Hare Coursing

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Except the evidence you speak of isnt related specifically to coursing. Its related to the conservations efforts by the coursing community. And Paddy earlier showed that those same effort he makes on his farm which results in Hares not going extinct. You stated without Coursing Hares would go extinct, gut feeling is it not considering you admit without the extinction there is no way to actually prove it ?

The fact is that Hare populations can be conserved without the sport, and the fact that the community wouldnt give a shít without the sport goes to show their priorities in the matter. Hares are maintained to be used as in Coursing for the purposes of gambling a needles act regardless of how much care the community takes in making sure there are Hares around to exploit.

Artful_Badger

wexfordman wrote: »

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

I think its pretty shítty that people think keeping them alive justifies tormenting them.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The fact is that Hare populations can be conserved without the sport

No, the fact is that the hare populations could be conserved without the sport, if we had the money and the manpower, neither of which is available.

Therefore, until you have some alternative mechanism which can work, banning coursing is unethical because it puts a species whose conservation status is already "poor" at further risk of extinction.

You may not like coursing; it may not be your cup of tea; but it's better for the hare species than what ICABS suggests.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

No, the fact is that the hare populations could be conserved without the sport, if we had the money and the manpower, neither of which is available.

Therefore, until you have some alternative mechanism which can work, banning coursing is unethical because it puts a species whose conservation status is already "poor" at further risk of extinction.

You may not like coursing; it may not be your cup of tea; but it's better for the hare species than what ICABS suggests.

Allowing a species to go extinct isnt itself unethical. To drive them to extinction is. But so is keeping a species around to be used in this way.

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned. And as I said the fact coursing fans have no interest in the Hares conservation outside the sport shows that what they are doing isnt ethical as they are keeping Hares around for the sole purpose of tormenting them. Those Hares are not better off, they are taken from their environment in nets, locked in a box and then released to be chased by two predators for shíts and giggles. How is that ethical ??

If stil allowing them to be killed brought in more money and led to better conservation would you consider it more ethical ?

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned.

The last time I saw ethical reasoning that was that binary, was in a study that compared ethical thinking in humans before and after puberty using the traditional "is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" hypothetical; specifically, in the pre-puberty reasoning.

Is it too much to hope for that our society would have a view on ethics that took reality more into account?

Besides all of which, you've been arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare; what they do involves culling foxes, so you're arguing to preserve one species by culling another and seeing no ethical dilemma there.

Things like this are making it hard to find merit in your case, to be honest.

ScumLord

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Allowing a species to go extinct isnt itself unethical. To drive them to extinction is. But so is keeping a species around to be used in this way.

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see your logic at all.

And as I said the fact coursing fans have no interest in the Hares conservation outside the sport shows that what they are doing isnt ethical as they are keeping Hares around for the sole purpose of tormenting them.

Your using emotive language there. They don't want to torment the animal they want to see it doing what is was designed to do, evade predators. I'm sure the people involved in the sport try to learn about the animal and actually admire it's abilities. More often than not the Hare "wins" doesn't it?

wexfordman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I think its pretty shítty that people think keeping them alive justifies tormenting them.

Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of an odd character who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing, so I pretty much assume you would think that sneezing in the wrong direction towards an animal would be sh!tty

Im pretty ammazed that your more than happy to see the extinction of species though!

smash

wexfordman wrote: »

Im pretty ammazed that your more than happy to see the extinction of species though!

Talk about a nonsense argument...

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

The last time I saw ethical reasoning that was that binary, was in a study that compared ethical thinking in humans before and after puberty using the traditional "is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" hypothetical; specifically, in the pre-puberty reasoning.

Is it too much to hope for that our society would have a view on ethics that took reality more into account?

You mean a view on ethics that suits your agenda of taking pleasure in tormenting animals right ? Because you brought ethics into it but once its argued that having dogs chase Hares for the craic isnt ethical then there is something wrong with my view of ethics.

