Ban on Fox Hunting

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

And I explained that things can be made to look nice when you are getting public money - just like when the cameras are there. I'm talking proper regulation.

Yep just like the way that the Hunts, IGB & ICC make killing for fun look nice. You just summed up that TV3 documentary.

They are self regulating in exactly the same way as Greyhound racing, Coursing & Hunting. So if you object to rescues then you should be objecting to Hunting for the same reason. After all if self regulation is good enough for you then why not for rescues ?.

The rest of your remarks speak for themselves & need no further comment from me. But at least I have been here & can be judged over two & a half years & 3000 posts. I didn't just suddenly appear in response to a TV program.

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

Ref: The Heritage Service (Duchas)
Oh well that makes perfect sense then.... Do you believe anyone except yourself?



Ehhhh then *bursts out laughing* - at the logic or lack of contained in this statement....



Well anytime I have given an answer or reference - all I get from you is "I/We dont believe you"! I have given answers based on my personal knowledge and experience. If you only wish to believe what you already believe thats fine, just dont keep asking the same questions...



Well it must be you then. I persume then they already know you are anti hunt




So the royal "We" who do you honestly think you are - the bloody queen!

And it may be your cockney slang (does the Queen speak Cockney?) it is also used in Ireland and its spelt gozunda...



As ISDW said there is no proper regulation! And I explained that things can be made to look nice when you are getting public money - just like when the cameras are there. I'm talking proper regulation.

Don't you dare. I said nobody regulates me, but I have never received a single cent from the government or any official body. The rescues that have received grants are inspected.

gozunda

Yes

ISDW wrote: »

Don't you dare. I said nobody regulates me, but I have never received a single cent from the government or any official body. The rescues that have received grants are inspected.

ISDW I was making a statement that backyard "rescue centres" currently have no statutory regulation or inspection and yes I agree that you said you were not regulated. Neither are hundreds of other such centres.

Following the demands of a number of posters here for information on Hunt Kennels inspection and regulation and demands for same. (and which I have no information on) I proposed in the interest of fairness and balance that all types of kennels and not just hunt kennels should face proper and regular inspection and regulation. I also posed a question on who actually regulates rescue centres run by individuals in their own backyards?

With regard to the above I stand by my belief that such backyard "rescue centres" need proper inspection and regulation as they are open to a range of possible abuses by a small number of unscrupulous individuals.

The Dept of Agriculture gave €1.185M in funding to 112 "animal welfare" organisations. For this funding there is a limited requirement for inspection which amounts to some paperwork and single inspection by the Department undertaken for grant purposes (See below). This is hardly adequate taking into consideration animal welfare and the amount of funds being awarded.

Prior to any decision being made, the premises of each applicant may be inspected by a Department Veterinary Inspector. The premises of all first time applicants will be visited by a Department Veterinary Inspector.

LINK

A recent case in cork highlighted a "rescue centre" that had been awarded funding over a number of years. Complaints from members of the public about its activities and fundraising are being investigated by the Gardai
LINK

Leaving aside those that recieve public funds - there are hundreds of other "rescue centres" that are not grant aided in this country. These centres have no inspection or regulation whatsover.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Following the demands of a number of posters here for information on Hunt Kennels inspection and regulation and demands for same. (and which I have no information on) I proposed in the interest of fairness and balance that all types of kennels and not just hunt kennels should face proper and regular inspection and regulation.

The Hunts lobbied to be excluded from any inspections. The Dog Pounds give detailed figures of how many dogs they kill. The Hunts keep accurate records but they also keep them secret like the IGB.

In my experience hiding information usually means that there is something that they don't want the public to know. Also bear in mind that the IGB/ICC get a vast amount more money the rescues who have to deal with unwanted Greyhounds.

The rescues attempt to help animals whereas you support killing them. You are also trying to divert the conversation away from Hunt kennels.

The following statements are from the IMFHA & are typical of the excuses that are being made to avoid the inspection of Hunt kennels :

"The proposal to Microchip is not favoured as it could impede the performance of the hound"

We all see how our dogs are impeded by microchips :rolleyes:

"We fear that in the event of not being granted exemption these extremists could infiltrate any Inspectorate"

They do not believe that the authorities would be capable of recruiting reputable Inspectors.

