Hare Coursing

Mickeroo

Sparks wrote: »

They wouldn't. The numbers show that if they introduced the brown hare, the coursing would have a mortality rate somewhere between under 1% and 4.1%; while natural predation causes a mortality rate that's almost 80% for leverets and over 50% for adults. If they did introduce it, it'd have a better chance being coursed than not; which isn't intuitive, but is backed by the facts.

I'd imagine the risk of interbreeding with the Irish hare would be quite high? While coursing is still legal I would rather they use the Irish hare than encouraging the propogation of another non native species here. At least there's an incentive to maintain the Irish hare population that way.

smash

fourleafclover wrote: »

Coursing does not seek to kill any animal though, so tiger hunting has nothing to do with coursing and is no comparison. Essentially - No coursing = No irish hare!!

It boils down the the fact that it's a 'sport' that terrorises and sometimes kills the animal involved. And it's for no gain to anyone. It's a pretty sick way to spend your time in my opinion.

Sparks

osarusan wrote: »

Murray Fowler, University of California.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/injury/pdfs/day2_spraker_artiodactylids.pdf
I think we can put to bed the argument that the diagnosis itself is not well recognised.

Agreed, it actually lists clinical symptoms and signs. That's a much better reference than Rendle - it also gives a long list of means to prevent and treat the condition, while Rendle says it's utterly untreatable. Goes to show the value of good research - Rendle throws up any old guff and most people reading it don't even think he's describing a real condition; Fowler shows clinical signs and symptoms, ways to alleviate and prevent the condition and even to treat it when it arises. Fowler's research would actually help the hare; Rendle's not so much.

Sparks

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd imagine the risk of interbreeding with the Irish hare would be quite high? While coursing is still legal I would rather they use the Irish hare than encouraging the propogation of another non native species here. At least there's an incentive to maintain the Irish hare population that way.

Hence my post...

Sparks

smash wrote: »

IAnd it's for no gain to anyone.

...except the hare species itself, which sees enormous benefits (ten to over a hundred times the population density in areas with coursing versus areas without, combined with a "poor" conservation status indicating that preservation efforts need to be made, at a time when there's no money or manpower for the state to do the job).

smash

Sparks wrote: »

...except the hare species itself, which sees enormous benefits (ten to over a hundred times the population density in areas with coursing versus areas without, combined with a "poor" conservation status indicating that preservation efforts need to be made, at a time when there's no money or manpower for the state to do the job).

Preservation efforts can be made without the need for coursing. That's not exactly a good argument for it.

yubabill1

smash wrote: »

Preservation efforts can be made without the need for coursing. That's not exactly a good argument for it.

UNTRUE.

The Irish red grouse population crashed when the british left and stopped maintaining the grouse moors. The population is still on the floor almost 100 years later.

Not much preservation going on there.

smash

yubabill1 wrote: »

UNTRUE.

The Irish red grouse population crashed when the british left and stopped maintaining the grouse moors. The population is still on the floor almost 100 years later.

Not much preservation going on there.

Because efforts were not made to preserve the area. Christ, give a decent argument will you.

Sparks

smash wrote: »

Preservation efforts can be made without the need for coursing. That's not exactly a good argument for it.

Who would make them?
It costs money for farmers to set aside land for the hare, cull the hare's predators, have a vet treat the hares, and so on. The state certainly hasn't got the money to compensate them for that. The NWPS certainly hasn't got the manpower to do it for them (hell, they have one ranger to look after all of Cork and Kerry last time I looked). The animal rights extremist groups don't have the manpower or the money either - well, ICABS might manage the money for a year, because they had a large donation last year as a bequest, but their normal cash flow wouldn't allow this to be done for more than a year.

