FG, Lab other support Stag Hunting

Macha

round tower huntsman wrote: »

this was a crisis that should never have been. country's broke and in the shxt and we're talking bout banning a stag hunt(which actually provides jobs and revenue).

And by god if we could make money out of being cruel to as many animals as possible, that's exactly what we should do.

reprazant

I guess that even when the country is in the ****, some people think that chasing animals with a pack of dogs and guns is cowardly.

I found it interesting that you think dog fighting is cruel but having a pack of dogs chase a hare or fox is not.

Sure, if we legalise dog and cock fighting, there would be lots of money to be made.

A blood sport is a blood sport, no?

round tower huntsman

a dog fight is 2 evenly matched dogs in a pit. its a baiting session. that their usually wont be a winner til one is dead and that will take a while.
hunting is chasing a fox in his natural enviroment, he knows every nook and cranny and if the dogs do catch him,its over in seconds. its not a pound for pound fight to the death. hounds kill foxes almost instantly.
and unlike a fight,if the fox gets away he gets away clean and uninjured and a little wiser.

round tower huntsman

also foxhunting provides essential fox control to farmers. but we're getting off topic.

round tower huntsman

dlofnep wrote: »

Seasons. I see. Are you aware of how long all animals that you hunt are dependant on their mothers?

yes

Wide Road

reprazant wrote: »

Because they will vote on anything which will embarrass the government.

They lost one of their own and in turn ended up embarrassed themselves . They knew this themselves, so why do it?

round tower huntsman

RISE got 60,000 signatures on paper with anothe 40,000 on email. thats a lot of voters.

steelcityblues

Mattie McGrath does not fool anyone with a level of discernment on political affairs!

Mal-Adjusted

round tower huntsman wrote: »

also foxhunting provides essential fox control to farmers. but we're getting off topic.

the farmer is probably worried about all the horses and hounds that are after making sh!t of his ditch and field.

round tower huntsman wrote: »

RISE got 60,000 signatures on paper with anothe 40,000 on email. thats a lot of voters.

compared to the 3+ million that live in rural areas? you have what, 3%? not doing much better than the greens

flutered

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

the farmer is probably worried about all the horses and hounds that are after making sh!t of his ditch and field.


actually 2 weeks after a point to point is held there is no sign of hoofprints on the land.

all hunts have employees to repair any damage done to ditches and fences on the day of the hunt, if this is not possible it is seen to on the following day.

people need to educate themselves on these matters pefore posting gibberish.

another case of i dont like it it has to go.

Vegeta

taconnol wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that this is the thin end of the wedge?

Do you have any evidence that it is not?

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that it is not?

Yes, actually funny enough i do.

Government wins Wildlife Bill vote

MARIE O'HALLORAN AND MICHAEL O'REGAN

The Government has won tonight’s Dáil vote banning stag hunting by 75-72 despite uncertainty over the intentions of a small number of Fianna Fáil deputies.

Fianna Fáil Tipperary backbencher Mattie McGrath was the sole Government dissident in voting against the Bill to ban stag hunting as the legislation was passed this evening.

Mr McGrath and party colleague Christy O’Sullivan of Cork South West were both absent from the Dáil chamber when the second stage or introductory debate on the legislation was voted on an hour earlier, but the Government won by 73 to 69.

All other Fianna Fáil TDs, including Meath East backbencher Mary Wallace, voted for the legislation despite speaking out against it during the debate.

Members of Rise! (Rural Ireland Says Enough) packed the gallery for the debate and watched as Fine Gael chief whip Paul Kehoe called for a walk-through vote, whereby TDs have to pass through the "Tá" and "Níl" lobbies, after the electronic vote. In the walk through vote Mr McGrath abstained and the result was 75 votes to 71.

Mr Kehoe asked if the walk through superseded the electronic vote, but the issue was not clarified.

Mr McGrath and Mr O’Sullivan were surrounded by party colleagues before the final vote was taken on the controversial Wildlife (Amendment) Act, in a bid to persuade them to vote with the Government.

Mr O’Sullivan did vote for the legislation, but Mr McGrath voted against and loses the party whip and is no longer a member of the parliamentary party.

