TV3 TONIGHT - The Truth about Irish Bloodsports.

Itsdacraic

Alun wrote: »

I've nothing against conservation, but conserving animals purely for the purposes of 'sport' and then claiming it's being done for the animal's good is nonsense IMO. If you're going to conserve wildlife then do it purely because it's the right thing to do, not for ulterior motives.

Have you inoculated many hares yourself lately?

Alun

Itsdacraic wrote: »

Have you inoculated many hares yourself lately?

What?

Itsdacraic

Would you deride fishermen who try to preserve and replenish salmon stock levels in the Irish rivers?

scartman1

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

i think its about time a programe was made about these sports that didnt begine with an "anti" agenda. the guy went in knowing little r nothing about them and made his own opinion. had he have acted in the same way and been more so against the hunting and coursing most of you would be probably praising him and saying he did a great job. there was an invitation put out for people to go along and see what they are all about, they are normal people enjoying each others company and sharing a common interest.

i cringed when that fella said the fox had no brain:rolleyes:

I think Henry McKean did a very fine job in presenting the facts on these issues for the general Joe and Mary Soap that know little or nothing about these past times. He let those that are advocates for either side of the argument represent themselves and their perspectives in a natural and pragmatic way.
As we can see, many who have come on here to criticise McKean are not nuetral on the issue, as indeed I myself am not, as a person who shoots, fishes and goes coursing occassionally.
The way I saw it, I felt that the presentation was fair and balanced.
The protagonists from either side were not media trained experts and they spoke from the hip on the issues from their perspective. Sure the guy who said the 'Fox had no brain' came across as being somewhat unsympathetic. The Polish lady who has a hamster in a 3 storey dolls house and gave up eating chicken last week was equally cringe worthy for her protrayal of a LULA. But thats how people are and real people that witness this will give allowances for same.
I think the concerted effort by many that oppose these past times to ridicule McKean and his presentation are doing so as perhaps they percieve that their propoganda was debunked and they lost some ground. They have come out in force in a concerted effort to scramble back upto their moral high ground since this thread was launched by Discodog, a well known Anti. This is no coincidence I think.

Ex Minister Gormley also spoke but was inconsistent, imo, in that he would condone shooting and fishing, (where the pheasant and fish is killed) and yet would condemn coursing where the hare is rarely if ever killed and the hare species benefits from the the conservation efforts of the Coursing Clubs. I wish that McKean had asked the Ex Minister if he had ever attended a coursing meeting and briefed himself on how it is actually conducted. Perhaps John Gormley, like most of the public, might have been wiser after viewing the documentary.

The programs purpose was not to convince the protagonists from either side of the debate to change their mind, but give an insight to the nuetral public into the real issues at hand so that they could be fully informed as 'to the truth about Bloodsports' .

Well done to Henry McKean and TV3.

scartman1

Discodog wrote: »

So they didn't recognise him or TV3 :rolleyes:. They will of seen the crew outside. They knew who it was & he made it clear that he was not anti-hunting. If they had let him in they could of explained about their problems with the protesters. The reality is they could not let him in because there were things that they didn't want seen & they didn't have ICC clearance.

They could make the field secure without all the polythene screening to hide what's going on, if they had nothing to hide.

So you are publicly accusing ARAN of spreading broken glass ?.

Its a well known fact that the Animal Rights movement staged a proganda video, where they surreptiously strangled a Hare, to give the impression of a dying hare being discovered in the Hare enclosure of the National Meeting in Clonmel.
With this background, they were obviously cautious about giving opportunists a further chance to try and stitch up the sport. When McKean introduced himself away from this confrontational situation and made the case to the ICC that he would be presenting facts impartially he was given full access, no problem.

Disco dog, to say the Edenderry club were trying to hide something is typical of your innuendo and propoganda, ans pays scant regard to the fact that the ICC officials were present along with the National Parks Wildlife rangers, as they are at all meetings. The strategy to constantly throw mud in the hope that it will stick my be great for getting those that wander into your websites to press the 'Donate' button, but detrimental towards presenting the truth.

Glass has been thrown on coursing fields and property damaged and hares released by the Animal Rights movement in the past, and they continue to show scant regard for the law or the truth. To respect both would obviously damage the coffers of their 'charities' which do not present auditable accounts.