What you're looking at when you look at coursing is the same model of conservation that some African countries (like Zimbabwe and Tanzania) have adopted, where they allow tightly regulated hunting of elephants with all the proceeds being used properly - the meat feeding local villagers, the money paying for anti-poaching patrols and the upkeep of the other animals (and the actual culling keeps the herd numbers to a sustainable level - the ivory trade has driven large numbers of elephants into areas that can't support that high a population). It's a model that has enjoyed considerable success. We're seeing it being used on a much smaller animal here, but the model is the same - make it commercially worthwhile to maintain a species at a healthy level in order to counteract a strong commercial motive for a practice that directly threatens the species. In Africa, it's the ivory trade; here it's modern agricultural practices.

You might not like it, and I can't blame you for that, but it works - so you have to ask yourself if you think your discomfort with an idea is sufficient to abandon a working system that's preventing the extinction of an entire species when you have no other system to adopt in its place?

smash

Sparks wrote: »

It costs money for farmers to set aside land for the hare, cull the hare's predators, have a vet treat the hares, and so on.

Do the people involved in coursing do this at the moment?

I understand the some species are kept alive on the planet for the purpose of blood sport, such as the Spanish Fighting Bull. But seriously, hare coursing is not a national tradition. Hell, it's not even entertaining.

Sparks

smash wrote: »

Do the people involved in coursing do this at the moment?

Yes; see the cited studies above.

Hell, it's not even entertaining.

The studies say it works. It might not be as entertaining to some as it is to others, but I'll take "it works" over that any day of the week and twice on sunday.

osarusan

Sparks wrote: »

You might not like it, and I can't blame you for that, but it works - so you have to ask yourself if you think your discomfort with an idea is sufficient to abandon a working system that's preventing the extinction of an entire species when you have no other system to adopt in its place?

To be honest, I think at least some of the anger on this thread was due to the refusal of some supporters of coursing to even admit that the hares involved suffer during the event.

We've had arguments that the dogs enjoy it, so the hares should, and that because they get chased in the wild anyway, it doesn't really make a difference, etc.

ScumLord

Sparks wrote: »

What you're looking at when you look at coursing is the same model of conservation that some African countries (like Zimbabwe and Tanzania) have adopted,

The other thing you have to take into consideration is that those countries have room to let these animals roam they just need to stop poachers. We don't have anywhere for these animals to call their own, all land is owned by some one and they want the land to be productive which makes it useless for most other creatures.

I've done the REPS organic farming course and the only concessions made to wildlife is allowing for a 1 metre verge around the field that won't be cut or plowed.

Unless people actively conserve the animals they have no place in Ireland ecosystem.

smash

Sparks wrote: »

The studies say it works. It might not be as entertaining to some as it is to others, but I'll take "it works" over that any day of the week and twice on sunday.

While saying 'it works' might be true, but it's kind of a muddy argument because it's not like those involved really have that much interest in keeping the species alive beyond wanting to use it for coursing.

yubabill1

smash wrote: »

Because efforts were not made to preserve the area. Christ, give a decent argument will you.

Maybe the argument has gone over your head:

Someone has to have an interest in something to preserve it.

Animal rights groups don't seem to be taking up the slack. What preservation are they involved in?

smash

yubabill1 wrote: »

Maybe the argument has gone over your head:

Someone has to have an interest in something to preserve it.

Their interest is in keeping it alive, in order to kill it!

yubabill1

smash wrote: »

Their interest is in keeping it alive, in order to kill it!

That kind of reductionist argument shows you have no understanding of ecology.

Before you try to educate me on the subject, I read Science at 3rd level.

smash

yubabill1 wrote: »

Before you try to educate me on the subject, I read Science at 3rd level.

Well good for you

yubabill1

smash wrote: »

Well good for you

Yes and many academics acknowledge the conservation work done by hunters. They also consult them widely when studying population dynamics.

Mickeroo

yubabill1 wrote: »

UNTRUE.

The Irish red grouse population crashed when the british left and stopped maintaining the grouse moors. The population is still on the floor almost 100 years later.

Not much preservation going on there.