It is any possible excuse. They will not allow anyone who is not Hunt appointed to inspect kennels & we allow this. Maybe a simple answer would be to allow ISPCA inspectors in, at any time & without warning or appointment - but they could be extremists !.

ISDW

Ah, thanks for that Discodog, that explains why my dogs haven't won at any rallies, they are all microchipped, so obviously their performance is impeded. Oh no, wait a minute, my son won the Junior Wyedean Quest last month with 2 microchipped dogs There are a lot of dogs that have travelled to Norway at the moment from all over the world to compete in a world championship, to get the passport to enter the country they have to be microchipped, the videos I've seen, and the times the teams are posting would obviously be greatly improved if those dogs didn't have a little microchip in them.

What an absolute load of nonsense.

gozunda

Yes

Discodog wrote: »

The Hunts lobbied to be excluded from any inspections. The Dog Pounds give detailed figures of how many dogs they kill. The Hunts keep accurate records but they also keep them secret like the IGB....In my experience hiding information usually means that there is something that they don't want the public to know. Also bear in mind that the IGB/ICC get a vast amount more money the rescues who have to deal with unwanted Greyhounds. ...The rescues attempt to help animals whereas you support killing them. You are also trying to divert the conversation away from Hunt kennels....

The real point is who knows what "backyard" rescue centres are up to?. I know of one local individual who openly boasted how he used online forums to source dogs which he then sold. The same individual also claimed he ran a "rescue centre" and had a "lovely home" for dogs. Some may certainly "help" animals for others their objectives are questionable at best.

The "Pounds" are not one person backyard "rescue centres" btw.

Discodog once again you are attempting to divert the conversation away from a balanced discussion. But then how can there be balance where there is a clear and unequivocal bias?

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

The real point is who knows what "backyard" rescue centres are up to?. I know of one local individual who openly boasted how he used online forums to source dogs which he then sold. The same individual also claimed he ran a "rescue centre" and had a "lovely home" for dogs. Some may certainly "help" animals for others their objectives are questionable at best.

The "Pounds" are not one person backyard "rescue centres" btw.

Discodog once again you are attempting to divert the conversation away from a balanced discussion. But then how can there be balance where there is a clear and unequivocal bias?

Yawn, really boring now, have a look at the title thread. If you want to discuss the backyard rescue centres, why not start a thread on it, instead of diverting this one constantly?

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

The real point is who knows what "backyard" rescue centres are up to?.

It isn't. We are discussing Fox Hunting.

So back on topic. A few thoughts on foxes killing for pleasure - so called surplus killing & the killing of lambs:

The Mammal Group at the University of Bristol say:

"This accusation is untrue: foxes do not kill for fun. Most animals need to find food every day to survive. Some nights are better than others in terms of food for a fox so, given the opportunity, foxes will always kill surplus food and cache (bury) it, to eat on another night when hunting is less good. This is a very successful strategy for surviving in the wild.
However, when a fox breaks into a hen house it is surrounded by easily caught prey. Its normal behaviour, and a good survival strategy is to kill all prey available and try to cache it. Given the option, the fox will come back for the remaining corpses and cache them. The solution is easy: securely house your animals."

Foxwatch Ireland:

"This is not to say that attacks never happen but when they do they must be so few that the Ministry of Agriculture in Britain refuse to list the fox as a major pest for annual lamb mortality."

From 'Running with the Fox' by David MacDonald:

'Lamb survival on the Scottish isle of Mull, where there are no foxes, was no better than on the nearby mainland, where foxes occur and were hunted.'

Even Pest Control Ireland:

"Red foxes are known to sometimes kill more than they can eat and bury food in caches for later use."

Your quoted, much revered & according to you, recent book Duchas "Exploring Irish Mammals" is over 10 years old & out of print !

gozunda

Yes

gozunda wrote:

Following the demands of a number of posters here for information on Hunt Kennels inspection and regulation and demands for same. (and which I have no information on) I proposed in the interest of fairness and balance that all types of kennels and not just hunt kennels should face proper and regular inspection and regulation. I also posed a question on who actually regulates rescue centres run by individuals in their own backyards?