The facts are that the Truth hurts and this documentary is definately hurting you currently and that is why you are fighting desperately to regain the lost ground. Unfortunately you have no new tactics and continue to wage the battle against fieldsports with propanda and mistruths.:rolleyes:

gozunda

Alun wrote: »

I've nothing against conservation, but conserving animals purely for the purposes of 'sport' and then claiming it's being done for the animal's good is nonsense IMO. If you're going to conserve wildlife then do it purely because it's the right thing to do, not for ulterior motives.

I doubt anyone would have anything against conservation tbh. It's not a case of conserving animals purely for "sport". Hunting is used a management tool that can aid conservation when undertaken correctly. It is important to ensure that wild animals continue to be part of the landscape. The danger remains that where wild populations are not conserved illegal methods become into play and the risk of uncontrolled and illegal killing increases.

Alun

gozunda wrote: »

I doubt anyone would have anything against conservation tbh. It's not a case of conserving animals purely for "sport". Hunting is used a management tool that can aid conservation when undertaken correctly. There is no ulterior motive but to ensure that wild animals continue to be part of the landscape. The danger remains that where wild populations are not conserved illegal methods become into play and the risk of uncontrolled and illegal killing increases.

I can understand what you're saying when applied to something like, say, foxes, but only when they're controlled in a humane way by shooting. But I don't understand how this principle can be applied to something like hare coursing, or crated stag hunting for example. In those cases neither can be considered as vermin, and in neither case are the animals killed to control their numbers but used purely as something to chase for peoples' 'enjoyment'.

willielovesall

Minky 123 wrote: »

That sounds very deluded to me, can we get one thing straight here a fox is hunted as part of vermin control and has been done so for hundreds of years. There used to be wolves in Ireland which used to be the apex predeter.:rolleyes:

As with regards to your hare comment. Foxes eat hares. Its the eco system they live in. Its the food chain. Fox-eats-hare-eats grass. There is always going to be less predators than prey because if there were more predators than they would die out. This is known as a predator-prey relationship.

The problem is man is directly interfering in this cycle leaving hares overgrazing on the grass. This is very bad for the land. It makes it difficult for farmers long-term as well as other vegetarian animals. See the fox has a natural purpose unlike guns!

scartman1

Alun wrote: »

I can understand what you're saying when applied to something like, say, foxes, but only when they're controlled in a humane way by shooting. But I don't understand how this principle can be applied to something like hare coursing, or crated stag hunting for example. In those cases neither can be considered as vermin, and in neither case are the animals killed to control their numbers but used purely as something to chase for peoples' 'enjoyment'.

Alun
Too much of anything, even Butterflies, would create a pestilence.

Hares are generally not pests, unless of course they encourage poachers to enter your land, or they start to strip the bark from your newly planted decidous forest.


Hunting for sport is the issue which you have a moral objection to. Your entitled to same, but would you wish to enforce it on those that don't agree.
And how about being consistent, what about the fun that can be had 'ratting' with terriers.

Anyway it seems that for you it is OK to cull and kill once it is considered work, and not sport. But what if you enjoy your work?

The debate continues ........................................

gozunda

Alun wrote: »

I can understand what you're saying when applied to something like, say, foxes, but only when they're controlled in a humane way by shooting. But I don't understand how this principle can be applied to something like hare coursing, or crated stag hunting for example. In those cases neither can be considered as vermin, and in neither case are the animals killed to control their numbers but used purely as something to chase for peoples' 'enjoyment'.

I am not involved in harecoursing or staghunting (this is outlawed now) but I aware that coursing clubs deworm and help to monitor hare populations. I know of instances where a landowner involved in coursing caught and evicted "lads with dogs" intent on killing hares. Shooting unless carried out by a skilled shooter often results in a misshot that results in the shot animal having a lingering death.

Traonach

Itsdacraic wrote: »

Have you inoculated many hares yourself lately?

What do they inoculate the hare with?

gozunda

willielovesall wrote: »

Foxes are becoming extinct....

errrrhhh - no they are not becoming extinct! Fox numbers are remaining consistent in rural areas, with fox numbers in urban areas increasing!

homerhop

willielovesall wrote: »

Foxes are becoming extinct.