You've made it patently clear in this thread that logic and reason are outside your remit of defending hunting and anything associated with it along with your cohort from the hunting forum.

Besides all of which, you've been arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare; what they do involves culling foxes, so you're arguing to preserve one species by culling another and seeing no ethical dilemma there.

Have I ? Where did I say that ? I said the means of conserving Hares wasnt solely tied to coursing as you would have people believe. If you read above you'll see me state that "If a species cannot be conserved through ethical means then it is unethical to conserve it".

Things like this are making it hard to find merit in your case, to be honest.

Your own agenda is making it hard for you to see any merit in anything that doesnt suit it. Case and point in the paragraph above where you yet again misrepresent an argument to suit your needs which you have done time and time again in this thread.

ScumLord

wexfordman wrote: »

Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of a crackpot who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing, so I pretty much assume you would think that sneezing in the wrong direction towards an animal would be sh!tty

I don't know that he really cares about the welfare of the animals, he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives. That's just madness.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives.

Sorry, but anti coursing does not equal pro extinction.

Artful_Badger

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see your logic at all.

I'll clarify it for you. You cant abuse an animal because your the reason its alive. If I bred a new species tomorrow to kick around my garden it wouldnt be ethical to keep breeding it for that purpose because otherwise it would go extinct. Its pretty simple logic in fairness.

Your using emotive language there. They don't want to torment the animal they want to see it doing what is was designed to do, evade predators. I'm sure the people involved in the sport try to learn about the animal and actually admire it's abilities. More often than not the Hare "wins" doesn't it?

And thats not tormenting it ? The Hare is good at evading predators, lets set dogs on it and see how good it is ? This make more sense to you than not wanting animals to be kept around to be exploited ?

Madam

For some odd reason I can't get my head around grown men(and its almost always men)enjoying the fact that an animal is run into the ground with nowhere to run and no escape as the field is barricaded so they can't go anywhere - where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

Artful_Badger

smash wrote: »

Sorry, but anti coursing does not equal pro extinction.

Dont bother. I dont give a shít about the animals welfare either apparently. To these people I'm simply anti hunting agenda and nothing more.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You mean a view on ethics that suits your agenda of taking pleasure in tormenting animals right?

I don't take pleasure in tormenting animals, but you appear to take pleasure in accusing people of doing so.

You've made it patently clear in this thread that logic and reason are outside your remit of defending hunting and anything associated with it along with your cohort from the hunting forum.

....by citing scientific studies you mean?

Have I ? Where did I say that ?

Where you suggested that what the coursing club does could be done independently of the coursing club. As Paddy does. Which means feeding hares, having them treated by vets and culling the predators that would otherwise eat them. Which means shooting foxes.

OldNotWIse

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Try reading it slower this time.

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

try reading the thread title??

yubabill1

Madam wrote: »

For some odd reason I can't get my head around grown men(and its almost always men)enjoying the fact that an animal is run into the ground with nowhere to run and no escape as the field is barricaded so they can't go anywhere - where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

Now it's a man thing.
Well, at least it's a new angle, the others have been battering along in circles for days!
Thanks for the bit of relief, Madam.

Sparks

Madam wrote: »

nowhere to run and no escape

If the hare has nowhere to run and no escape, how do 95.9 to 99.04% of hares escape?

From Reid(2007):

Madam

Sparks wrote: »

If the hare has nowhere to run and no escape, how do 95.9 to 99.04% of hares escape?

From Reid(2007):

Depends on who's doing the stats;)

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

I don't take pleasure in tormenting animals, but you appear to take pleasure in accusing people of doing so.

Sorry, its hard to know if you enjoy coursing as well as use it to push your agenda or just using it to push your agenda. Fault is mine entirely. So you dont enjoy coursing then ? Having dogs chase a Hare to gamble on is just an ethical way to conserve the species ?

....by citing scientific studies you mean?

The few studies you cited doesnt validate the amount of agenda pushing nonsense you've spouted in this thread.