The unbelievable irony of those who support and who are involved in animal "rescue centres" insisting that only hunt kennels should be discussed on this thread in relation to aninal welfare standards for kennels is absolutly astounding. To insist that is truely biased. If this is a balanced discussion then the it should be obvious that all kennels establishments should require transparency and openess. To deny this simply shows that the principle responders are persuing an agenda outside that of a rational discussion. If hunt kennels are to be put up for criticism and villification then in the interest of equality and fairness all other establishments should have the same level of scrutiny.

as for the latter comment of:

Discodog wrote: »

...."Some nights are better than others in terms of food for a fox so, given the opportunity, foxes will always kill surplus food and cache (bury) it, to eat on another night when hunting is less good. This is a very successful strategy for surviving in the wild.
However, when a fox breaks into a hen house it is surrounded by easily caught prey. Its normal behaviour, and a good survival strategy is to kill all prey available and try to cache it. Given the option, the fox will come back for the remaining corpses and cache them. The solution is easy: securely house your animals."!

Please Note: All Chicken farmers The fox has a "right" to eat all and any of your chickens because of it is normal behaviour! Note: For free range poulty farmers - you wull just have to take up intensive rearing methods - otherwise you are just temping the fox!

For fs will the Bunny and Bambi brigade please grow up!

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

The unbelievable irony of those who support and who are involved in animal "rescue centres" negating the need for regulation for all types of kennels is absolutly astounding. To insist that only Hunt Kennels need to be regulated and to be be inspected is truely biased. If this is a balanced discussion then the it should be obvious that all kennels establishments should require transparency and openess. To deny this simply shows that the principle responders are persuing an agenda outside that of a rational discussion.

as for the latter comment of:



So all Chicken farmers please note the fox has a "right" to eat your chickens because of it is normal behaviour!

For fs will the bunny and Bambi brigade please grow up!

*sigh* start a new thread about rescues kennels and regulation and I will happily discuss it with you, but for now, how about staying on topic? And of course again you are misrepresenting, I said I would be pleased to be regulated. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

gozunda

Yes

ISDW wrote: »

Yawn, really boring now, have a look at the title thread. If you want to discuss the backyard rescue centres, why not start a thread on it, instead of diverting this one constantly?

So you find the associated topic of individuals claiming to be "rescue centres" detailed above that are involved in reselling and god knows what esle to be boring?

ISDW wrote: »

*sigh* start a new thread about rescues kennels and regulation and I will happily discuss it with you, but for now, how about staying on topic? And of course again you are misrepresenting, I said I would be pleased to be regulated. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

ISDW - These are your previous comments with regards to the diversion on "hunt Kennels etc"

ISDW wrote:

If there is no regulation, how can we know what the standard of care is?

ISDW wrote:

Who regulates hunting kennels? ... Of course it is relevant

Then you come up with this one when you no longer wish to continue the discussion!

ISDW wrote:

start a new thread about rescues kennels and regulation and I will happily discuss it with you, but for nowhow about staying on topic

Its amazing how diversionary some individuals can be when it suits the agenda....

Your motivation for wishing to be regulated must really be commended....

ISDW wrote: »

... I've love to be regulated, then maybe I'd get some funding...

Discodog

Gozunda you have posted 58 posts in two similar threads. You started off claiming to be the voice of reason who welcomed debate. Now you throw insults & use profanities.

If someone posts information & you disagree, you just slag the poster. You never offer a reasonable argument. You will see that both threads together have had some 11,500 views & I am sure that some of these viewers would like to see both sides of the argument.

You also need to understand that some of us have been here for a while. Nowadays I am rarely asked to give links because, especially when I quote specific information, people know that it is always soundly based.

If you do a search you will see that we have discussed rescues & their funding. Whether everyone should be regulated is irrelevant here as we are discussing Hunts. The Hunt lobby always try to lump things together so, for example, they say that if there were a Hunting ban then shooting & fishing would be next which is totally untrue.

So how about you start presenting alternative arguments & facts rather that rubbishing the views of others.

ISDW

gozunda wrote: »

Your motivation for wishing to be regulated must really be commended....

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I can't afford to go to visit my mother who's ill because of the "backyard rescue" that I run We can't afford a holiday, can't afford a car, just a van for transporting the dogs, a van that needs desperately to be serviced, but I just can't afford it at the moment. My own dogs get fed on cheap food so that I can afford to run the rescue. And my motivation is money - seriously just go and get a life, you are so boring now its pathetic.