Tbf there is conservation going on towards the red grouse. Their presence was a major factor on the founding of ballycroy national park in 1998 to name one example. Another is the boleybrack project which has been successful in encouraging an increased population.

Sparks

smash wrote: »

While saying 'it works' might be true, but it's kind of a muddy argument because it's not like those involved really have that much interest in keeping the species alive beyond wanting to use it for coursing.

I don't have any interest in cows beyond beef and milk (and perhaps leather). Nor do many other people - they make lousy pets, they're bad for the environment in the numbers we keep them in, and you can't pull a plough with them (oxen aren't cows).

And yet, that commercial interest in beef and milk and leather is sufficient that they are kept in enormous numbers (somewhere around 1.5 billion or so). All because we want to eat them.

I know it's not the most Walt Disney of ideas, but it does, most emphatically, work.

yubabill1

Mickeroo wrote: »

Tbf there is conservation going on towards the red grouse. Their presence was a major factor on the founding of ballycroy national park in 1998 to name one example. Another is the boleybrack project which has been successful in encouraging an increased population.

The Boleybrack project was intitated by the local Glenfarne gun club.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/1103/1224326070136.html

Mickeroo

Sparks wrote: »

I don't have any interest in cows beyond beef and milk (and perhaps leather). Nor do many other people - they make lousy pets, they're bad for the environment in the numbers we keep them in, and you can't pull a plough with them (oxen aren't cows).

And yet, that commercial interest in beef and milk and leather is sufficient that they are kept in enormous numbers (somewhere around 1.5 billion or so). All because we want to eat them.

I know it's not the most Walt Disney of ideas, but it does, most emphatically, work.

Im not disagreeing with what you're getting at but that's a bad example since farm cows wouldn't exist without farming in the first place.

The grouse project I mentioned above is a better example since bit was spearheaded by a gun club and grouse are wild animals.

Mickeroo

yubabill1 wrote: »

The Boleybrack project was intitated by the local Glenfarne gun club.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/1103/1224326070136.html

Yes I know.

wexfordman

Zombienosh wrote: »

People are getting caught up in details here, it boils down to some people find a hare being chased, abused and often killed entertaining.

First off, define "often" please, and provide figures to show that hares are "often" killed according to your definition of "often"

Zombienosh wrote: »

Some people do not.

Some people apply the same logic to horse racing and fishing! Both sports at times result in the animal being killed! Do we see the same calls for banning of these sports ?

GoldCobra

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare. It's in the hares best interest if we keep coursing. hah.

Sparks

GoldCobra wrote: »

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare. It's in the hares best interest if we keep coursing. hah.

I don't love how scientific peer-reviewed evidence is being discounted because of "gut feeling" as if 25 feet of intestine was a better way to make decisions than evidence.

wexfordman

GoldCobra wrote: »

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare. It's in the hares best interest if we keep coursing. hah.

Glad you approve!

Scuba_Scoper

GoldCobra wrote: »

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare. It's in the hares best interest if we keep coursing. hah.

I love how some pro animal rights people are trying to imply it is not in the hare species welfare. It's in the species best interest if we stop coursing. hah

GoldCobra

It's in their best interest if we leave them alone.

wexfordman

smash wrote: »

While saying 'it works' might be true, but it's kind of a muddy argument because it's not like those involved really have that much interest in keeping the species alive beyond wanting to use it for coursing.

And what activities are you doing to maintain the hare population ?

Whats your interest in keeping them alive, and how are you doing so ?

Scuba_Scoper

GoldCobra wrote: »

It's in their best interest if we leave them alone.

says who? Have you read any of this thread?

Mickeroo

GoldCobra wrote: »

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare. It's in the hares best interest if we keep coursing. hah.

They're not saying the activity itself is for the hare's welfare, they're saying benefits to hare conservation are a by product of the activity taking place because they need to maintain a healthy hare population in order to practice it.