Can you please provide relevant information to back this statement up?

Alun

scartman1 wrote: »

Hunting for sport is the issue which you have a moral objection to. Your entitled to same, but would you wish to enforce it on those that don't agree.

I have a moral objection to a whole number of things some of which were once considered perfectly acceptable in days gone by, such as enforced child labour or slavery, as probably do you, but which are now banned on moral grounds, and that ban legally enforced, whether those who might disagree want them to be or not. That's the way society and democracy works and evolves.

Nollipop

Whether a person believes that its a good thing to catch a wild hare and have it chased by dogs for 'sport' is one part of the issue with Coursing.

What do you think happens to the dogs which do not win their rounds?

Or the dogs which are used for the foxhunts?

The majority are NOT rehomed.

gozunda

Nollipop wrote: »

Whether a person believes that its a good thing to catch a wild hare and have it chased by dogs for 'sport' is one part of the issue with Coursing.

What do you think happens to the dogs which do not win their rounds?

Or the dogs which are used for the foxhunts?

The majority are NOT rehomed.

Coursing and Fox hunting - with regard to the "dogs" no similarity whatsoever tbh

but if want details for Foxhounds See other Thread here

Nollipop

I think the two are similar from a welfare point of view.

Hounds used for fox-hunting: disposed of when too old/seen as surplus to requirements.

Hounds used for coursing: disposed of when too slow/unreliable in the field/otherwise surplus to requirements.

Yes, we are technically talking about different breeds of dogs, but the treatment at the end of their lives (or more often, after a few years of a 'career') is all too similar.

These are living creatures we are talking about here, not hurleys or guns or other inanimate items necessary for a particular sport.

Discodog

Itsdacraic wrote: »

First their political party was essentially wiped out, and now the myths and lies they try to spread about coursing have been exposed on national television.

Well Labour have restated that they will not allow a repeal of Stag Hunting & both FG & Labour have promised an Animal Welfare Bill.
All that was exposed was that the ridiculously unbalanced with only 8 minutes being giving to those that oppose hunting.

Minky 123 wrote: »

Nearly everything they said about the hair coursing was proved wrong.

Nothing was proved except that the Coursers refused to allowing filming.

Minky 123 wrote: »

a fox is hunted as part of vermin control

At last the V word !. There is no control & foxes are not controlled. The Country is full of foxes. Hunting is killing for pleasure & nothing else.

Minky 123 wrote: »

had very important facts like hares are 18 times more populated in areas where coursing exists. This research was carried out by queens university I believe.

But they didn't provide any evidence or expert testimony from Wildlife experts - many of whom totally oppose Coursing.

gozunda wrote: »

To conserve and ensure that wildlife survive, requires active management.

But Hunting is only "managing" a tiny percentage of the fox population so it is totally ineffectual.

scartman1 wrote: »

He let those that are advocates for either side of the argument represent themselves and their perspectives in a natural and pragmatic way.

scartman1 wrote: »

The way I saw it, I felt that the presentation was fair and balanced.

8 minutes in a one hour program - you have an amazing view of fairness.

scartman1 wrote: »

perhaps they percieve that their propoganda was debunked and they lost some ground. They have come out in force in a concerted effort to scramble back upto their moral high ground since this thread was launched by Discodog, a well known Anti. This is no coincidence I think.

A well known Anti !. Well I do not believe in killing for pleasure but, if by association, you are suggesting that I agree with putting glass (as mentioned by another pro hunt poster) on a field I strongly suggest that you think again.

Yes the program was almost an hour of totally pro hunting propaganda. It was also given a very misleading title. It will be up to the Broadcast Authority to decide the consequences.

scartman1 wrote: »

Its a well known fact that the Animal Rights movement staged a proganda video, where they surreptiously strangled a Hare, to give the impression of a dying hare being discovered in the Hare enclosure of the National Meeting in Clonmel.

