Hare Coursing

reprazant

pickarooney wrote: »

Do you think the hare knows the difference though? I don't really see how the circumstances surounding the event change things for it. What's a pleasant or natural death for a hare?

So because the hare doesn't know any different, it is perfectly fine to treat it as cruelly as you want?

Sure, all animal cruelty is perfectly fine by that logic. If the animal doesn't know any different, what harm?

gobnaitolunacy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A bit of an old battle in the field will bring money to the local economy too. Why don't ye just kick the living fuck out of each other every now and then and let people bet on that?

It happens alright, it's called Gaelic football.

ScumLord

coolhull wrote: »

Its a sport, eh? Are the hares armed with weapons to give then a fighting chance against the hounds?

Yes they are, their weapons are evasionary though. So they have powerful legs, are highly alert and have exelt 360 degree vision and hearing.

If you want sports, put on a pair of boxing

Why are you humanising everything?

gloves and fight someone your own size.
Or take on a pair of greyhounds yourself.
After all, the hounds are muzzled, so you can't possibly be hurt....
Can you?

A fighting human would make short work of a fighting dog, that wouldn't exactly be a fair fight either.

reprazant wrote: »

Certain animals have a weak heart that actually protects them in the wild from being eaten alive. You may call it a serious design fault but it is a far better way to go than to be torn to bits.

I don't think it's to protect them from a horrible death. Prey animals like these need to be able to go from a standing start to maximum output in the blink of an eye. This can causes problems due to massive heart rates and huge adrenaline dumps but it's certainly not a design that's supposed to kill them at the first sign of trouble. Hares would be extinct if they dropped down dead at a shock. Shocks are a routine part of their day.

OldNotWIse

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A bit of an old battle in the field will bring money to the local economy too. Why don't ye just kick the living fuck out of each other every now and then and let people bet on that?

The already do that with midget stick fighting hurley

archer22

Look if you like a bit of blood in your sport there are plenty of options Boxing,Cage Fighting,Kick Boxing etc..beating up a little animal for so called sport is a Cowards activity and I would have nothing but contempt for those who engage in it.

pickarooney

reprazant wrote: »

So because the hare doesn't know any different, it is perfectly fine to treat it as cruelly as you want?

Sure, all animal cruelty is perfectly fine by that logic. If the animal doesn't know any different, what harm?

Well, what do you define as cruelty? There are two aspects to it - the mindset of the perpetrator and the suffering of the victim. The latter is the focus of what I've been debating and, assuming you're doing the same, your post is somewhat paradoxical.

On the other point, I asked what the essential difference was between active (coursing) and vicarious (watching it unfold on TV) participation in the killing/maiming of one animal by another. All of your responses have been in the form of (presumably rhetorical) questions so I'm no closer to finding out what you think.

Seachmall

pickarooney wrote: »

On the other point, I asked what the essential difference was between active (coursing) and vicarious (watching it unfold on TV) participation in the killing/maiming of one animal by another.

Watching a gazelle get chased down by a lion is not the same as inflicting unnecessary pain upon that gazelle yourself.

If you enjoy watching the gazelle suffering you might be a bit weird but you're neither directly nor indirectly causing the suffering.

They're not comparable.

pickarooney

Seachmall wrote: »

Watching a gazelle get chased down by a lion is not the same as inflicting unnecessary pain upon that gazelle yourself.

If you enjoy watching the gazelle suffering you might be a bit weird but you're neither directly nor indirectly causing the suffering.

They're not comparable.

Well I presume there are dogs involved. I'd probably watch a man trying to chase a hare down himself.

I don't want to get too existential, but is a gazelle being killed by a lion 'suffering'? Is watching an animal documentary in the full knowledge that it contains extended scenes of animals killing each other 'enjoyment'?

reprazant

I would describe animal cruelty as inflicting unnecessary suffering on an animal. When I watch nature programs, which involve animals attacking another, I see animals inflicting suffering on others. But since this is (generally) for food, that suffering is not unnecessary, at least not for the animal who is doing the killing.