GoldCobra

Forgetting about numbers for a minute, Are you saying coursing is morally and ethically right?

fourleafclover

GoldCobra wrote: »

Forgetting about numbers for a minute, Are you saying coursing is morally and ethically right?

Will you go back to page one, this has been answered and debated already.

Mickeroo

GoldCobra wrote: »

Forgetting about numbers for a minute, Are you saying coursing is morally and ethically right?

Personally, no.

osarusan

fourleafclover wrote: »

Will you go back to page one, this has been answered and debated already.

What was the answer?

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

Who would make them?
It costs money for farmers to set aside land for the hare,

Maybe we should introduce farmer coursing, would benefit the irish countryside no end that.

Sparks

GoldCobra wrote: »

It's in their best interest if we leave them alone.

Actually, that's not necessarily so. If we left them alone, they'd survive or not against their predators with no assistance. With coursing, they have assistance.

And more to the point, when you say "leave them alone" what you actually mean is "abandon modern farming practices" which are what keeps you and I fed. "Leaving them alone" isn't really an available option.

ScumLord

GoldCobra wrote: »

I love how some pro coursers are trying to imply its for the hares welfare.

I love how trying to debate the issue rather than just assuming the worst makes you a coursing supporter. As someone from the countryside I know it's never as simple or straight forward as just stopping. Everything humans do in the natural world has knock on effects, on a small island like this with no wild areas most animals are completely dependant on what humans do.

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce farmer coursing, would benefit the irish countryside no end that.

...because animal rights extremists, who number a few dozen at most, can do more for the Irish countryside than 270,000+ farmers?

I'm skeptical of this assertion.

Conmaicne Mara

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce farmer coursing, would benefit the irish countryside no end that.

Maybe we should introduce a policy where people who don't agree with farming don't get fed. I'd be all for that.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

...because animal rights extremists, who number a few dozen at most, can do more for the Irish countryside than 270,000+ farmers?

I'm skeptical of this assertion.

who mentioned ALF nutters? Very few things can do more to the countryside than 270000 famers. The oul countryside wopuld get along fine without them, seems as how we're fretting about the countryside now

OldNotWIse

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce a policy where people who don't agree with farming don't get fed. I'd be all for that.

We get fed from hare coursing?

Conmaicne Mara

OldNotWIse wrote: »

We get fed from hare coursing?

Try reading it slower this time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83497300&postcount=695

smash

wexfordman wrote: »

And what activities are you doing to maintain the hare population ?

Whats your interest in keeping them alive, and how are you doing so ?

Eh, I don't have an interest in keeping them alive so why would I participate in any activity to do so? I just think it's pretty sh!tty that some people want to keep them alive just so they can set dogs on them.

Sparks

But allowing the species to go extinct would be less repellent?

GoldCobra

Sparks wrote: »

But allowing the species to go extinct would be less repellent?

I didn't know it was on the endangered species list?

Also when a species does become endangered I didn't know coursing was the best way of saving it.

Sparks

GoldCobra wrote: »

I didn't know it was on the endangered species list?

Conservation status "poor" rather than "endangered".
But that's down from the "help, we're drowning in the hairy <blank> <bleep>s" status they had earlier, and downward trends aren't good when talking about a species' survival. Unless, you know, we want the species gone.

Also when a species does become endangered I didn't know coursing was the best way of saving it.

At that point, there wouldn't be enough hares to course.
Which would, technically, be one way to stop coursing... it's just not really an option I'd choose personally, but I like hares - maybe others would choose differently (who, I don't know, only Fr.Jack comes to mind for me and he was more anti-rabbit than anti-hare).

wexfordman

smash wrote: »

Eh, I don't have an interest in keeping them alive so why would I participate in any activity to do so? I just think it's pretty sh!tty that some people want to keep them alive just so they can set dogs on them.

I think its pretty sh!tty that you have no interest in keeping them alive!