactics of the bloodsports crowd, to detract attention from their own activity by surrounding themselves with other issues. If dogfighting was still legal they'd be claiming it was the thin end of the wedge, and banning it would collapse farming. That's what they're claiming for stag hunting. They make me sick.

The RISE Campaign -Rural Ireland Says Enough! - is not just about hunting - it encorporates all fieldsports, from shooting, to angling, to point-to-pointing and National Hunt racing to hunter trialling.

PaulB91

convert wrote: »

Hunting with hounds is the most natural form of hunting. Hounds naturally prey on quarry, such as foxes, hares, deer, rabbit, mink, to name but a few, the same way as wolves or dingo do in the wild. It's in their nature, just like a cat will chase and kill birds, rats, mice, etc., except the hounds will kill their prey instantly rather than playing with it for hours.

I think we both know that neither of us will change each others minds but i hope you don't mind a little debate on this

OK dogs are preditors, trust me i know this from watching my four hunting cats while out on my daily walks (don't worry they are all on leads and don't get near the cats) but just because my dogs naturally want to hunt and kill cats doesn't mean thats right in this day and age.

In the same way it wouldn't be right for me to let them ravage a herd of sheep - in fact some of the people who hunt fox's would also own sheep i guess and they would be pretty quick to shoot my dogs if they did to the sheep what their dogs would do to the fox, so barring that in mind saying that hunting should be allowed because it natures way is a bit dead in the water

crotalus667

ISDW wrote: »

Maybe they do, but not around here.

I have no objection to people killing an animal humanely to eat, I am a meat eater, so can't be hypocritical about that. But I don't think tearing an animal apart would leave much to eat?

I am talking about people where my grandmother lived (in kenmare) and when i say hunt i mean with guns, not every one ate what they shot but most of them would use it to feed their dogs (mainly rabbits and hairs that needed to be kept in check)

doctor evil

PaulB91 wrote: »

In the same way it wouldn't be right for me to let them ravage a herd of sheep - in fact some of the people who hunt fox's would also own sheep i guess and they would be pretty quick to shoot my dogs if they did to the sheep what their dogs would do to the fox, so barring that in mind saying that hunting should be allowed because it natures way is a bit dead in the water

A flock of sheep is someones livelihood and are owned, foxes are not.

TBF hounds kill foxes very swiftly not in the same way that roaming dogs will go through a flock leaving wounded survivors. If a hounds catches a fox it gets killed. If a hound looked at a sheep funny it certainly won't be used for hunting. It is not a very good comparison.

doctor evil

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think game hunting for food (rabbits, deer, phesants) is in a different category to the likes of fox hunting which is purely about the sport of hunting and killing. Aren't humans the only animal which does that, or do others do it too (I'm thinking killer whales might for some reason). In my mind, hunting for food is natural and no worse, perhaps better, than what happens in slaughter houses all over the country, hunting for the sake of killing is simply, as Graces said....barbaric.

In my mind hunting is hunting, what happens to the carcass afterwards is immaterial (immoral to waste good meat, although if left there it is eaten by other creatures/microbes/insects etc)

There is more to hunting with hounds than for the sake of killing.

If near the front followers get to watch the hounds and whippers in work, further back in the field everyone can hear the hounds 'sing' and have access to ride on land they would not normally have.

You may ask are the followers at the back necessary? Fair question. The money they pay to attend goes towards the running of the hunt and the kennels/pays the workers. With drag hunting followers don't get to enjoy the countryside as there aren't as many checks and the hounds work differently as the scent is prelaid and does not have to be found/refound. It is also less social as it is a lot more full at a much faster pace.

Hunting can be great for horses as it helps them to become brave with jumping and can teach them to be more nimble on their feet. It also stops them becoming sour if they are only doing the one job over and over.

I agree that people should visit abattoirs and see where their meat comes from. I'd love it if there could be local abattoirs dotted about the place instead of a few big ones.

PaulB91

doctor evil wrote: »

A flock of sheep is someones livelihood and are owned, foxes are not.