Blood sports such as coursing are inflicting suffering on a animals for the sole purpose of pleasure to those watching. There is not necessity from it.

To try and equate the two is frankly bizarre.

ScumLord

Seachmall wrote: »

Watching a gazelle get chased down by a lion is not the same as inflicting unnecessary pain upon that gazelle yourself.

If you enjoy watching the gazelle suffering you might be a bit weird but you're neither directly nor indirectly causing the suffering.

They're not comparable.

There's only suffering if the Hare gets caught and even then it's minimal. You can't say that the 90% of the time the Hare doesn't get caught that he doesn't get a big rush out of the chase and thoroughly enjoys it. Most animals don't stress out like humans do and quickly go back about there business once the immediate danger is gone. We know that the dogs enjoy it.

Seachmall

pickarooney wrote: »

Well I presume there are dogs involved. I'd probably watch a man trying to chase a hare down himself.

So would I, but don't tell anyone.

I don't want to get too existential, but is a gazelle being killed by a lion 'suffering'?

Presumably it experiences pain in a fashion similar to us.

Is watching an animal documentary in the full knowledge that it contains extended scenes of animals killing each other 'enjoyment'?

I occasionally enjoy nature documentaries, I'm sure many others do too.


I don't want to get into a discussion of whether it's morally wrong or absolutely wrong but I think if one agrees punching my dog in the face is wrong it must follow that coursing is wrong.

ScumLord wrote: »

There's only suffering if the Hare gets caught and even then it's minimal.

The chance of the hare getting caught isn't relevant the cruelty inflicted when it gets caught. And I'd be curious as to how minimal it is, the dog may be muzzled but it can still cause damage through blunt force (of the muzzle) and it's paws.

reprazant

ScumLord wrote: »

There's only suffering if the Hare gets caught and even then it's minimal. You can't say that the 90% of the time the Hare doesn't get caught that he doesn't get a big rush out of the chase and thoroughly enjoys it. Most animals don't stress out like humans do and quickly go back about there business once the immediate danger is gone. We know that the dogs enjoy it.

That a bit like saying that if, hypothetically, you got chased at night by a group of lads at night with knives but got away it would be fine because you'd have had a great rush and thoroughly enjoyed it. They did, so you must have, no?

And if they did catch you but only slapped you around it a bit, sure its grand because the suffering was only minimal.

pickarooney

reprazant wrote: »

That a bit like saying that if, hypothetically, you got chased at night by a group of lads at night with knives but got away it would be fine because you'd have had a great rush and thoroughly enjoyed it. They did, so you must have, no?

There's a fine line between terror and enjoyment, it has to be said. People pay good money to get the **** scared out of them and risk death and it can create good memories and stories. The worst aspect of that is the resulting fear that every time you go out you'll get attacked. This is, however, the default position of a hare so I'm not sure how they are psychologically affected.

And if they did catch you but only slapped you around it a bit, sure its grand because the suffering was only minimal.

Again, it's the psychological aspect that's important here. You'd get as bad in a boxing match or game of rugby but it wouldn't stop you enjoying it or going back again. The feeling of fear, injustice and trepidation are the worst parts of getting a bit of a beating. It's hard to say if animals experience that in the same way.

nervous_twitch

ScumLord wrote: »

Most animals don't stress out like humans do.

Source? Take a wander down to the DSPCA and come back and say the same.

reprazant

pickarooney wrote: »

There's a fine line between terror and enjoyment, it has to be said. People pay good money to get the **** scared out of them and risk death and it can create good memories and stories. The worst aspect of that is the resulting fear that every time you go out you'll get attacked. This is, however, the default position of a hare so I'm not sure how they are psychologically affected.


Again, it's the psychological aspect that's important here. You'd get as bad in a boxing match or game of rugby but it wouldn't stop you enjoying it or going back again. The feeling of fear, injustice and trepidation are the worst parts of getting a bit of a beating. It's hard to say if animals experience that in the same way.