During the committee stage Minister for the Environment John Gormley again criticised the Labour party’s opposition to the Bill, accusing them of a U-turn and hypocrisy. He pointed to the absence of Dublin North East Labour TD Tommy Broughan, who opposes bloodsports, for the second stage vote. Mr Broughan did not attend later for the final vote.

Fianna Fáil Westmeath TD Mary O’Rourke said that this Bill and the dog breeding legislation should be an end to the Minister’s “rambling in rural Ireland”.

Yesterday, Mr Gormley, who brought forward the Bill, expressed confidence it would be passed. “I believe at this stage that Fianna Fáil colleagues are committed to implement the Programme for Government. They know that I am a reasonable person and this is not the thin end of the wedge.”

In a statement tonight, Labour chief whip Emmet Stagg said he had written to Mr Broughan informing the TD of the removal of the party whip after his decision to absent himself from the two Dáil votes.

In his letter Mr Stagg said: "I wish also to put on record that you did not inform me of your intentions and that I made contact with you between the two votes referred to and instructed you to attend for the vote at 7.00pm. You failed to do so."

Mr Stagg goes on to tell Mr Broughan that when the TD abstained on the Criminal Justice Bill last year, "the party leader made it clear to you that any repetition would result in the automatic removal of the whip from you".

Vegeta

So they are contradicting themselves then or else the people who made those statements need to consult with their Animal Welfare Policy Group

From the Green's website

7.1 When in government, the Green Party will introduce legislation to end blood sports.

Mal-Adjusted

flutered wrote: »

another case of i dont like it it has to go.

don't put words in my mouth. Stag hunting was banned by the democratic process, like it or lump it. i have a problem with a minuscule minority claiming to representative of rural values.

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

So they are contradicting themselves then or else the people who made those statements need to consult with their Animal Welfare Policy Group

From the Green's website

No that is what they wanted to do, but they realize that they cant. So they changed their policy but not their principles. Unlike some other parties.

That was never in the new programme for goverment.

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

So they are contradicting themselves then or else the people who made those statements need to consult with their Animal Welfare Policy Group

From the Green's website

As im sure you are aware that document you are quoting is 3weeks shy of 5yrs old.

Monday 25 July 2005

Vegeta

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

flutered wrote: »

don't put words in my mouth. Stag hunting was banned by the democratic process, like it or lump it. i have a problem with a minuscule minority claiming to representative of rural values.

How do you know it's a minority? Of people who actually care I don't think it is a minority.

Well when the anti-blood sport people march there is 100 of them. There were 5000-6000 in the RISE ones

That alone is indicative of the support. I am not saying that RISE speaks for everyone in a rural place but I think you are underestimating the number of people passionate enough to actually do something about this, like vote or lobby for votes against anyone who threatens their interests.

I think the people actively involved in fieldsports greatly outnumber active anti protesters. There are a hell of a lot of people in rural Ireland who don't prioritise fieldsports and they are the majority. I would not like to make any judgements on their position

Politicians care only about getting re-elected. The NARGC alone has 28,000 members who will and have instructed their members to challenge FF over this.

That is a nice chunk of votes to worry about, could mean a few seats at least.

As an example of what can be done, a few years ago it was proposed to increase the firearms license fees. Firearms owners who are not exactly ten a penny, e-mailed and called their local FF TDs and had the decision over turned.

Wolfe Tone

If fox hunting was banned how would the population be controlled?

Vegeta

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No that is what they wanted to do, but they realize that they cant. So they changed their policy but not their principles. Unlike some other parties.

That was never in the new programme for goverment.

According to you

ANXIOUS

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If fox hunting was banned how would the population be controlled?

Fox hunting will not be banned, you are scare mongering.

Vegeta

ANXIOUS wrote: »

As im sure you are aware that document you are quoting is 3weeks shy of 5yrs old.

And what's your point

It is still on their active website as their number one policy point on Blood Sports

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

According to you

No according to John Gormley, i quoted him for you earlier.

And according to the new programme for goverment, i.e. what the goverment intends to do for the duration.

Mal-Adjusted

Vegeta wrote: »

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

How do you know it's a minority?

round tower huntsman wrote: »

RISE got 60,000 signatures on paper with anothe 40,000 on email. thats a lot of voters.

sounds like a minority to me...

