TV3 TONIGHT - The Truth about Irish Bloodsports.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

It's a tourist guide & not even a scientific publication.

What are you like! Its a text used in Universities. (with a ISBN number) And has approx 400 pages! Perhaps you have a leaflet of a similar name? I'd suggest you go to a Bookshop you obviously havent read it at all.

Discodog wrote: »

...If you use the search function you will see that we have discussed hunting many times. You will even find posts by hunters who state that they respect the way that I present my thoughts. Maybe when you reach 3000 posts you may of had a warning or two.

My comments stand even though "you are skating on thin Ice"

Discodog wrote: »

Someone here has already commented that, with your evasive techniques, you would make a good politician. The only question that I keep asking is how many hounds are killed every year. Now it would be easy for you to "pick up the phone" & find out but you keep evading the question.

Discodog I suggest you *pick up the phone* - If you didnt have such an obvious bias then you could undertake a fair and balanced investigation.

Discodog wrote: »

Now to avoid going off topic how about we focus on the TV program & it's implications, like the welfare of Hounds, rather than personal insults.

Its good of you to drop the personal insults and attempts to derail the discussion of the TV programme - The Truth about Irish Bloodsports.

Bullseye1

It's hard to believe after a couple hundred years that the hunt has not developed a foxhound which bays the fox and not rip it apart. So that once it is cornered the hunts people can shoot it or release it. Most hunters develop over time yet the hunts people seem to be stuck in the past.

BTW I personally believe the activity is outdated and barbaric. But Ireland in general has not tackled animal cruelty properly.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

The Truth about Irish Bloodsports.

Well it may be up to the Broadcast Authority to rule on that title.

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

It's hard to believe after a couple hundred years that the hunt has not developed a foxhound which bays the fox and not rip it apart. So that once it is cornered the hunts people can shoot it or release it. Most hunters develop over time yet the hunts people seem to be stuck in the past.

BTW I personally believe the activity is outdated and barbaric. But Ireland in general has not tackled animal cruelty properly.

Why not just drag hunt instead. All of the fun & non of the cruelty.

Bullseye1

That would seem like a logical solution. I'd be worried about the foxhound as a breed if the hunt was completely done away with but I'm sure the drag hunt would be a good solution.

Discodog

There are 41 Foxhound packs in Ireland. Each pack contains between 20-30 "Couples" (peculiar hunting term) so between 40 & 60 dogs with a typical maximum working age of say 6 & a life expectancy of say 14 years.

So about 2000 dogs are replaced over a 6 year period. Few are rehomed so more than 300 are needlessly killed every year.

The Hunts make great play regarding the number of their supporters. Surely 150 people could take a couple of Foxhounds & give them a good home. After all it has provided their entertainment.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

There are 41 Foxhound packs in Ireland. Each pack contains between 20-30 "Couples" (peculiar hunting term) so between 40 & 60 dogs with a typical maximum working age of say 6 & a life expectancy of say 14 years.

So about 2000 dogs are replaced over a 6 year period. Few are rehomed so more than 300 are needlessly killed every year.

The Hunts make great play regarding the number of their supporters. Surely 150 people could take a couple of Foxhounds & give them a good home. After all it has provided their entertainment.

So did you get around to phoning the hunt kennels to get your figures posted above? or are you devising the figures from your own fantastical imagination.

Discodog to quote your own modus operandi - "I dont believe you" and "Give References" - otherwise these figures would appear to be bumkum.

Discodog

IMFHA. Rather than ridiculing why don't you give us the benefit of your knowledge & state which aspect of these figures that you consider to be wrong.

Itsdacraic

On one hand people here are saying that the hare population is only higher in coursing club areas because of the level of hare/predator management by coursing clubs.

And then a few posts later they are saying loads of hares die after being released into the wild due to "stress" of being captured and coursed. Are these not two very contradictory statements? If true would mean that hare numbers would be less in coursing areas, not considerably higher.


Also it takes vested interests to ensure anything is done is country. Like I mentioned earlier, it's up to fishermen to help preserve salmon stocks, it's because of hare coursers that the hare population is remain stable (with a fall off in numbers in the non coursing areas).

Why aren't these people who are so keen to "protect" the irish hare out undertaking conservation measures in the areas where there are no coursing clubs?