Well, I can't say for sure but I'd imagine that no animal is too fantastically keen on the fear of death. I know I wouldn't be. And, since I can't say for sure if they are or are not, I don't think that it is fair to inflict that on another living thing just for kicks.

You can attempt to justify being cruel to any animal anyway you want, it's not for me. Taking pleasure in watching another animal suffer that has not made the choice to enter in that suffering is not my thing.

ScumLord

reprazant wrote: »

That a bit like saying that if, hypothetically, you got chased at night by a group of lads at night with knives but got away it would be fine because you'd have had a great rush and thoroughly enjoyed it. They did, so you must have, no?

It would be more like me getting chased by two guys with ball gags in their mouths and their hands tied behind their back.

Although I'm sure the Hare can't ell the difference between a muzzled dog and a non muzzled dog.

Your still comparing human fear to animal fear and we don't experience fear in the same way as other animals do. We're cursed with the imagination to realise what's going to happen to us. The thought process in a Hare brain could go "I'm in a box -- I'm in a field -- oh no dogs -- Run -- no dogs -- eat grass". These animals put up with being constantly on the dinner menu in the wild so it's no different to them as long as they know where to escape too.

ScumLord

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Source? Take a wander down to the DSPCA and come back and say the same.

Do the RSPCA take care of most wild animals? Dogs do stress through constant abuse a wild animal being put under stress for short periods of time is normal for them.

Mike 1972

AH definitely not what it used to be.

I mean noone has suggested a compromise involving coursing "scumbags" yet .

nervous_twitch

ScumLord wrote: »

Do the RSPCA take care of most wild animals? Dogs do stress through constant abuse a wild animal being put under stress for short periods of time is normal for them.

That's really a patchwork argument to make in favour of blood sports. It's OK to terrorise an animal because, naturally, they experience stress and fear in the wild - and hypothetically - their stress and fear mightn't be as acute as that of a human?

Micky Dolenz

I find it distasteful even after the rules were explained to me.

First dog to turn the hare wins and once the hare makes it back to the pin it is released later, that any hare will only "compete" once.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

There's only suffering if the Hare gets caught and even then it's minimal. You can't say that the 90% of the time the Hare doesn't get caught that he doesn't get a big rush out of the chase and thoroughly enjoys it.

A spokesman for the Hares said...

ScumLord

nervous_twitch wrote: »

That's really a patchwork argument to make in favour of blood sports. It's OK to terrorise an animal because, naturally, they experience stress and fear in the wild - and hypothetically - their stress and fear mightn't be as acute as that of a human?

It might be in that moment but after the fact they can't obsess about it like we do. They don't have the mental capacity.

We aren't forcing anything, we are just setting up a scenario and allowing nature to take it's course. If we weren't there the dogs would still chase the rabbit, the only difference is they would most likely succeed in killing it.

reprazant

Why do hares and other wild animals not have the mental capacity but dogs do?

nervous_twitch

ScumLord wrote: »

It might be in that moment but after the fact they can't obsess about it like we do. They don't have the mental capacity.

We aren't forcing anything, we are just setting up a scenario and allowing nature to take it's course. If we weren't there the dogs would still chase the rabbit, the only difference is they would most likely succeed in killing it.

'Setting up a scenario' and 'allowing nature to take its course' are mutually exclusive, I'm afraid, and that's what the fundamental problem is. Let the wild happen in the wild - we should be more intelligent than that.

Also, are you a zoologist or is this just guesswork? It could be argued that humans possess the intellect to rationalise fear and it's actually worse for the animal. But neither you or I know, do we?

starlings

Mike 1972 wrote: »

AH definitely not what it used to be.

I mean noone has suggested a compromise involving coursing "scumbags" yet .

coursing the spectators has been suggested, with lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

ScumLord

reprazant wrote: »

Why do hares and other wild animals not have the mental capacity but dogs do?

Because dogs have developed all kinds of adaptations to survive with humans including being able to read human emotions. When a dog is bet by it's owner it goes beyond physical abuse into psychological abuse because it's like your father or other peer ostracising you from the group.