That must be why no charges have ever been pressed despite the names & addresses of the film makers being known & the ICC offering a huge reward (which they knew that they would never have to pay out). Facts require proof & nothing was proved. The student concerned filmed a dying hare & it is only one of many - maybe Hare's were dying & that is why they refused entry to TV3.

scartman1 wrote: »

The facts are that the Truth hurts and this documentary is definately hurting you currently and that is why you are fighting desperately to regain the lost ground. Unfortunately you have no new tactics and continue to wage the battle against fieldsports with propanda and mistruths.

I will continue to oppose killing for pleasure. One biased program is pretty irrelevant in that the Irish government will not ban Coursing or Hunting. But they said the same thing in England & in the North & both have introduced bans.

scartman1 wrote: »

Glass has been thrown on coursing fields and property damaged and hares released by the Animal Rights movement in the past

Can you prove this allegation ?. Can you provide a link to the criminal convictions ?

gozunda wrote: »

The danger remains that where wild populations are not conserved illegal methods become into play and the risk of uncontrolled and illegal killing increases.

Rubbish !. Where is the evidence ?.

scartman1 wrote: »

And how about being consistent, what about the fun that can be had 'ratting' with terriers.

Not everyone shares your enjoyment at watching an animal being killed.

gozunda wrote: »

errrrhhh - no they are not becoming extinct! Fox numbers are remaining consistent in rural areas, with fox numbers in urban areas increasing!

So hunting does not affect numbers & is done purely for pleasure.

gozunda

Nollipop wrote: »

I think the two are similar from a welfare point of view.
Hounds used for fox-hunting: disposed of when too old/seen as surplus to requirements.
Hounds used for coursing: disposed of when too slow/unreliable in the field/otherwise surplus to requirements.
Yes, we are technically talking about different breeds of dogs, but the treatment at the end of their lives (or more often, after a few years of a 'career') is all too similar.
These are living creatures we are talking about here, not hurleys or guns or other inanimate items necessary for a particular sport.

No not similar...

Foxhounds - Home bred by local hunts only. Long term home. Long working life. Not sold. Not abandoned. Old healthy hounds kept as part of pack. Pts when too old or sick to have a good quality of life.

Greyhounds are bred for racing and coursing - have complely different prospects in terms of their working life. I am sure someone involved in greyhound breeding could give you further details.

Yes they are living creatures. Funilly enough are all other animals even dogs, cats, cows, sheep etc etc.....

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Greyhounds are bred for racing and coursing - have complely different prospects in terms of their working life. I am sure someone involved in greyhound breeding could give you further details.

At least 10,000 healthy Irish Greyhounds are killed every year.

Of course we can't know about Foxhound packs because the figures are hidden.

Hellrazer

This thread has been restored.

With regards to Scartmans comments we feel that they were not directed at any particular user but as the anti-hunting community as a whole.

Now back on topic.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

At last the V word !. There is no control & foxes are not controlled. The Country is full of foxes. Hunting is killing for pleasure & nothing else.

i have to ask are you talking about mounted hunting or all hunting as in shooting foxes too?

Discodog

scartman1 wrote: »

Disco dog, to say the Edenderry club were trying to hide something is typical of your innuendo and propoganda, ans pays scant regard to the fact that the ICC officials were present along with the National Parks Wildlife rangers, as they are at all meetings. The strategy to constantly throw mud in the hope that it will stick my be great for getting those that wander into your websites to press the 'Donate' button, but detrimental towards presenting the truth.

I do not have a website or a donate button & I most strenuously object to you claiming that I do. I also am not a member of any anti hunting organisation. So yet again I have to ask that you stop lying, stop libelling or provide evidence.

If your statement is correct that the ICC were complicit in refusing to allow TV3 to film - what were they hiding ?.

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

i have to ask are you talking about mounted hunting or all hunting as in shooting foxes too?

The thread concerns a TV3 documentary that did not discuss shooting. However I believe that shooting foxes is pointless. It can only control numbers is a specific local area & for a short period of time unless the shoot is repeated.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

I do not have a website or a donate button & I most strenuously object to you claiming that I do. I also am not a member of any anti hunting organisation. So yet again I have to ask that you stop lying, stop libelling or provide evidence.

If your statement is correct that the ICC were complicit in refusing to allow TV3 to film - what were they hiding ?.