Where you suggested that what the coursing club does could be done independently of the coursing club. As Paddy does. Which means feeding hares, having them treated by vets and culling the predators that would otherwise eat them. Which means shooting foxes.

And ? What part of that is me

arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare

???

More misrepresenting bullshíte. You made the point that Coursing itself conserves the Hares and it would otherwise go extinct. Which is nonsense. Where's your study on that ? You admitted yourself it couldnt be proven and Paddy showed it wasnt true.

OldNotWIse

yubabill1 wrote: »

Now it's a man thing.
Well, at least it's a new angle, the others have been battering along in circles for days!
Thanks for the bit of relief, Madam.

Well, it is usually men. Call a spade a spade...or...feel free to get hung up on semantics and political correctness.

There are people on here trying to convince the world that hare coursing is good for hares and any that happen to be mauled, well the ungrateful little gits are just havin' a bad day aren't they - there is no end to the ridiculous arguments on here. I'm waiting for the race card or the pink card to be waved haha

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And thats not tormenting it ? The Hare is good at evading predators, lets set dogs on it and see how good it is ? This make more sense to you than not wanting animals to be kept around to be exploited ?

The actual argument is "the hare is chased by predators in the wild all the time. Let's capture some, feed them, make sure they're healthy, then recreate one such run (instead of the much higher number the hares would undergo in the wild during the time they've spent in captivity) where we can watch it because we find it thrilling; then release the healthy hares back into the wild, where they've enjoyed a significant advantage over those which were not captured".

And for the rest of us, the argument is that the activity is legally controlled; the individual hares have a high chance of survival; the species is conserved by this activity; and we have no other alternative other than to watch modern agriculture drive the hare into extinction so that we don't starve.

But that makes for an awfully awkward soundbite and requires you to keep in mind that "the wild" is actually a pretty hostile place for any species (which is why hares have a 50% mortality rate in the wild for adults and 80% or more for leverets and juveniles), and that we have to eat and we compete with the hare for land and living space and it's the food on your table that you have to sacrifice in order not to do so - in the middle of an economic depression worse than any in history.

OldNotWIse

Sparks wrote: »

If the hare has nowhere to run and no escape, how do 95.9 to 99.04% of hares escape?

From Reid(2007):

Where is that graph sourced?

yubabill1

Well, neither side is ever going to convince the other, so we might as well enjoy the ride, IMHO.

Sparks

Madam wrote: »

Depends on who's doing the stats;)

Always wise to check that point. In this case that would be:

N Reid*†, RA McDonald‡ and WI Montgomery†
†Quercus, Queen’s University Belfast, School of Biological Sciences, Medical Biology Centre, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL,Northern Ireland, UK
‡Central Science Library, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK

* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: neil.reid@qub.ac.uk

And published and peer reviewed by:

Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK

Personally, I think those sources are sufficiently credible, or I'd have discounted them.

OldNotWIse

Sparks wrote: »

The actual argument is "the hare is chased by predators in the wild all the time. Let's capture some, feed them, make sure they're healthy, then recreate one such run (instead of the much higher number the hares would undergo in the wild during the time they've spent in captivity) where we can watch it because we find it thrilling; then release the healthy hares back into the wild, where they've enjoyed a significant advantage over those which were not captured".

And for the rest of us, the argument is that the activity is legally controlled; the individual hares have a high chance of survival; the species is conserved by this activity; and we have no other alternative other than to watch modern agriculture drive the hare into extinction so that we don't starve.

But that makes for an awfully awkward soundbite and requires you to keep in mind that "the wild" is actually a pretty hostile place for any species (which is why hares have a 50% mortality rate in the wild for adults and 80% or more for leverets and juveniles), and that we have to eat and we compete with the hare for land and living space and it's the food on your table that you have to sacrifice in order not to do so - in the middle of an economic depression worse than any in history.

I just bolded the part I have trouble getting my head around.