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

And what's your point

It is still on their active website as their number one policy point on Blood Sports

My point is that, they said this before they were in goverment. So this has changed since they came into goverment to fall in line with fianna fails policy.

Wolfe Tone

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Fox hunting will not be banned, you are scare mongering.

So why should one form of hunting be partially banned and not another?

ANXIOUS

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So why should one form of hunting be partially banned and not another?

I don't know. All i can do is speak for myself, i am more than happy to hunt with a gun. As i feel a swift death is more likely to follow also the animal will not be under any stress, i am however against a pack of dogs chasing a stag around for a couple of hours.

The likely hood here is of more injury and stress for the animal.

Wolfe Tone

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I don't know. All i can do is speak for myself, i am more than happy to hunt with a gun. As i feel a swift death is more likely to follow also the animal will not be under any stress, i am however against a pack of dogs chasing a stag around for a couple of hours.

The likely hood here is of more injury and stress for the animal.

Well half the fun is galloping through the fields on the horse...


So its ok to kill the animal as long as you shoot it?

ANXIOUS

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well half the fun is galloping through the fields on the horse...


So its ok to kill the animal as long as you shoot it?

In my opinion i do not have a problem with experienced hunters shooting vermin.

If half the fun is jumping around fields on horses, why dont they just have the hounds follow a pre-laid scent trail?

Wolfe Tone

ANXIOUS wrote: »

In my opinion i do not have a problem with experienced hunters shooting vermin.

If half the fun is jumping around fields on horses, why dont they just have the hounds follow a pre-laid scent trail?

Well I have never been on a hunt myself, but I have done quite a bit of cross country. A dragline is much more predictable, same with a pre laid trail. Much more hassle too I imagine, also if it is towed behind a land rover, how do you cross ditches etc?

ANXIOUS

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well I have never been on a hunt myself, but I have done quite a bit of cross country. A dragline is much more predictable, same with a pre laid trail. Much more hassle too I imagine, also if it is towed behind a land rover, how do you cross ditches etc?

You have someone go out before hand and lay down the scent. That way you can make it as unpredictable as you like.

Macha

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So its ok to kill the animal as long as you shoot it?

I often wonder if people realise how all the chicken fillets & steaks get into the plastic trays at the supermarket.

You may be a vegetarian and if so, well done for being consistent in your beliefs, but this attitude is often trotted out by people who are happy to eat meat every day.

Wolfe Tone

ANXIOUS wrote: »

You have someone go out before hand and lay down the scent. That way you can make it as unpredictable as you like.

But then it is like going fishing and not catching anything, and without any chance of catching anything.

ANXIOUS

taconnol wrote: »

I often wonder if people realise how all the chicken fillets & steaks get into the plastic trays at the supermarket.

You may be a vegetarian and if so, well done for being consistent in your beliefs, but this attitude is often trotted out by people who are happy to eat meat every day.

He was only trying to annoy me.

ANXIOUS

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But then it is like going fishing and not catching anything, and without any chance of catching anything.

Seems like a normal day fishing for me.

Mal-Adjusted

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But then it is like going fishing and not catching anything, and without any chance of catching anything.

you're not fishing...

Wolfe Tone

taconnol wrote: »

I often wonder if people realise how all the chicken fillets & steaks get into the plastic trays at the supermarket.

You may be a vegetarian and if so, well done for being consistent in your beliefs, but this attitude is often trotted out by people who are happy to eat meat every day.

I am not against hunting at all. I just find it hypocritical when people maintain that one form of hunting is wrong, yet it is ok to blast them with a gun.

Wolfe Tone

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

you're not fishing...

Whats the difference? The fish gets a hook through its lip, is dragged out of the water to a place it cannot breath, it suffers greatly and gets extremely stressed before it dies or is released.
Often the stag is hunted, suffers great stress and sometimes injury before it is captured and returned to its enclosure etc...

So just because it is a fish it is ok?