If they are so concerned about Irish wildlife, it's intensive farming and industry they should be campaigning against. Not people who have an active interests and involvement in the conservation of a species.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

Well not only don't I lie on here but you will never be able to find an example of where I have lied. As the owner of three dogs I walk far & wide. I used to be concerned that someone might be shooting but I haven't heard a shot since moving here. I see a lot of foxes. One farmer even showed me where to watch a Vixen with her cubs. I think that the farmers, in my area, have a more laid back live & let live attitude. I asked a neighbour last night & his comment was that if anything needed shooting then he would shoot it. He didn't want anyone with a gun on his land.

When I was living in the UK I was employed as an Ecologist. I had to visit a lot of farms & I was asked to contribute to the, then proposed, hunting ban. I was actually surprised at how many farmers were opposed to hunting & shooting.

im just very suprised you only have farmers in your area who are against hunting foxes, FOR THE MOST part they welcome it. of course you will always have some who appose it but the way your talking they all hate shooting.. you live in a very different ireland to me then if thats the case

Discodog wrote: »

You really think that 8 mins against hunting & 40 mins pro hunting is fair ?.

If you look here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056211932

You will see that the hunters were dreading the program & are now overjoyed. If it had been balanced then both sides would be complaining & not just one.

Its fair in the fact that for once it was not just full of anti hunt supporters lies and bull**** and was FACTUAL and hunters were not made out to be bad people but shown as normal peaple

Itsdacraic wrote: »

On one hand people here are saying that the hare population is only higher in coursing club areas because of the level of hare/predator management by coursing clubs.

And then a few posts later they are saying loads of hares die after being released into the wild due to "stress" of being captured and coursed. Are these not two very contradictory statements? If true would mean that hare numbers would be less in coursing areas, not considerably higher.


Also it takes vested interests to ensure anything is done is country. Like I mentioned earlier, it's up to fishermen to help preserve salmon stocks, it's because of hare coursers that the hare population is remain stable (with a fall off in numbers in the non coursing areas).

Why aren't these people who are so keen to "protect" the irish hare out undertaking conservation measures in the areas where there are no coursing clubs?

If they are so concerned about Irish wildlife, it's intensive farming and industry they should be campaigning against. Not people who have an active interests and involvement in the conservation of a species.

Because they dont actually care, they see it as a social event to go out with their other narrow minded mates to picket and protest sure ya could see it in them they enjoyed being there as much as the coursing crowed did! some of them love coming on boards spouting their bull too but ask these people to get involved and do something useful for a change:rolleyes:

Discodog

Itsdacraic wrote: »

On one hand people here are saying that the hare population is only higher in coursing club areas because of the level of hare/predator management by coursing clubs.

And then a few posts later they are saying loads of hares die after being released into the wild due to "stress" of being captured and coursed. Are these not two very contradictory statements? If true would mean that hare numbers would be less in coursing areas, not considerably higher.

If you read the report it stresses that a lot more research needs to be done. It does sort of contradict itself in places. The Coursers pull out the bits that suit them & rather ignore the rest.

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

im just very suprised you only have farmers in your area who are against hunting foxes, FOR THE MOST part they welcome it. of course you will always have some who appose it but the way your talking they all hate shooting.. you live in a very different ireland to me then if thats the case

To be honest it surprised me. A lot of people own guns but no one seems to use them but farming is less intense here & often more of a hobby.

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Its fair in the fact that for once it was not just full of anti hunt supporters lies and bull**** and was FACTUAL and hunters were not made out to be bad people but shown as normal peaple

And those that oppose hunting were portrayed as a bunch of hippies. You cannot possible argue that 8 minutes out of a hour is fair.

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Because they dont actually care, they see it as a social event to go out with their other narrow minded mates to picket and protest sure ya could see it in them they enjoyed being there as much as the coursing crowed did! some of them love coming on boards spouting their bull too but ask these people to get involved and do something useful for a change

Again this shows the bias of the program in that it only featured one of the groups that oppose hunting. There are many more people who could of presented a coherent argument against hunting but the program ignored them.