Have ye nothing going on in the bedroom? I can think of plenty of "thrills" that dont involve chasing defenceless animals. And just because you bred/captured and fed them doesnt make it right that you should terrorise them.

yubabill1

For the record, Sparks, you are making Trojan efforts.

A bit pointless, though. As long as people remove wild habitat by pouring concrete, they are always going to feel guilty.

Sparks

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Where is that graph sourced?

I gave the source in that post. It's page 431, figure 4, and it's the muzzled section of the graph.

smash

Sparks wrote: »

The actual argument is "the hare is chased by predators in the wild all the time. Let's capture some, feed them, make sure they're healthy, then recreate one such run (instead of the much higher number the hares would undergo in the wild during the time they've spent in captivity) where we can watch it because we find it thrilling; then release the healthy hares back into the wild, where they've enjoyed a significant advantage over those which were not captured".

You make it sound like these guys are David Attenborough types, when in reality you know they are not doing it for observation, it's for gambling and dog training!

yubabill1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I just bolded the part I have trouble getting my head around.

Have ye nothing going on in the bedroom? I can think of plenty of "thrills" that dont involve chasing defenceless animals. And just because you bred them doesnt make it right that you should terrorise them.

Yeah, well if we spent less time breeding, there would be a helluva lot more habitat for the hare and the likes.:eek:

ScumLord

smash wrote: »

Sorry, but anti coursing does not equal pro extinction.

He said there's no point in maintaining the species if people are going to use some of them for coursing. Rather than one Hare being captured put through the coursing event and released again the entire species should be left to go extinct. I'm not putting words in his mouth either that's what he said.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'll clarify it for you. You cant abuse an animal because your the reason its alive.

People can do what they like, your imposing your morals onto them and nature as a whole. Morals, ethics, good, bad. None of these things exist outside of the human mind. If you want to put a stop to coursing to protect the Hares there are ways you could go about it. Moralising on the internet does nothing because you don't actually know all that much about the details of whats happening.

Madam wrote: »

Depends on who's doing the stats;)

It doesn't, in the videos in the very first post you can see the Hares do have somewhere to escape too.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

There are people on here trying to convince the world that hare coursing is good for hares and any that happen to be mauled,

Coursing is necessary to protect the species not individual Hares. Ye've been asked over and over again for alternatives and there is none. No one else is willing to put in the time and effort to protect these animals so coursing is good for the Hares in the same way a lion killing off the sick Gizelle is good for species as a whole. There's a bigger picture that people just seem to refuse to acknowledge. If coursing stops and as a result the conservation stops more Hares will die than any coursing event could ever manage even if their intention was to kill the Hares.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

I gave the source in that post. It's page 431, figure 4, and it's the muzzled section of the graph.

Sparks, these guys can't even find their way around a peer-reviewed article.

PU-LEEZE.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The few studies you cited doesnt validate the amount of agenda pushing nonsense you've spouted in this thread.

When evidence carries no weight with you, I fail to see the logic in doing anything but dismissing your position as, to quote Pauli, so bad, it's not even wrong.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

The actual argument is "the hare is chased by predators in the wild all the time. Let's capture some, feed them, make sure they're healthy, then recreate one such run (instead of the much higher number the hares would undergo in the wild during the time they've spent in captivity) where we can watch it because we find it thrilling; then release the healthy hares back into the wild, where they've enjoyed a significant advantage over those which were not captured".

That argument is based on the fact that its ok to do something to an animal because it happens in the wild. What you find thrilling is the sight of an animal that has been taken from its environment and released in a strange place to be released to run for its life from two predators.

If its ok to do it because its done in the wild why are the dogs muzzled ? The Hare if caught would be killed in the wild. Or is the actual fact that its not ok to do it because regardless of the fact it would happen in the wild you cant just use animals in such a way for your own amusement ?

And for the rest of us, the argument is that the activity is legally controlled; the individual hares have a high chance of survival; the species is conserved by this activity; and we have no other alternative other than to watch modern agriculture drive the hare into extinction so that we don't starve.