ScumLord

nervous_twitch wrote: »

'Setting up a scenario' and 'allowing nature to take its course' are mutually exclusive, I'm afraid, and that's what the fundamental problem is. Let the wild happen in the wild - we should be more intelligent than that.

Everything is really the wild. To assume a human town exists in some realm outside of nature is just wrong. humans are just as much a part of the wild as every other living thing. Humans set up scenarios all the time, we destroy woodland and all the creatures in it to put a chair under you. You are contributing to far worse animal cruelty than anything that's ever happened at a a coursing meet.

Also, are you a zoologist or is this just guesswork? It could be argued that humans possess the intellect to rationalise fear and it's actually worse for the animal. But neither you or I know, do we?

It's pretty difficult to rationalise fear in the moment for human or Hare. After the fact humans are left with the dread it'll happen again, the Hare forgets about it. Humans are one of only a few animals that can imagine and plan ahead. Hares just didn't evolve the same mental abilities we did so they cannot experience things the same way we do.

As long as the Hare gets away and is released it's just another day surviving for that Hare. It may well have been in much more dangerous situations. Life in the wild is extremely difficult.

reprazant

So it is just guesswork then?

Seachmall

ScumLord wrote: »

As long as the Hare gets away and is released it's just another day surviving for that Hare.

Unless it gets mauled.

Dyr

hyperborean wrote: »

Who is we, and what makes you a better person?

Non stone age boggers. Not being a stone age bogger

nervous_twitch

ScumLord wrote: »

Everything is really the wild. To assume a human town exists in some realm outside of nature is just wrong. humans are just as much a part of the wild as every other living thing. Humans set up scenarios all the time, we destroy woodland and all the creatures in it to put a chair under you. You are contributing to far worse animal cruelty than anything that's ever happened at a a coursing meet.

This is going beyond the point here but yes, I believe the human ecosystem occupies a place very much outside the 'wilds' of the animal kingdom - distinctions must be made; otherwise, we would eat our young and kill the weak. We are animals, yes, but we have developed systems according to our mental capacity that separate us from most of our base, primal instincts. This is needed for the functional society we have designed. And ethics are very much a part of this (ethics and empathy, two drives that deviate us a species). For me, patronising though it might sound, I think you are socially underdeveloped if you think it's OK to pay - for entertainment reasons alone - to watch the persecution of another animal.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to rationalise fear in the moment for human or Hare. After the fact humans are left with the dread it'll happen again, the Hare forgets about it. Humans are one of only a few animals that can imagine and plan ahead. Hares just didn't evolve the same mental abilities we did so they cannot experience things the same way we do.

As long as the Hare gets away and is released it's just another day surviving for that Hare. It may well have been in much more dangerous situations. Life in the wild is extremely difficult.

Again, this last part is irrelevant. Maybe the hare might have lived a blissful life and died of old age? Maybe it would have been ripped to shreds just after it was born? Who knows? It still doesn't endow us with any kind of right to exploit animals for 'fun'.

Rabidlamb

Follow this to the nth degree & you end up banning all forms of hunting.
Remember in the UK when they banned fox hunting, that's right, once the furore died down & the media left they never harmed another fox again.
Bless your ignorance.

Hunter21

God help a lot of ye if ye ever watch the Grand National!

Ye will probably be more worried about the trees that were cut for the fences then the horse itself.

Grow a pair will ye! It's a legal sport. It's been a way of life for centuries.

Da Shins Kelly

Hunter21 wrote: »

It's a legal sport. It's been a way of life for centuries.

Doesn't make it right.

Chuck Stone

Hunter21 wrote: »

It's been a way of life for centuries.

So was slavery and kicking the fuck out of your wife.

Death and Taxes

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So was slavery and kicking the fuck out of your wife.

Hardly the same thing!

Chuck Stone

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Hardly the same thing!

No but the justification might have been the same not so long ago 'ah shure that's just the way things have always been'.