All the filming was by invitation only so totally biased. If someone doesn't want you to film, like the Coursers in the program, then that is the time to do some covert filming to establish what is really going on behind the barricades that they don't want you to see.

kildare.17hmr

To be honest it surprised me. A lot of people own guns but no one seems to use them but farming is less intense here & often more of a hobby.

id gues they use them at times when your not around, i do most of my shooting at night myself when things are quieter and the foxes more active. like i said sounds like a different ireland to the one i live in

And those that oppose hunting were portrayed as a bunch of hippies. You cannot possible argue that 8 minutes out of a hour is fair.

the programme was titled the TRUTH.... if the protesters were givin anymore time the title would have been a lie because they are not telling the truth! it was fair because they were not able to give there bull**** stories and it showed the hunting in a good light(for once) and was about the sports NOT about these bleedin twats out to cause trouble, The 8 minutes they had was plenty enought to show them up and this was done by THEM not tv3, that fool that was organising the march and his polish friend with the hamster:rolleyes:

Again this shows the bias of the program in that it only featured one of the groups that oppose hunting. There are many more people who could of presented a coherent argument against hunting but the program ignored them.

because once again the programme was about hunting not the groups that oppose it, aran were in it because they were there, if another group was there im sure they would have spoke to them too but they were not

All the filming was by invitation only so totally biased. If someone doesn't want you to film, like the Coursers in the program, then that is the time to do some covert filming to establish what is really going on behind the barricades that they don't want you to see

its been said over and over that henry was more than likely thought to be with the protesters, why the hell would he have been let in if they thought that they were there to disrupt things and if they got a chance to cause trouble im full sure they would have, the lads on the gate had every right to not let him in but to say they were hiding something is crazy, the place was full of familys ffs enjoying a day out who didnt want to be bothered by the numptys outside with the placks! if you wanted to go in they would let you. why not go along to the next meeting yourself and report back to us all the things they dont want us to see:rolleyes:

Hellrazer

This thread has gone way off topic in a similar way to the one Seamus just posted on.

If were going to discuss the Truth about bloodsports the by all means do.

Its not for either of the two of you ie Discodog or Gozunda to discuss previous warnings or bans on totally different threads or totally different issues.Both of you are sniping at each other about warnings and/or bans from other fora here on boards or referring to warnings given by me regarding issues totally unrelated to this thread.

From here on in off topic discussion or this sniping will be dealt with by way of a one week ban.There wont be a second warning given

Itsdacraic

Discodog wrote: »

All the filming was by invitation only so totally biased. If someone doesn't want you to film, like the Coursers in the program, then that is the time to do some covert filming to establish what is really going on behind the barricades that they don't want you to see.

This thing about the "barricades" at Edenderry is gas.

Most GAA/Soccer clubs I know are totally enclosed from view from the road. In fact almost any sporting venue which charges an entry fee is enclosed from view. That's the whole point. Why would people pay in if they could watch from the road? What secretive and cruel things go on behind the walls of these GAA clubs is what I want to know.

In fact Junior B hurling is probably more of a blood sport than coursing. :pac:

Discodog

Itsdacraic wrote: »

This thing about the "barricades" at Edenderry is gas.

Most GAA/Soccer clubs I know are totally enclosed from view from the road. In fact almost any sporting venue which charges an entry fee is enclosed from view. That's the whole point. Why would people pay in if they could watch from the road? What secretive and cruel things go on behind the walls of these GAA clubs is what I want to know.

In fact Junior B hurling is probably more of a blood sport than coursing. :pac:

But they wouldn't of refused entry to McKean & TV3 - they would of welcomed it. If you watch that bit again, as I have unfortunately had to do as part of my complaint to the BA, you can hear the gate man being told to say nothing. Also I do take exception to secrecy when the IGB/ICC get a lump of my tax.

kildare.17hmr

Discodog wrote: »

But they wouldn't of refused entry to McKean & TV3 - they would of welcomed it. If you watch that bit again, as I have unfortunately had to do as part of my complaint to the BA, you can hear the gate man being told to say nothing. Also I do take exception to secrecy when the IGB/ICC get a lump of my tax.

seriously how hard is it for you to get the fact that THEY THOUGHT HE WAS WITH THE ANTIS AND OUT TO CAUSE TROUBLE!!!!! i dont normally shout but its been said over and over and your just not listenin!!!

the GAA would also refuse to admit known trouble makers to a game regardless of wether they had a tv3 camera or not and the same goes for any event

what is your cmplaint to the BA??

Discodog

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

dont normally shout but its been said over and over and your just not listenin!!!

the GAA would also refuse to admit known trouble makers to a game regardless of wether they had a tv3 camera or not and the same goes for any event

what is your cmplaint to the BA??