As I said the impending extinction doesnt justify the sport of Coursing. If you were actually concerned about it you conserve the animal anyway being that you have no issues with hunting. The point in relation to this thread is that the species is not conserved to protect it, its conserved to exploit it.

But that makes for an awfully awkward soundbite and requires you to keep in mind that "the wild" is actually a pretty hostile place for any species (which is why hares have a 50% mortality rate in the wild for adults and 80% or more for leverets and juveniles), and that we have to eat and we compete with the hare for land and living space and it's the food on your table that you have to sacrifice in order not to do so - in the middle of an economic depression worse than any in history.

You go on about sound bites but what is that last paragraph in your post You're trying to make out that despite it all there you are helping out the poor old Hare, when in reality you are looking for reasons to justify your thrilling day watching a Hare run for its life.

OldNotWIse

Sparks wrote: »

I gave the source in that post. It's page 431, figure 4, and it's the muzzled section of the graph.

Thanks.
Also from the same source:

Video records, therefore, underestimate overall hare
mortality by excluding deaths that occur in captivity before
or after the filmed event. Other causes of mortality apart
from the actual course that may account for discrepancies
between the number of hares released and those caught may
include natural causes and injury, stress or disease resulting

from capture or confinement.

wexfordman

smash wrote: »

Talk about a nonsense argument...

Nah, whats nonsense is badger has admitted he would like to see and end to fishing and horse racing.

And whats nonsense is that he has no issues with regards the extinction of a species! I mean, feckin armchair warriors pretending to know everything about something they are never involved in, dismissing the genuine positive effects that coursing does have (admittedly it is not to everyones taste, but no sense in denying the benefits none the less).

If any of you are genuinely interested in the welfare of hares etc, how come we dont see huge campaigns to save the hair by the likes of badger etc.

As sparks said, where is the money going to come from, cos you lot certainly are doing feck all about it.

Fact of the matter is than no species in this country can survive unsupported and un aided without human intervention. Now unless badger and yourself have a suggestion on how to raise money, time and resources to look after hare, pheasant, partridge, deer, horses, greyhounds etc, ye had better either accept the genuine positive impact that hunting and coursing has on these species, or stfu!

yubabill1

Hey, guys- here's one for you to ponder

I've seen foxes bringing live rabbits for their teenage young to chase, torment and kill several times over the years.

Where do you stand on that?

Just curious.

OldNotWIse

yubabill1 wrote: »

Yeah, well if we spent less time breeding, there would be a helluva lot more habitat for the hare and the likes.:eek:

Maybe its just monday-ness but I keep reading this post and thinking "

---

"

yubabill1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Maybe its just monday-ness but I keep reading this post and thinking "

---

"

Don't follow your thinking. Hope it's a bit of fun, though, because the rest is getting bogged-down.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

When evidence carries no weight with you, I fail to see the logic in doing anything but dismissing your position as, to quote Pauli, so bad, it's not even wrong.

Its getting painful trying to discuss anything with you. You're continued misrepresentation of the argument is beyond a joke.

What evidence have I not accepted ? Evidence for what ? Everything you have said ? Is that what you are claiming ? Because that would be a lie.

You are using the fact you put forth studies on the numbers in the wild or whatever they were to claim your input in this thread is beyond reproach. Thats the type of argument you come out with.

You are so blinded by your own agenda that I'm surprised you can ever see the screen to keep responding with such nonsense.

ScumLord

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The point in relation to this thread is that the species is not conserved to protect it, its conserved to exploit it.

And that makes no difference to the species, Everything in nature is exploited by something else. That's how nature works. All that matters is that the species survives, coursing could end at any time and the Hares could be free. But if they go extinct in the meantime it's pointless trying to ban coursing.

OldNotWIse

wexfordman wrote: »

Nah, whats nonsense is badger has admitted he would like to see and end to fishing and horse racing.

And whats nonsense is that he has no issues with regards the extinction of a species! I mean, feckin armchair warriors pretending to know everything about something they are never involved in, dismissing the genuine positive effects that coursing does have (admittedly it is not to everyones taste, but no sense in denying the benefits none the less).