Appeal to common practice fallacy. 

Haven't you got a Roadrunner to catch?

Da Shins Kelly

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Hardly the same thing!

I think the point is that certain traditions are outdated. Gladiatorial fighting was once a "legal sport" and "a way of life", and we managed to get over that.

Pumpkinseeds

It should be banned, full stop. Its an outdated thing that most right thinking human beings would find abhorrent. I find it obscene to put the words blood and sport in the same sentence. I just can't fathom what is enjoyable about an animal being subjected to cruelty, particularly for human entertainment. Then there are the sickos who use the dogs unmuzzled, out of sight of course.

Zombienosh

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So was slavery and kicking the fuck out of your wife.

Exactly "tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything.

7 7 12

My opinion: anyone who even remotely enjoys or justifies terrifying and hurting animals is a serious ****ing mong.

7 7 12

ScumLord wrote: »

Your still comparing human fear to animal fear and we don't experience fear in the same way as other animals do.

Source for this? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. And anyway it doesn't even matter whether their fear is on the same level as ours, I'm sure given the choice to participate or not in brutality like this - they would choose not to.

The argument for fear is more complex because fear is a psychological response. Accepting that animals feel fear would be accepting that they're capable of having some kind of understanding about danger. A 1997 study led by the Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour at the University of Cambridge showed that when deer were hunted by a pack of hounds, they had high levels of stress hormones in their bodies at the time of death and their muscles presented signs of stress damage. These signs weren't present in animals that were killed with single clean shots [source: University of Cambridge]. This type of fear stress response can be found across the animal world.

Have a read of this : http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/animals-feel-fear-and-pain

Dyr

Hunter21 wrote: »

God help a lot of ye if ye ever watch the Grand National!

Ye will probably be more worried about the trees that were cut for the fences then the horse itself.

Grow a pair will ye! It's a legal sport. It's been a way of life for centuries.

When you're getting into an arena with a bear then you can demand that other people grow pair, out chasing ****ing hares with dogs? Would suggest a distinct lack of a pair and some concerns in the length dept too.

Dyr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So was slavery and kicking the fuck out of your wife.

Still is for certain ethnictities, who incidentally love the hunting with dags too.

archer22

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be more like me getting chased by two guys with ball gags in their mouths and their hands tied behind their back.

Although I'm sure the Hare can't ell the difference between a muzzled dog and a non muzzled dog.

Your still comparing human fear to animal fear and we don't experience fear in the same way as other animals do. We're cursed with the imagination to realise what's going to happen to us. The thought process in a Hare brain could go "I'm in a box -- I'm in a field -- oh no dogs -- Run -- no dogs -- eat grass". These animals put up with being constantly on the dinner menu in the wild so it's no different to them as long as they know where to escape too.

Then why do they start crying when they are caught then?..I will tell you why because there is only one logical explanation..Its because they DO have the imagination to anticipate what is going to happen next.And those that have heard them cry can be in no doubt but that they feel abject terror.

ejmaztec

archer22 wrote: »

Then why do they start crying when they are caught then?..I will tell you why because there is only one logical explanation..Its because they DO have the imagination to anticipate what is going to happen next.And those that have heard them cry can be in no doubt but that they feel abject terror.

No doubt some of the "fans" will tell you that they're crying with laughter.

Big Bottom

Hares are made to run away very fast so its not that bad a sport really.

nervous_twitch

Big Bottom wrote: »

Hares are made to run away very fast so its not that bad a sport really.

Quality point.

JupiterKid

Coursing is a bloody, violent and disgusting form of animal cruelty that passes as "sport." It has no place in 21st century Ireland and
needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I'm shocked that 40% of posters here don't think it should be banned.

archer22

JupiterKid wrote: »

Coursing is a bloody, violent and disgusting form of animal cruelty that passes as "sport." It has no place in 21st century Ireland and
needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I shocked that 40% of posters here don't think it should be banned.

The 40% is probably because they alert their supporters when their is a poll.