Attack the post, not the poster is one of the forum rules, maybe you should abide by it, I have tried, but you've pushed it too far now, I tried to engage with you, thinking that if I answered your questions that we could get back on topic and you would answer mine. I really thought you were someone that could have a reasoned debate but you are not, all you have done is deflect and try to demean. Best of luck with that, you're not worth anymore of my time.

seamus

The discussion of "backyard" rescues is off-topic. Start a new thread if you feel it warrants discussion.

The next person to bring it up will get a weeks' ban.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Note: For free range poulty farmers - you wull just have to take up intensive rearing methods - otherwise you are just temping the fox!

I know people with free range hens that have never shot a fox. For many years I kept hens, ducks & geese in a rural setting with no problems. Any responsible poultry keeper will put the animals away at night in a secure fox proof house.

My geese were great guards. I never had to worry during the day. One producer that I know uses the technique of a double fence - his dogs roam between the outer & inner fences.

Incidentally how would you propose that a hunt operates around free range poultry ?.

gozunda

Yes

Discodog wrote: »

Gozunda you have posted 58 posts in two similar threads. You started off claiming to be the voice of reason who welcomed debate. Now you throw insults & use profanities.

I posted to provide details on hunting as it actually is and not as propaganded by the anti-hunt groups - eg fox being chased for hours and all that :rolleyes: Given the subsequent level of "discussion" that I have encountered and the tactics used by certian posters to harang anyone that is not anti hunting I believe I am being very polite.

Discodog wrote: »

If someone posts information & you disagree, you just slag the poster. You never offer a reasonable argument. You will see that both threads together have had some 11,500 views & I am sure that some of these viewers would like to see both sides of the argument.

Yes I am sure they would like to see both sides of the argument. When reasoned answer is attempted you have sidelined the argument every single time or by making ridiculous demands.

Discodog wrote: »

You also need to understand that some of us have been here for a while. Nowadays I am rarely asked to give links because, especially when I quote specific information, people know that it is always soundly based.

Congratulations on the longivity :rolleyes: - just be carefull - I believe from sources that the ice you are skating on is getting quite thin. If you insist that others provide references then you cannot exempt yourself.

Discodog wrote: »

If you do a search you will see that we have discussed rescues & their funding. Whether everyone should be regulated is irrelevant here as we are discussing Hunts. The Hunt lobby always try to lump things together so, for example, they say that if there were a Hunting ban then shooting & fishing would be next which is totally untrue.

I like shooting and fishing too!

Discodog wrote: »

So how about you start presenting alternative arguments & facts rather that rubbishing the views of others.

This statement from the poster who replies to answers by stating "I dont belive you" and ridiculing information provided is at best hillarious and ambigous. I dont need to say anymore...

Hellrazer

gozunda wrote: »

I believe from sources that the ice you are skating on is getting quite thin.

Gozunda this is the type of sniping Ive just referred to in the TV3 thread.
I was just typing that as this was posted.
Now quit it.Discodogs warnings are not your concern and should not be used in your arguing your point.

Consider this your warning

gozunda

Yes

Hellrazer wrote: »

Gozunda this is the type of sniping Ive just referred to in the TV3 thread.
I was just typing that as this was posted.
Now quit it.Discodogs warnings are not your concern and should not be used in your arguing your point.

Consider this your warning

Thanks for that HR - I didn't see you other post with regard to that.

the_syco

Yes

Discodog wrote: »

but apparently it's wrong for a fox to kill a chicken which it can only do if the chicken's owner allows it.

Natural, yes, but still wrong for it to slaughter someones living.

As for proper housing, the fox will find the weakness in it if there is one. And then, as you say

Discodog wrote: »

However, when a fox breaks into a hen house it is surrounded by easily caught prey. Its normal behaviour, and a good survival strategy is to kill all prey available and try to cache it.

If the fox gets in, it'll kill all inside. If not, how well will the hen lay if it knows that there is a fox outside?

ISDW wrote: »

I can't afford to go to visit my mother who's ill

My sympathies. Could you not get someone to cover you for a night or two, so you could visit her? Although I admire your dedication to your work, doing it at the cost of not being able to visit family is too high a price.

ISDW

the_syco wrote: »

Natural, yes, but still wrong for it to slaughter someones living.