If any of you are genuinely interested in the welfare of hares etc, how come we dont see huge campaigns to save the hair by the likes of badger etc.

As sparks said, where is the money going to come from, cos you lot certainly are doing feck all about it.

Fact of the matter is than no species in this country can survive unsupported and un aided without human intervention. Now unless badger and yourself have a suggestion on how to raise money, time and resources to look after hare, pheasant, partridge, deer, horses, greyhounds etc, ye had better either accept the genuine positive impact that hunting and coursing has on these species, or stfu!

ahahahahahaha as distinct from the "real warriors" chasin' down them damned hares and keeping the rest of the country safe.

OldNotWIse

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its getting painful trying to discuss anything with you. You're continued misrepresentation of the argument is beyond a joke.

What evidence have I not accepted ? Evidence for what ? Everything you have said ? Is that what you are claiming ? Because that would be a lie.

You are using the fact you put forth studies on the numbers in the wild or whatever they were to claim your input in this thread is beyond reproach. Thats the type of argument you come out with.

You are so blinded by your own agenda that I'm surprised you can ever see the screen to keep responding with such nonsense.

I'm surprised that anyone who engages in this kind of thing even has the capaciy to use a computer lol, I had them all down as well..you know...the typewriter and cow sh1te folk :rolleyes: Dont be all offended now, we regularly get cows sh1teing in our front garden, as they say "ye can pu' butter on that"

ScumLord

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm surprised that anyone who engages in this kind of thing even has the capaciy to use a computer lol, I had them all down as well..you know...the typewriter and cow sh1te folk :rolleyes: Dont be all offended now, we regularly get cows sh1teing in our front garden, as they say "ye can pu' butter on that"

I couldn't say for sure that anyone arguing the points of conservation has ever even seen a coursing event. I certainly haven't. So your insults are completely misdirected.

Mickeroo

yubabill1 wrote: »

Hey, guys- here's one for you to ponder

I've seen foxes bringing live rabbits for their teenage young to chase, torment and kill several times over the years.

Where do you stand on that?

Just curious.

Ah now I think you know where most people stand on that, and equating the two doesn't really lend itself to a reasoned debate on the issue here.

Sparks

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I just bolded the part I have trouble getting my head around.

*shrug*
I have a hard time understanding the motives of a lot of people - I mean, I can't get my head around the mindset that it's okay to do a slapdash job of something, but "erra, it'll be grand" is pretty much our national motto.
I just figure that it's something I won't ever understand, that being tolerant of other views is a necessity for society, and I get on with it.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its getting painful trying to discuss anything with you. You're continued misrepresentation of the argument is beyond a joke.

What evidence have I not accepted ? Evidence for what ? Everything you have said ? Is that what you are claiming ? Because that would be a lie.

You are using the fact you put forth studies on the numbers in the wild or whatever they were to claim your input in this thread is beyond reproach. Thats the type of argument you come out with.

You are so blinded by your own agenda that I'm surprised you can ever see the screen to keep responding with such nonsense.

Well, for the record, everything sparks said has made sense to me, which is considerably more than can be said for the emotive and illogical stuff coming from you over the past several days.

Madam

yubabill1 wrote: »

Hey, guys- here's one for you to ponder

I've seen foxes bringing live rabbits for their teenage young to chase, torment and kill several times over the years.

Where do you stand on that?

Just curious.

If its a natural thing for an animal to do, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Sparks

smash wrote: »

You make it sound like these guys are David Attenborough types

That's a shame, because what I was trying to point out was that it works. Doesn't matter what you think of it or how pretty it is, the evidence all says the thing works. And the thing about pretty-versus-evidence is:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/on_campus_blog/UNIFI_Feynman.jpg

Sparks

Madam wrote: »

If its a natural thing for an animal to do, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So why have a problem when an animal does it in a way that makes it far more likely that both the individual hare and the species survive?