Hare Coursing

steddyeddy

To be honest I dont mind hunting in general as long as they're not hunting an endangered species. In America I was friends with many hunters and they're nice people. Irish hunters are nice people generally too but whoever is running their lobby is an idiot frankly. The hunting support groups in america and ireland are worlds apart.

America has some of the strictest wildlife laws in the world, the hunters support conservation efforts. Irish wildlife laws are crap putting it nicely.We have inbreds decapitating seals and other simian lifeforms causing the Norwegian Primeminister to ask us to kindly stop killing Norway's eagles.

I suggested to hunting groups in Ireland to forge closer ties with conservation efforts. Speak out against the killing of endangered eagles ect but was told I was anti hunting. Despite the fact that I suggested hunting would have a lot more support if the worked closer with conservation. I even asked permission to start thread on a certain hunting forum and the response I got was suggesting I was going to start an anti hunting thread.

This coarsing itself is pointless and barbaric. Hunting in general isnt somthing I have a huge problem with in general but Idont support hunting groups in Ireland based on their aims or lack of them.

steddyeddy

archer22 wrote: »

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

Indeed they all pm each other to have a whinge whenever anything like this comes up.

steddyeddy

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.

Animals cant develop post traumatic symptoms? Look around any dog pound and youll see otherwise. Read up on reports of animals rescued from violent owners.

Duggys Housemate

I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.

steddyeddy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.

Can you see the evolutionary benifit of cancer, chromasomal disorders or diabtetes? Sometimes stress or enviromental conditions force us into situations that are not evolutionarly benifitial.

Duggys Housemate

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can you see the evolutionary benifit of cancer, chromasomal disorders or diabtetes? Sometimes stress or enviromental conditions force us into situations that are not evolutionarly benifitial.

You don't understand evolution. Cancer is largely a disease of the elderly - as such it doesn't affect evolution. Diabetes is a product of modern lifestyle we specifically didn't evolve for.

Permanent psychological damage for prey? Wouldn't all wildlife be continuous nervous wrecks ?

osarusan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.

a majority of posters on the thread and in the poll, apparently.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

Animals cant develop post traumatic symptoms? Look around any dog pound and youll see otherwise. Read up on reports of animals rescued from violent owners.

Yup, my little rescue runs and hides when someone lifts the garden rake - and I'm pretty sure she's not afraid of being asked to do garden work

OldNotWIse

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.

Me.

reprazant

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Permanent psychological damage for prey? Wouldn't all wildlife be continuous nervous wrecks ?

The average wild rabbit or deer is definitely a cool and calm customer.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yup, my little rescue runs and hides when someone lifts the garden rake - and I'm pretty sure she's not afraid of being asked to do garden work

Ah, it's not PTSD though, it's the association of a rake with Bad Things. PTSD includes nightmares, palpatations, feelings of dread for no reason, panic attacks; things that simply can't be diagnosed in animals.

pickarooney

A dog has no natural predators; a hare does. Does anyone have an idea of what percentage of hares die of old age as opposed to being eaten or poisoned? (genuine question)
Do wild animals have any concept of a peaceful life and a 'nice' death?

Chuck Stone

pickarooney wrote: »

A dog has no natural predators; a hare does.

In fairness, domesticated dogs can hardly be considered 'natural' predators.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with wild wolves preying on Hares. Humans breeding high-speed dogs and organising a death run (how can a Hare see it any other way?) is pretty unnatural.

pickarooney

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In fairness, domesticated dogs can hardly be considered 'natural' predators.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with wild wolves preying on Hares. Humans breeding high-speed dogs and organising a death run (how can a Hare see it any other way?) is pretty unnatural.

For the humans, OK, but the hare doesn't know the difference between being chased by a greyhound or a wolf. The dog also doesn't realise it's being 'cruel'; its natural instinct is to catch and kill small animals.

steddyeddy

pickarooney wrote: »

For the humans, OK, but the hare doesn't know the difference between being chased by a greyhound or a wolf. The dog also doesn't realise it's being 'cruel'; its natural instinct is to catch and kill small animals.

Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.

steddyeddy

golfball37 wrote: »

This is the think end of the wedge afaic. What comes next? Banning Hurling because its too violent.:rolleyes:

These are dumb animals ffs. Its a Sport that brings pleasure to many in the countryside and is an integral part of Irish culture. If you don't like it ignore it but why ruin it for 1000's who rightly or wrongly derive some form of entertainment from it.

The only dumb animals are the ones watching it.

pickarooney

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.

I get that. I've made the point earlier that there were two aspects to coursing, the human behaviour and the experience of the hare and that I believe only humans can judge the other humans as 'barbaric' or 'cruel' based on their enjoyment of the spectacle and the net effect on the hare (killed by a dog or a fox or a bird of prey) is moot.

I'm also questioning if it's reasonable to state boldly that spectators at hare coursing 'get off' on the apparent suffering of the animal or moreso on the chase, the gambling or whatever goes on while denying that someone watching a predator killing its prey without any human interference also gets off on the spectacle.

Some people seem to equate curiosity or analysis with outright support of a position. Personally, I haven't adopted one.

steddyeddy

Hunter21 wrote: »

Once anti groups get coursing banned they won't be happy they'll move on and try get all sports to do with animals banned. This in years to come could make a number of vets unemployed.

It's like dominos once one will fall the others will fall in time..

This anti groups routine again? Im not a fan of the extreme animal rights groups in Ireland but the hunting lobby in Ireland are the only ones responsible for the death hunting activities in Ireland. A colleague in college (he's a zoologist) wanted to forge conservation links with hunting groups (which would safeguard hunting forever in this country) and he was accused of being an anti. I had the same experience emailing hunting groups with suggestions and even here on boards.

reprazant

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.

Seemingly, there is no difference from watching a nature program involving say a lion hunting as there is from throwing a rabbit in with some dogs and watching them kill it.

If you like nature programs, you therefore should like coursing. Because watching animals in the wild is the same as creating a scenario where animals tear other animals apart for the enjoyment of the baying masses.

fourleafclover

steddyeddy wrote: »

This anti groups routine again? Important not a fan of the extreme animal rights groups in Ireland but the hunting lobby in Ireland are the only ones responsible for the death hunting activities in Ireland. A colleague in college (he's a zoologist) wanted to forge conservation links with hunting groups (which would safeguard hunting forever in this country) and he was accused of being an anti. I had the same experience emailing hunting groups with suggestions and even here on boards.

what were your suggestions? surely the quercus report on rising hare populations points to conservation of the irish hare?

fourleafclover

May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

Zombienosh

fourleafclover wrote: »

May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

The idea that just because the dogs are muzzled there's no harm done is ridiculous.

reprazant

fourleafclover wrote: »

May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

Not all coursing is done the legal way, in this country or across the water. The dogs are not always muzzled. Also, to state that not harm is done to the hare is showing ignorance on your part. Are you of the opinion that a dog can only cause harm to another animal with its mouth only?

Mickeroo

reprazant wrote: »

Seemingly, there is no difference from watching a nature program involving say a lion hunting as there is from throwing a rabbit in with some dogs and watching them kill it.

If you like nature programs, you therefore should like coursing. Because watching animals in the wild is the same as creating a scenario where animals tear other animals apart for the enjoyment of the baying masses.

I don't know about you but I don't generally watch things like that for enjoyment but to learn and observe animals in their natural state. The last thing I would be doing is smiling when something is being killed.

reprazant

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't know about you but I don't generally watch things like that for enjoyment but to learn and observe animals in their natural state. The last thing I would be doing is smiling when something is being killed.

I was paraphrasing pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

I think people like to anthropomorphise the hares a little too much. Small animals get chased and killed and eaten by big ones in their billions every day. I've never been to one of these and wouldn't have any interest, but what's the essential difference between attending a hare coursing event and watching a David Attenborough documentary?

OpenYourEyes

Hunter21 wrote: »

Once anti groups get coursing banned they won't be happy they'll move on and try get all sports to do with animals banned. This in years to come could make a number of vets unemployed.

It's like dominos once one will fall the others will fall in time..

Anti-Groups wont be happy until they get all activities to do with animals banned, I agree.