TBF hounds kill foxes very swiftly not in the same way that roaming dogs will go through a flock leaving wounded survivors. If a hounds catches a fox it gets killed. If a hound looked at a sheep funny it certainly won't be used for hunting. It is not a very good comparison.

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age, so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

doctor evil wrote: »

There is more to hunting with hounds than for the sake of killing.

If near the front followers get to watch the hounds and whippers in work, further back in the field everyone can hear the hounds 'sing' and have access to ride on land they would not normally have.

You may ask are the followers at the back necessary? Fair question. The money they pay to attend goes towards the running of the hunt and the kennels/pays the workers. With drag hunting followers don't get to enjoy the countryside as there aren't as many checks and the hounds work differently as the scent is prelaid and does not have to be found/refound. It is also less social as it is a lot more full at a much faster pace.

Hunting can be great for horses as it helps them to become brave with jumping and can teach them to be more nimble on their feet. It also stops them becoming sour if they are only doing the one job over and over.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages, not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

Graces7

It seems incredible that any intelligent person can aver that chasing a creature for many miles to exhaustion and then letting it be torn apart is humane.

Especially if the idea is that this is the weaker and older ones?

Reminds of the American craze, whereby zoo animals that are too old to be of any use there are "released" and they let "hunters" shoot them to pieces. After "the chase" of course.

Reminds of the old saying, "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."

Helena; you are a star! A fine example to us all. I cannot yet go so far. Organic and free range are too costly on a small pension and with medical needs also

Shooting cleanly for food is one thing.

We would accept that source of meat. Happily.

In the US also, many deer hunters donate ground venison to food banks to be given to the poor. Wonderful use of it.

But this is quite another.

This is quite another.

It wasn't me!

PaulB91 wrote: »

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age, so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

Probably about as fast in most cases. Guns are excellent, but not all shots are perfect, and sometimes perfect shots don't kill instantaneously either.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages, not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

There's absolutely nothing elitist in what you've said there. The element of spectating puts it in the same bracket as watching another sporting event. The word elitist is clearly not appropriate.

PaulB91

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Probably about as fast in most cases. Guns are excellent, but not all shots are perfect, and sometimes perfect shots don't kill instantaneously either.

skipping past the point there - which was, if there is a reason to cull wildlife/vermin the gun is a lot more humane and cost effective than the "hunt" - i'm not talking about gentry going shooting pheasants who've been raised to be shot either

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing elitist in what you've said there. The element of spectating puts it in the same bracket as watching another sporting event. The word elitist is clearly not appropriate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitists

e·lit·ism


1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

the elitism is in the group at the front

doctor evil

PaulB91 wrote: »

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age,

In this day and age it is also possible to live a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, lets ban all meat! Just because it is 'this day and age' does not mean it has to be so. There is room for everyone with different views and activities. In the garden, if your dog goes after a bee/fly/butterfly do you punish it?

so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

Of course not, it would be daft and somewhat illegal to think that. There are animals that are protected and cannot be hunted/killed at all and there are others that have seasons.

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

If a hound catches its quarry it is a goner whereas a bullet if its not an instant kill shot can mean the animal such as a fox can get away and end up dying a slow death from gangrene.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages,

The whippers in are often mounted. Who else would pay their wages?

Do you think the spectators in football or any other sport are elitist as they get to watch someone else do the work and have to pay to have access to an area that they otherwise would not have?

not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

Anthromorphising has no place in reasonable discussion.



Once again preconceived notions of other people crops up...

doctor evil

Graces7 wrote: »

It seems incredible that any intelligent person can aver that chasing a creature for many miles to exhaustion and then letting it be torn apart is humane.

If Ireland still all her native animals foxes would be chased by the likes of wolves. It is in their nature to run, it is how they are evolved. They don't stand there and try to reason it out with the hound/wolf/Golden Eagle. They run and try to get to underground. They don't do this blindly, foxes are smart they will double back and go through water to disrupt their scent. The quarry is caught/killed swiftly and then the body is torn apart, not the living animal. People get this mixed up.