It was Henry McKean with a cameraman & probably a soundman. He made it perfectly clear that he was making a documentary & wanted to know their side of the story. I am listening but I am not believing.

I am exercising my right to make a formal complaint to the Broadcast Authority. Current affairs broadcasting has to be fair & impartial. Only allocating 8 minutes & only talking to one opposition group was not fair.

gozunda

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

... it was fair because they were not able to give there bull**** stories and it showed the hunting in a good light(for once) and was about the sports NOT about these bleedin twats out to cause trouble, The 8 minutes they had was plenty enought to show them up and this was done by THEM not tv3, that fool that was organising the march and his polish friend with the hamster:rolleyes:

...the programme was about hunting not the groups that oppose it...

At the end of the day the programme potrayed legal activities that enjoy widespread support across all stata of society. As stated above the programme was about hunting groups. Just because there are a minority of individuals out there hell bent on causing disent and trouble with regard to the same does not mean that the programme was in any way at fault.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

At the end of the day the programme potrayed legal activities that enjoy widespread support across all stata of society. As stated above the programme was about hunting groups. Just because there are a minority of individuals out there hell bent on causing disent and trouble with regard to the same does not mean that the programme was in any way at fault.

Well that is for the Broadcast Authority to decide. Programs have a duty to be fair, impartial & objective. It has nothing to do with the legality of hunting but purely with the content of this particular program. Also it is not a popularity contest. The BA have a code & the program must comply with their code. Having said that, the conditions are very restrictive & stringent so it may well be deemed OK.

Dusty87

Discodog wrote: »

I Only allocating 8 minutes & only talking to one opposition group was not fair.

Would have been hard get half a show out of all what, 12 of them.....

Discodog

So how about talking to the ISPCA or the Greyhound rescues or wildlife experts etc etc . ARAN are not the only people with a view on Coursing.

The program didn't speak to anyone regarding opposing fox hunting.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

Well that is for the Broadcast Authority to decide. Programs have a duty to be fair, impartial & objective. It has nothing to do with the legality of hunting but purely with the content of this particular program. Also it is not a popularity contest. The BA have a code & the program must comply with their code. Having said that, the conditions are very restrictive & stringent so it may well be deemed OK.

It is perfectly acceptable for individuals to make up their own minds on this issue as well. As a documentary about hunting I found the programme to be a representative view of what hunting is about. Saying that this type of documentary was not fair and impartial is akin to saying that you cannot screen GAA match analysis without also portraying the same for Soccer! A complaint to the BA is a completely different matter and there are very good reasons for having strict guidelines for assessing complaints.

Itsdacraic

Discodog wrote: »

It was Henry McKean with a cameraman & probably a soundman. He made it perfectly clear that he was making a documentary & wanted to know their side of the story. I am listening but I am not believing.

Henry McKean isn't exactly Gay Byrne.

If he had walked up to me on the street before that documentary and told me his name I wouldn't have had a clue who he was.

kildare.17hmr

Itsdacraic wrote: »

Henry McKean isn't exactly Gay Byrne.

If he had walked up to me on the street before that documentary and told me his name I wouldn't have had a clue who he was.

+1 and i still probably wouldnt recognise him now unless he said his name!

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

Saying that this type of documentary was not fair and impartial is akin to saying that you cannot screen GAA match analysis without also portraying the same for Soccer!

No it is akin to having only one summariser who also only supports one of the two sides. It is akin to a commentator yelling support for one side for 15 mins of the match & another yelling support for the other side for 75 mins.

Sport broadcasting has to be fair as well.

PS Tonight he is doing the trust about Muslims

LB6

are you inferring something with that last comment DD?

ISDW

LB6 wrote: »

are you inferring something with that last comment DD?

I imagine he meant to put The Truth about Muslims, and it probably won't be anywhere near the truth, whatever that is. What an odd title for a programme - how would he get away with "The Truth about Catholics"? Cos hey, all members of a religion are the same you know:rolleyes:

LB6

I imagine he did mean truth too - but he's from the "wink" he's likening the issues of last weeks programme to this weeks one. One has nothing to do with the other and the comment was uncalled for and not on topic for this forum. Not back-seat modding - and I enjoy reading the comments from both sides, so less of the SNIDE remarks would make it easier reading.

LMAO @ the truth about Catholics - now that could be run as a series on it's own!

gozunda

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

+1 and i still probably wouldnt recognise him now unless he said his name!

+2 ...Who?