Anti-Groups don't get anything banned on their own however. In reality very few people are part of such groups. They require a lot of additional public support to get anything banned. For that reason they will never get activities like hunting* and fishing banned - they'll never get the public on board with getting them banned. And I'm glad of that, I enjoy fishing and hunting has many benefits.

So its nothing like dominoes - getting hare coursing banned would not lead to getting the others banned in time, and so thats a very deterimental viewpoint to base your argument on. If you're in favour of Hare coursing you should argue on the benefits of it, not on unfounded paranoia.


All that being said, I'm in favour of hare coursing solely for the conservation and biodiversity benefits that come out of it. And thats assuming the dogs are muzzled, and each Hare is only ever put through it once. To me, the benefits then far outweigh the costs (although there are still costs).



*hunting meaning shooting, not the horse/hound type

Mickeroo

reprazant wrote: »

I was paraphrasing pickarooney

My bad

clashburke

reprazant wrote: »

Not all coursing is done the legal way, in this country or across the water. The dogs are not always muzzled. Also, to state that not harm is done to the hare is showing ignorance on your part. Are you of the opinion that a dog can only cause harm to another animal with its mouth only?

But that type of coursing is already illegal and you can be prosecuted for doing it!!!
Saying that legal coursing should be banned because some idiots do it illegally is akin to saying dogs should be banned in Ireland because there is an element that engage in dog fighting!!

reprazant

clashburke wrote: »

But that type of coursing is already illegal and you can be prosecuted for doing it!!!
Saying that legal coursing should be banned because some idiots do it illegally is akin to saying dogs should be banned in Ireland because there is an element that engage in dog fighting!!

No, I am saying it should be banned as it inflicts unnecessary cruelty onto the hares for not other reason than for the viewing masses to get their rocks off, whether it is legal or not.

Formosa

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?

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

No it's not.

reprazant

Why not?

I hope, btw, you are not going to take that statement out of the context of the discussion it was in and in particular to the post it was in reply to.

Matt_Trakker

I wonder were these Roman times how many posters would've gone to see Gladiator fights in the local hippodrome?
I think I probably would've if I'm being totally honest.

Like that recent film, the Hunger Games, it was muck, but the idea was cool, as was the Japanese film Battle Royale.
If it was real I don't know if I'd watch it....but I reckon I'd be pulled in and then horrified.
Remember watching that film about the suicides off the Golden Gate bridge...at first I thought it would be interesting, but then as soon as the first dude jumped I felt awful.

Still tho, I stick by my earlier posts, I'm all for hare coursing and I'd go to an event if any were staged where I live.

fourleafclover

reprazant wrote: »

No, I am saying it should be banned as it inflicts unnecessary cruelty onto the hares for not other reason than for the viewing masses to get their rocks off, whether it is legal or not.

you must know very little about coursing reprazant. if coursing was to be cruel to the hare and cause a decline in hare population there would be no hare coursing?!! furthermore coursing is to view the ability of two greyhounds competing against each other. these greyhounds through their breeding do not chase mechanical lures and in a very rare cases get near enough to the hare to touch it. perhaps you should go and view the spectacle for yourself sometime, you will realise the coursing supporters always reserve the biggest cheer for when the hare gets to the escape safely and soundly. to say some hares do not get injured would be a lie but from the national meeting in clonmel where 193 courses took place one hare was injured.

ScumLord

7 7 12 wrote: »

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

That animals display signs of stress after a stressful situation proves nothing about animals ability to foresee danger. All animals have an awareness of danger at all times but they can't imagine what will happen to them, that kind of mental ability is reserved for a minority of animals.

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.

This makes no sense. That an animal cries out at the moment of capture is in no way an indication that they have an imagination, if anything it proves the opposite otherwise they would have been crying before they got captured.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Animals cant develop post traumatic symptoms? Look around any dog pound and youll see otherwise. Read up on reports of animals rescued from violent owners.

Again your comparing two completely different scenarios. Your comparing animals suffering long term abuse to an animal that is going through a short lived stressful situation that's really no different than it would experience in the wild.

Seachmall

Why has this turned into a discussion on the psychological and mental capabilities of animals?