As for proper housing, the fox will find the weakness in it if there is one. And then, as you say

If the fox gets in, it'll kill all inside. If not, how well will the hen lay if it knows that there is a fox outside?


My sympathies. Could you not get someone to cover you for a night or two, so you could visit her? Although I admire your dedication to your work, doing it at the cost of not being able to visit family is too high a price.

Will pm you, as I don't want to be banned:D

gozunda

Yes

Foxes are oppportunists who will Jump over and dig under under any defences placed in their way. They will repeatably visit a a fowl yard to check if anything has been left undone or open. On gaining entry foxes will decimate flocks. Certain foxes learn early that this is an easy way to a meal and will continue to prey on fowl when possible. These facts havn't changed in hundreds of years except today many adults today retain notions of talking, cutesy and fluffy animals from their nursery school days :rolleyes:

Discodog

But it is so easy to make a totally fox proof hen house. I used to enclose mine in a chain link "box" - just attach bits of chainlink fence to the wood of the house, sides, roof & floor. For added protection stitch the bottom & roof to the sides with some wire. Oh & always use a padlock.

Simple, cheap & totally effective.

John_Rambo

gozunda wrote: »

many adults today retain notions of talking, cutesy and fluffy animals from their nursery school days :rolleyes:

Are you an anti hunt activist pretending to be a sneering, snide, obnoxious hunter to gain numbers? If you are, you are doing a fine job.

Discodog

Bugger I have just thanked John & he's a hunter

the_syco

Yes

ISDW wrote: »

Will pm you, as I don't want to be banned:D

Ah, maybe next month. PM box is kinda full atm, as my sub ran out. Hope to get resubbed when I get paid on the 7th

ISDW

the_syco wrote: »

Ah, maybe next month. PM box is kinda full atm, as my sub ran out. Hope to get resubbed when I get paid on the 7th

Yeah I know, I tried, never mind. Now you have me a bit worried though, why do you have to have a sub to have PMs on here? Its all free isn't it?:eek:

gozunda

Yes

gozunda wrote:

...many adults today retain notions of talking, cutesy and fluffy animals from their nursery school days :rolleyes:

For those that think this doesn't happen think again...

The "Bambi effect" is a term used to refer to objections to the killing or hunting of animals that are perceived as "cute" or adorable. It is increasingly seen in prepackaged prepared meats and foods where consumers don't have to face of actually dealing with anything that might look like the animal it belonged to. It has also led to individuals attempting to hug bears and climb into animal enclosures in the mistaken belief that the animals are as portrayed in cartons and Disney films. The whole anti - hunting debate is rifled with arguments based on emotionalism and not on logic. As there are a complete lack of objective content in such emotional arguments there is no end to to them. Moreover attempting to present a logical argument and present realistic perceptions to anti hunting groups who base their decision on emotion alone is near impossible.

John_Rambo

gozunda wrote: »

It is increasingly seen in prepackaged prepared meats and foods where consumers don't have to face of actually dealing with anything that might look like the animal it belonged to

Gozunda, I ask you again, are you just a troll or are you an anti hunt person pretending to be (what you think) is a stereo typical hunter to annoy people?

People involved in animals know what meat is and where it comes from.

If you are actually a hunter that has decided to log on and represent all hunters you are not doing them any favours by a long shot. By sneering at people and talking down to them you are misrepresenting people and making hunting less popular with every one of your childish posts.

Now, I happen to enjoy cooking and eating my wild game and fish, I even partake in some shooting the odd time. So, before you turn too many people off hunting all together with your patronising comments will you do me a favour and shut up?

the_syco

Yes

Off topic, but...

ISDW wrote: »

Yeah I know, I tried, never mind. Now you have me a bit worried though, why do you have to have a sub to have PMs on here? Its all free isn't it?:eek:

Sub allows more PM's than the usual 500... I think the max is 3,000 or 5,000 PM's :P

You have 1,587 messages stored, of a total 500 allowed

So I either resub, or spring clean. The former is easier :P

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

Yeah I know, I tried, never mind. Now you have me a bit worried though, why do you have to have a sub to have PMs on here? Its all free isn't it?:eek:

Ha - Are you imagining an enormous bill heading your way

1500 pm's blimey - someone is popular !