Especially if the idea is that this is the weaker and older ones?

The older/weaker foxes are often the ones that will go after the easy meal, new born lamb/chickens etc

Shooting cleanly for food is one thing.

How is it one thing? It still involves the death of an animal.

Whispered

doctor evil wrote: »

In my mind hunting is hunting, what happens to the carcass afterwards is immaterial (immoral to waste good meat, although if left there it is eaten by other creatures/microbes/insects etc)
.

I think it's a matter of opinion really (I don't mean that sarcastically). I am not niave enough to think that death doesn't have to happen for survival of others. But the intention behind it almost changes it IMO. Obviously not for the animal, the result is the same. Where death HAS to occur then so be it. Inflicting death on an animal for entertainment, is different.

My problem with the hounds is not that the death is slower, it may not be, either way it is a natural death, may not be what we like, but animals killing each other happens in the wild regardless. However, the sheer scale of the hunt is what is barbaric in my eyes. I understand that there is excitement, challenge etc in it for riders, horses and dogs, but it is NOT natural for a pack that large to chase down one animal.

How do the dogs form? Like do they follow one leader and almost go in file, or do they fan out? If they fan out, then the fox has only one option, to outrun the hunt. But in nature, doesn't a prey animal usually weave, change direction etc? Can they still do this when being followed by such a large pack of dogs?

Is it true that once the fox goes to ground, he is left? Is there a certain season for fox hunting?

Discodog

convert wrote: »

I really, really hope that this is some form of a joke! Do you really believe that Ireland has no history prior to the arrival of the Normans to Ireland in 1169? :eek: Not to mention that hunting didn't exist here before that date?

I would never joke about causing suffering to animals purely for pleasure.

Fox hunting as we know it was started by Charles II in 1660 however according to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association, who should know, the start date in Ireland was 1859. It was always highly elitist & was the sole pursuit of wealthy landowners.

To me the hunting/shooting fraternity tend to divide in the way that they justify their "sport". Some will say that it is tradition that should continue even though society has banned many previous traditions like child labour. Others will say that their methods are justified because the fox is vermin, as if the central nervous system & ability to feel pain are different for a fox.
There is the argument that we do worse things to other animals. We also let children starve but that doesn't stop us trying to end hunger. Some here will not accept drag hunting because it's not quite as good as the real thing or is it that they don't like people interfering ?.

I admire the honesty of those who admit that they enjoy killing animals. The custom of first blood, where the newest/youngest member of the hunt has warm fox blood wiped on their face is testimony. When hunting came under pressure in the UK hunts were told to stop the practice as it was "bad PR".

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare. The insinuation is that those who believe in animal rights are shadowy figures on the verge of legality. The ISPCA & many other organisations fight for animal rights & animal welfare. The two are inextricably linked.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance. The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

History is full of causes, that we now accept as civilised, but had a long fight for acceptance including slavery. Ireland has one of the worst records regarding animal welfare in Europe. To date 21 countries have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals & Ireland is not one of them.

PaulB91

doctor evil wrote: »

In this day and age it is also possible to live a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, lets ban all meat! Just because it is 'this day and age' does not mean it has to be so. There is room for everyone with different views and activities. In the garden, if your dog goes after a bee/fly/butterfly do you punish it?

OK – how about human sacrifice, that was legal once upon a time, oh wait it became outdated, as time moves on! At the end of the day blood sports of all forms will be banned - just a matter of time and deaths.

doctor evil wrote: »

Of course not, it would be daft and somewhat illegal to think that. There are animals that are protected and cannot be hunted/killed at all and there are others that have seasons.

And who decides which animals become protected, us, so if foxes became protected due to low numbers would you send you dogs chasing rabbits across the countryside, or would that be not as much “fun”

doctor evil wrote: »

If a hound catches its quarry it is a goner whereas a bullet if its not an instant kill shot can mean the animal such as a fox can get away and end up dying a slow death from gangrene.