It's about putting animals in a situation where they may get mauled solely for enjoyment and whether that's ok or not (Protip: it's not).

Pumpkinseeds

r

fourleafclover wrote: »

May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

I have to strongly disagree with you on this. A friend of mine worked in an animal rescue charity shop. One day a man came in with boxes of donations. When the boxes were opened they contained many framed photographs of unmuzzled dogs ripping hares apart while spectators in the background had huge smiles of enjoyment on their faces, they were clearly enjoying what they were witnessing.

FFS what kind of sick cnut thinks that giving those sort of images to an animal charity is appropriate. More to the point what sort of sick cnut would want those images displayed in their homes. I saw those photographs and I didn't know whether to cry or vomit.

Also what is happening to many of the dogs is disgraceful, many are abandoned after they are no longer deemed useful/financially beneficial to the owners. There have been a spate of incidents were these dogs have been found shot and mutilated in order to avoid the ID marks being found and therefore disguising the owners identity.

fourleafclover

Seachmall wrote: »

Why has this turned into a discussion on the psychological and mental capabilities of animals?


It's about putting animals in a situation where they may get mauled solely for enjoyment and whether that's ok or not (Protip: it's not).

that is an absolute lie!! coursing is nothing to do with enjoyment of anything getting mauled. that is a scurrious statement to get emotive response. you either know very little about coursing or are quite happy to lie to your own advantage.

i will take you back to the fact that in the national meeting in clonmel 193 courses took place, one hare was injured (unfortunately). the hares then released back to the wild have been innoculated for disease, fed properly and are therefore in a much better state of health to thrive in the wild

Seachmall

fourleafclover wrote: »

that is an absolute lie!! coursing is nothing to do with enjoyment of anything getting mauled.

I never suggested the enjoyment was derived from the animal being mauled.

fourleafclover

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

r

I have to strongly disagree with you on this. A friend of mine worked in an animal rescue charity shop. One day a man came in with boxes of donations. When the boxes were opened they contained many framed photographs of unmuzzled dogs ripping hares apart while spectators in the background had huge smiles of enjoyment on their faces, they were clearly enjoying what they were witnessing.

FFS what kind of sick cnut thinks that giving those sort of images to an animal charity is appropriate. More to the point what sort of sick cnut would want those images displayed in their homes. I saw those photographs and I didn't know whether to cry or vomit.

Also what is happening to many of the dogs is disgraceful, many are abandoned after they are no longer deemed useful/financially beneficial to the owners. There have been a spate of incidents were these dogs have been found shot and mutilated in order to avoid the ID marks being found and therefore disguising the owners identity.

since 1994 all park coursing dogs have to be muzzled. that is fact.

did the photographer in question win a prize as to be able to both focus on the action and also take in the crowds faces via a photograph is still impossible to do to this very day so i suggest you are telling a little lie!!

Pumpkinseeds

fourleafclover wrote: »

since 1994 all park coursing dogs have to be muzzled. that is fact.

did the photographer in question win a prize as to be able to both focus on the action and also take in the crowds faces via a photograph is still impossible to do to this very day so i suggest you are telling a little lie!!

As I said, there were many framed photographs in those boxes. I find hare coursing disgusting and so I see those images as being obscene. You seem to support hare coursing and you're implying that I'm a liar. How dare you accuse me of lying.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

The only dumb animals are the ones watching it.

Yup more like "frightened animals" (and dumb people)

I often question the intellect of those who get kicks out of watching animals suffer. Not to mention the mindlessness of gambling. Combine the two to create a super-imbecile lol

fourleafclover

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

As I said, there were many framed photographs in those boxes. I find hare coursing disgusting and so I see those images as being obscene. You seem to support hare coursing and you're implying that I'm a liar. How dare you accuse me of lying.

i do call you a liar as you can not focus on two things at once with a camera. why dont you post up these images and prove me wrong?!
you do not seem to understand what hare coursing is or that greyhounds have been muzzled since 1994 therefore an inability to tear a hare to shreds as you outlined above.

Sparks

I'm curious - do the people who support this know of the background of groups like ICABS? Of their links to fairly dodgy characters?