Mal-Adjusted

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Whats the difference? The fish gets a hook through its lip, is dragged out of the water to a place it cannot breath, it suffers greatly and gets extremely stressed before it dies or is released.
Often the stag is hunted, suffers great stress and sometimes injury before it is captured and returned to its enclosure etc...

So just because it is a fish it is ok?

first of all, you can eat the fish, not so with the stag. fish can be caught for food.

and I thought the point of the hunt was to get enjoyment out of riding the horse through the countryside? from what you're saying, if the stag isn't involved, there's little point in the hunt.

ridiculous comparisons are ridiculous :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

first of all, you can eat the fish, not so with the stag. fish can be caught for food.

and I thought the point of the hunt was to get enjoyment out of riding the horse through the countryside? from what you're saying, if the stag isn't involved, there's little point in the hunt.

ridiculous comparisons are ridiculous :rolleyes:

Someone has obviously never experienced the culinary delight of venison :rolleyes:

Vegeta

Vegeta wrote: »

sounds like a minority to me...

Well then people who are anti blood sport are in an even smaller minority by your logic

Vegeta

ANXIOUS wrote: »

No according to John Gormley, i quoted him for you earlier.

And according to the new programme for goverment, i.e. what the goverment intends to do for the duration.

And programmes for government are never revised or updated

So if the Greens say they are going to do A, B and C and actually do A, B and C. What do they do then?

Common sense would dictate they review their programme

Mal-Adjusted

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Someone has obviously never experienced the culinary delight of venison :rolleyes:

you said yourself that the deer goes back to an enclosure...

Vegeta wrote: »

Well then people who are anti blood sport are in an even smaller minority by your logic

i have no idea how many people are against it. that's not the point. claiming that this is a practice backed by a most rural people and then throwing up a measly 100,000 names is untrue and only serves to skew public perception of deer hunting

Wolfe Tone

Often the fish goes back in the water... so that is ok then?

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

And programmes for government are never revised or updated

So if the Greens say they are going to do A, B and C and actually do A, B and C. What do they do then?

Common sense would dictate they review their programme

They did revise it, just before Nama. This programme brings them up to the next general election. I don't understand your second two points can you clear them up for me please?

Mal-Adjusted

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Often the fish goes back in the water... so that is ok then?

where did I say that?

Wolfe Tone

You didn't, I was asking a question.

I don't think people should make exceptions for different types of hunting or whatever, it is hypocritical. Ban them all or ban nothing.

Vegeta

ANXIOUS wrote: »

They did revise it, just before Nama. This programme brings them up to the next general election. I don't understand your second two points can you clear them up for me please?

They have just achieved one of their policy items in their programme for government from the Animal Welfare Section

When they make their next programme it is logical to assume that it will be replaced with another item from their Animal Welfare Policy.

Would you agree? Or do you think it more likely they will just ignore hunting forever more.

The argument has been made that this is the thin end of the wedge.
The Green party have denied this.
If it is not the thin end of the wedge it implies the Green Party will never try to ban another form of hunting.
This is in direct conflict with their Animal Welfare Policy

Vegeta

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

i have no idea how many people are against it. that's not the point. claiming that this is a practice backed by a most rural people and then throwing up a measly 100,000 names is untrue and only serves to skew public perception of deer hunting

No one has made that claim though.

I just re-read page 3 and 4 (40 posts per page) and I cant see anyone say that.

Numbers were quoted but no one claimed to represent most rural people.

Deer hunting is very different from carted stag hunting. There is no ban on shooting deer.

Mal-Adjusted

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You didn't, I was asking a question.

very well. if the fish is let go, it still suffers injures for nothing more than the enjoyment of the fisher. ethically, it's wrong. if the fish is killed and eaten, at least it's put to use and there is a point to it.[/QUOTE]

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I don't think people should make exceptions for different types of hunting or whatever, it is hypocritical. Ban them all or ban nothing.

i agree

Macha

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I am not against hunting at all. I just find it hypocritical when people maintain that one form of hunting is wrong, yet it is ok to blast them with a gun.

There are different types of hunting with greater or lesser degrees of cruelty involved. Hunting live animals with dogs for fun is particularly cruel due to the lack of necessity. The banning of coursing and fox hunting as sports were not political possibilities and so the Greens went for the one that they could get through.