I wonder why the army never used the dogs to execute soldiers, you know instead of the firing squad? Apologies for the sarcasm but to say it's better to be torn apart than shot is ludicrous

doctor evil wrote: »

The whippers in are often mounted. Who else would pay their wages?

Who else would need their services?

doctor evil wrote: »

Do you think the spectators in football or any other sport are elitist as they get to watch someone else do the work and have to pay to have access to an area that they otherwise would not have?

Forgive me if I am wrong but no one or thing actually dies in a football game, and to a certain extent it is elitist – ever seen the “executive boxes” that only the wealthiest can afford?

doctor evil wrote: »

Anthromorphising has no place in reasonable discussion.

Sorry not meaning to be picky but did you mean Anthropomorphising -

the attribution of human characteristics to, or, some would argue, recognition of human characteristics in non-human creatures and beings

as i had to look it up - in which case i apologise for the use of the word "murder" as i think this is what you mean as "murder" can only be performed on a human being - so would you prefer "not the best arguments in the world for the terrorising and removal of the life force of critters"

doctor evil wrote: »

Once again preconceived notions of other people crops up...

Preconceived – sorry did I miss what happens, some people have dogs who scent out the fox, others ride behind on horse back and follow the hounds, the hounds track down the fox and kill it, everybody congratulates themselves and those who are on the first hunt have their face whipped with the blood of the fox?

Sittingpretty

Discodog wrote: »

I would never joke about causing suffering to animals purely for pleasure.

Fox hunting as we know it was started by Charles II in 1660 however according to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association, who should know, the start date in Ireland was 1859. It was always highly elitist & was the sole pursuit of wealthy landowners.

To me the hunting/shooting fraternity tend to divide in the way that they justify their "sport". Some will say that it is tradition that should continue even though society has banned many previous traditions like child labour. Others will say that their methods are justified because the fox is vermin, as if the central nervous system & ability to feel pain are different for a fox.
There is the argument that we do worse things to other animals. We also let children starve but that doesn't stop us trying to end hunger. Some here will not accept drag hunting because it's not quite as good as the real thing or is it that they don't like people interfering ?.

I admire the honesty of those who admit that they enjoy killing animals. The custom of first blood, where the newest/youngest member of the hunt has warm fox blood wiped on their face is testimony. When hunting came under pressure in the UK hunts were told to stop the practice as it was "bad PR".

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare. The insinuation is that those who believe in animal rights are shadowy figures on the verge of legality. The ISPCA & many other organisations fight for animal rights & animal welfare. The two are inextricably linked.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance. The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

History is full of causes, that we now accept as civilised, but had a long fight for acceptance including slavery. Ireland has one of the worst records regarding animal welfare in Europe. To date 21 countries have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals & Ireland is not one of them.

Excellent Post

cos!!

This can all be brought down to the dreaded cat and dog argument!Most owners let their cats out because they feel it natural for them to roam, hunt ect.. we have all seen the arguments on other threads, its the same for dogs only there are laws in place which restrict their instinct to chase, hunt and so on!This is what these dogs where bred for and the people who own the feel its only fair to enrich a dog with what it was bred to do, track, chase and kill.

Note:Sorry i used cat vs dog, I dont want it to be referred as it would ruin a so far good debate

Whispered

PaulB91 wrote: »

those who are on the first hunt have their face whipped with the blood of the fox?[/COLOR]

Does this really happen? :eek:

Doctor Evil; Sorry to bring up the point you made about what happens to the corpse meaning nothing, I know you didn't get a chance to respond to my last post yet, but I remembered something last night that I wanted to mention.

I was at my dads brothers funeral a few weeks ago. I was speaking to a very elderly woman, a neighbour, beside the casket, and she told me that she was diagnosed with an illness years ago (I didn't ask what) and she was advised to improve her diet. This is easier said than done when money is tight. She told me that until her health improved, either my father, or his brother, would arrive at her door each and every day with a rabbit, phesant or a fish.

I really don't think that could, or should be compared, to fox hunting. Killing for a days entertainment.