ICABS Watch.

Pumpkinseeds

fourleafclover wrote: »

i do call you a liar as you can not focus on two things at once with a camera. why dont you post up these images and prove me wrong?!
you do not seem to understand what hare coursing is or that greyhounds have been muzzled since 1994 therefore an inability to tear a hare to shreds as you outlined above.

The photographs were given to the gardai as the images were of unmuzzled coursing. The photos were taken in fields with the spectators being very close to the 'action' so to speak, not very hard to capture the photos if you take a photo of something thats happening right in front of you. You need a serious attitude adjustment if you think it's acceptable to accuse someone of lying when they oppose your opinion of something.

pickarooney

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't know about you but I don't generally watch things like that for enjoyment but to learn and observe animals in their natural state. The last thing I would be doing is smiling when something is being killed.

I don't understand why you would watch a programme of your own free will if you're not deriving any enjoyment of it. Re-name it self-education or interest if you will, but it's the same thing.

Those programmes are always filmed and narrated in such a way as to get the viewer to identify with the hunter or or root for the prey. In the same way, it's much easier to anthropomorphise the hare and demonise the spectator in order to entrench a position of good vs. evil that it is to equivocate two instances of human beings' natural fascination with the macabre.

ScumLord

fourleafclover wrote: »

i do call you a liar as you can not focus on two things at once with a camera. why dont you post up these images and prove me wrong?!

You can have any range of focus you want with the right equipment. Most DSLR cameras have a focal range that goes from very shallow to very thing in focus. It's not at all difficult to have both the dogs in the foreground in focus a well as the background. Older cameras often had only one focus range so they'd try to have the widest focal range.

fourleafclover

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The photographs were given to the gardai as the images were of unmuzzled coursing. The photos were taken in fields with the spectators being very close to the 'action' so to speak, not very hard to capture the photos if you take a photo of something thats happening right in front of you. You need a serious attitude adjustment if you think it's acceptable to accuse someone of lying when they oppose your opinion of something.

hahaha, oh my dear lord, you are telling me now that photographs from god knows what decade or year were handed to the gardai, will you please stop making a mockery of your own opinions by telling fibs!!

i accuse you of lying because i know you can not accurately focus on two things at once and now when i gave you the opportunity to post up the images you tell me they have been handed to the gardai, will you pull the other one!! may i ask what garda station, what date, what investigation?

you are lying to try and strengthen a very weak argument and you have been found out, tut tut tut.

Pumpkinseeds

fourleafclover wrote: »

hahaha, oh my dear lord, you are telling me now that photographs from god knows what decade or year were handed to the gardai, will you please stop making a mockery of your own opinions by telling fibs!!

i accuse you of lying because i know you can not focus on two things at once and now when i gave you the opportunity to post up the images you tell me they have been handed to the gardai, will you pull the other one!! may i ask what garda station, what date, what investigation?

you are lying to try and strengthen a very weak argument and you have been found out, tut tut tut.

It was an animal welfare charity shop, why woulnd't they pass the images on to the gardai. I think you are the one with the weak argument. You are calling me a liar based on camera angles. I have no problem stating that I know very little about cameras. I only know what I saw in the photographs. It was last year that the photographs were given to the charity shop.

reprazant

fourleafclover wrote: »

i accuse you of lying because i know you can not accurately focus on two things at once

Really, you can. Everyone in this picture can be made out easily.

fourleafclover

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It was an animal welfare charity shop, why woulnd't they pass the images on to the gardai. I think you are the one with the weak argument. You are calling me a liar based on camera angles. I have no problem stating that I know very little about cameras. I only know what I saw in the photographs. It was last year that the photographs were given to the charity shop.

so now you do not know for certain if they were passed on or not?

what year would you have put on these photographs yourself? judging by spectators attire, photo aging etc?

all park coursing dogs have been muzzled since 1994, therefore the pictures you purport to have seen were not taken in ireland unless pre 1994 and if you are saying that people had grins on their faces i can assure you these images never existed as without the hare there is no coursing and the greatest cheer is always for when the hare reaches the escape safely. perhaps you should go sometime and allow yourself an educated opinion.