FG, Lab other support Stag Hunting

Vegeta

taconnol wrote: »

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.

And you asked for proof of the thin end of the wedge existing

Wolfe Tone

taconnol wrote: »

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.

So is fishing, that for the most part is not necessary. Ban that too? Or is too much money being made from that for it to be a runner?


Personally I don't see much difference in the fox having at least a slim chance of escape from the dogs, then tricking it with a lure and shooting it.

Macha

Vegeta wrote: »

And you asked for proof of the thin end of the wedge existing

No, people are saying this will be the end to all hunting, fishing shooting. That's not what I wrote above. I know enough about the environment to know that the animal you go out and shoot for your dinner has probably had a better life than the animal you pick up in the supermarket.

Vegeta

taconnol wrote: »

No, people are saying this will be the end to all hunting, fishing shooting. That's not what I wrote above.

Well what you wrote sums up how a lot of people feel.

The Greens picked a small gap they knew would be a relatively easy target, that is exactly how a wedge is used in splitting wood.

Logically you can see how anyone involved in hunting would rally together. It makes more sense to fight a political battle in greater numbers before it ever falls on your own door step.

Obviously this means people end up defending things they have never even experienced but what are the alternatives. Protest in small numbers, that isn't very effective.

Macha

Vegeta wrote: »

Well what you wrote sums up how a lot of people feel.

The Greens picked a small gap they knew would be a relatively easy target, that is exactly how a wedge is used in splitting wood.

Logically you can see how anyone involved in hunting would rally together. It makes more sense to fight a political battle in greater numbers before it ever falls on your own door step.

Obviously this means people end up defending things they have never even experienced but what are the alternatives. Protest in small numbers, that isn't very effective.

No, I actually consider it quite illogical to assume that when someone says A, they actually mean A and B. The slippery slope argument has been used against everything from black liberation in the US to allowing contraception in Ireland. It's a poor stance to take.

Blood sports are not the same as hunting for food/culling etc purposes and those that wish to conflate the two in defence of blood sports do hunters no favours.

Wolfe Tone

Ok, so it is ok to cull animals as long as no one has any fun?

ANXIOUS

Vegeta wrote: »

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

No they have achieved everything they set out to in the programme for goverment. If re elected to goverment they may try and change more hunting laws. But their is no chance of them doing it in this goverment.

P. Breathnach

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ok, so it is ok to cull animals as long as no one has any fun?

Fun isn't the issue. It's okay to cull animals so long as no unnecessary cruelty is involved.

lugha

I don’t think there is a natural place to draw the line in terms of how tolerant we should be in the exploitation of animals. We arrogantly assume that our species have dominion over the animals, even if we don’t invoke the bible to support than stance. But it is arrogance, and with such arrogance comes the need to decide where to draw the line.

Most of us, hunters included presumably, would not abide by people, either with intent or by neglect, inflicting needless cruelty to animals. But such people can say to hunters, “but you kill for pleasure also”. And hunters can say to non-vegetarians, “but you are content to have animals killed on your behalf. And so on. Even the PETA crew can have fingered wagged at them for using detergents or other anti-bacterial agents.

Personally, I would like to see a situation where animals were only killed primarily for either food or for what might be broadly categorised as pest control. But if the primary purpose is entertainment then I says no.

Breezer

According to The Irish Times, Labour will not overturn the stag hunting ban. Personally, I'm delighted, as I think this is one of the few decent things this government has done since 2007.

But what does this say about Labour? They go on the record as being anti-bloodsports. Then they vote against anti-bloodsports legislation. They remove the party whip from Tommy Broughan for voting as per stated personal and party policy. Then, when the opportunity arises to join with Fine Gael in removing legislation they disagreed with, they turn it down.

This is why I'm incredibly worried about Labour: I have no idea what they stand for.