Discodog youre reading into this statement wrong.Scartmans comment was directed at the whole anti hunt community and not you as an individual.

Now I suggest you drop it and stop mentioning libel and or slander.

Consider this a warning.

Itsdacraic

Discodog wrote: »

The thread concerns a TV3 documentary that did not discuss shooting. However I believe that shooting foxes is pointless. It can only control numbers is a specific local area & for a short period of time unless the shoot is repeated.

Of course the shooting is repeated. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be a lamb safe in the country. Foxes have no predator other than man in this country and the population would explode without human intervention. As a country that relies massively on agriculture there is no real choice other than controlling the fox population.

Discodog

Itsdacraic wrote: »

Of course the shooting is repeated. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be a lamb safe in the country. Foxes have no predator other than man in this country and the population would explode without human intervention. As a country that relies massively on agriculture there is no real choice other than controlling the fox population.

I have friends who have literally raised thousands of lambs & never felt the need to shoot a fox. One friend of mine farms on the Welsh mountains. He cannot closely monitor his stock but he doesn't shoot or allow shooting & he doesn't see the fox as a problem. None of the farmers in my area shoot foxes & many of them have lambs or poultry. Shooting only occurs on certain areas - its not done in every field in the Country.

When I moved here I asked some of the local farmers why they didn't shoot as I saw many foxes - especially on the beach !. One of the answers was that they don't see Foxes as a threat to lambs. The foxes have a ready supply of small mammals, rats, rabbits etc.

Traonach

A few points of information:
The NPWS translocated some Irish Hares to Bull Island (Dublin) to increase the population there. They found that none of these hares bred. It was postulated that the stress of capture prevented this. It is feared that hares subjected to the great stress of the whole coursing ordeal might not be able to breed as well. A detailed study is needed, however I can't see the ICC from doing a study. If the theory was true, it wouldn't be helpful to there sport.

The Irish Hare is a distinct subspecies of the Artic Hare only found in this country. That makes it a mammal of considerable importance. It's numbers due to intensive agriculture are decreasing:(. There are natural cyclical variation in population however and in some locations numbers are increasing, but overall the national population is decreasing. In light of this decrease the possible inability of hares to breed after they are released is worrying.

With the advent of muzzling the numbers of Hares (1993) killed decreased greatly from 16% to 4%. The 4% kill rate would be attibuted to capture myopathy. Watching the TV3 programme you would think no hares are harmed. With the decreasing national numbers of hares even small numbers being killed is worrying.

People quote that in the Coursing clubs reserves hare numbers are 18x greater than normal. True, because that is where all the hares are confined prior to coursing. This is where the captured hares are put.

Before people start calling me an anti and I don't know what I talking about. I hunt myself and my late grandfather was heavily involved in coursing (Balyyragget).

bobbysands81

Discodog wrote: »

10pm TV3 The Truth...

Sorry - I didn't get past that...

These things on TV3 are a sham.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

The thread concerns a TV3 documentary that did not discuss shooting. However I believe that shooting foxes is pointless. It can only control numbers is a specific local area & for a short period of time unless the shoot is repeated.

Im aware what the thread is about i wanted to know your opinion on hunting in general. as was said the shoot is repeted, weekly in my area and i always see foxes! would not like to see how many were around if i was not shooting there, most of the local farmers are delighted to see me coming as most have had problems with foxes

Discodog wrote: »

I have friends who have literally raised thousands of lambs & never felt the need to shoot a fox. One friend of mine farms on the Welsh mountains. He cannot closely monitor his stock but he doesn't shoot or allow shooting & he doesn't see the fox as a problem. None of the farmers in my area shoot foxes & many of them have lambs or poultry. Shooting only occurs on certain areas - its not done in every field in the Country.

When I moved here I asked some of the local farmers why they didn't shoot as I saw many foxes - especially on the beach !. One of the answers was that they don't see Foxes as a threat to lambs. The foxes have a ready supply of small mammals, rats, rabbits etc.

This i find very hard to believe that NONE of them shoot foxes or allow shooting. i no a couple of farmers that dont shoot them or allow it but to say NONE in your area do id call that a complete lie on your part or id sugest you have only asked 1r2 farmers and not all of them