Hare Coursing

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

...and you've just gone and accused every wildfowler out there of breaking the Protection of Animals Act, section one.

I didnt accuse anyone of anything merely stated my opinion that killing for sport is unnecessary and cruel. Which it is.

And in no state today do animals have rights.
And the whole point of rights is that they come with duties; you obey the law, and the law provides and protects certain rights. That's the basic, fundamental principle. Animals aren't capable of entering into that social contract, so, no rights.

Put it another way. Let's say you give animals rights. The first right, the one on which all others are based, is the right to life. So we stop killing food animals overnight. Okay, now what about the carnivores?

Do we expect animals who have neither the teeth nor the digestive tract to eat plant proteins to just lie down and die? And when the carnivores start killing animals to survive, will we arrest them or just say that animal rights only apply when looking at how animals interact with humans, in which case they're not rights at all, but something else and we should stop calling them rights.

The whole concept is so fundamentally flawed from its inception that no state has ever used it as a basis for law, nor could they ever do so.

Yeah, I was arguing that animals should be represented in government. :rolleyes:

Yes, welfare. Which is a completely different thing entirely. Look at the Protection of Animals Act. It's based on the concept of animal welfare - it says no unnecessary cruelty, but it has no prohibition whatsoever on food animals or animals being used to carry loads or to entertain or to be pets.

Their definition of cruelty isnt the bases for every view of cruelty. It will change in time as most laws do. People dont take their moral cue from legislation, legislation takes its cue from the people and theirs morals change over time. Personally I see a lot of things as unnecessarily cruel that that legislation wouldnt cover for one political or economic reason or another.

Two important points here, please note them:

1. The law changed first. Then people followed the new law. That's how it works. Our current law is obeyed until it changes; and it currently states that what ICABS is saying with this petition is defamation of Limerick Racecourse by accusing them of breaking the law without proof. If your argument is that the law must be obeyed, then you're not only arguing my point, you're arguing against this petition and its ilk. We have a different way to change our laws; this isn't it.
2. You say a shift from the barbaric to the civilised. I say I've seen what industrial food production in the "civilised" age looks like and frankly, I think the life lived by game animals before they are hunted is a far more humane one. And if shooting a fox is needed so we can have free range chicken instead of battery farmed chicken, then I say that's the more humane thing to do. This whole Barbarism-v-Civilisation idea is one that's rooted in ignorance of the facts (especially given what the word Barbarian actually means and what it meant in context when coined).

I know the law changed first, I stated that very thing. Laws are open to change, and I have no doubt they will in regards the welfare of animals. If the law prohibits unnecessary cruelty to animals then its a civic duty (animals cant be relied on as you say) to stop such a thing if you believe it to be going on.

Considering the topic at hand and how the law has changed the sport to prohibit the rather nasty death of the Hare in the tradition sport then its a pretty valid statement to say its less barbaric now. Arguing semantics isnt really gonna change it to be honest.

augustus gloop

Seachmall wrote: »

Not watching a terrified animal get ripped apart for enjoyment makes Bambi a better person.


If it was done to a dog in a garden by one man with a knife we call it animal abuse and demand he be locked up.

If it's done to a hare on a racecourse by 50 men with dogs we call it sport and let it continue.

show me anywhere you can find a hare getting "ripped apart", utter tripe, to compare it to a man with a knife is moronic, not even remotely similar. never heard such tree hugging tripe

Artful_Badger

yubabill1 wrote: »

Another thing some people have difficulty with is that hunters actually respect what they hunt.

Hunters are not simple consumers. The Irish Red Grouse is a classic example of this, when the money to maintain their habitat disappeared along with the British landlords.

Every hunter I know (wont tar them all with the same brush though) is more interested in trophies and stories than conservation or animal welfare. A lot of them are from the by gone days where animal cruelty wasnt an issue but the younger ones dont seem any different to me. I havent encountered these noble hunters you speak of. Just people who like shooting things then bragging about it.

Cocolola

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Just saw this boards.ie main page. Is it just me that thinks it's a bit sad that the hunting crowd are trying to get more people to vote against the banning of hare coursing?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056891872

Well it's fair enough I guess.

What annoys me though is the constant "Feckin Dubs, city slickers don't know a thing about the countryside, rabble rabble, uneducated fools think it's all daisys" etc. statements that are thrown around time and time again. I've lived all my life in the countryside and am against bloodsports, as are my immediate and extended family who all live in rural areas.

I don't understand why firstly, it's assumed that all antis are urban dwellers and secondly, why a city person's opinion on the matter is irrelevant? I don't partake in murder or torture, am I not allowed to have the opinion that they are wrong and are justifiably illegal?

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Every hunter I know (wont tar them all with the same brush though) is more interested in trophies and stories than conservation or animal welfare. A lot of them are from the by gone days where animal cruelty wasnt an issue but the younger ones dont seem any different to me. I havent encountered these noble hunters you speak of. Just people who like shooting things then bragging about it.

You say you won't tar all hunters with the same brush, then say you haven't encountered the hunters I speak of:

If no-one did any conservation work and just shot everything, then there would be very little left.

As it is, we live in a bountiful country, but it needs to be conserved.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic.....

Cavan duck buster

Pols aren't going to change anything,
All you people have no idea what the countryside is like,
If you's lived on farms in the country, do real work other than working indoors all your life, get the fresh air that is needed to keep a healthy mind them you wouldn't be bragging on about something that you hate and have no idea about!!!

Why bother try and change something that will always be done?

Witcher

Cocolola wrote: »

I don't understand why firstly, it's assumed that all antis are urban dwellers and secondly, why a city person's opinion on the matter is irrelevant?

Usually those who are against foxes being shot etc. are from the town..at least in my experience and have no clue about the realities of lambs and poultry being taken by them or even how farms operate in general.

A few months ago in a thread like this on AH I questioned how a person who was aginst foxes being shot would protect sheep etc. Their answer was to build a wall around the entire farm...it that doesn't typify the ignorance people harbour about farming I don't know what does. I live in the town but I've been on farms and understand that just because I don't have a problem with foxes here doesn't mean they're not an issue for farmers and need to be dealt with. Wildlife isn't like the Animals of Farthing Wood no matter how much people would wish it so.

StinkyMunkey

Ive no problem with hunting as long as the hunter consumes what he kills, or sells it on.

As for watching an animal being tortured for someones pleasure or so they can bet on it, ill have to pass on that one. Id imagine it takes a certain type of person to feel zero empathy for another living creature being subjected to what is a terrifying experience.

Just because im a meat eater, doesnt mean i want to go watch the animals being slaughtered. But if push came to shove and i had no alternative, id have to slaughter an animal.

I dont agree with blood sports, and hare coursing to me is a blood sport, i could care less if someone says its not. Muzzle or no muzzle, you can be sure there is blood spilled. Id no sooner like to see a child be mauled by a dog muzzled than i would a hare.

Artful_Badger

yubabill1 wrote: »

You say you won't tar all hunters with the same brush, then say you haven't encountered the hunters I speak of:

Because I havent, I didnt say they dont exist I'm saying I havent met any.

If no-one did any conservation work and just shot everything, then there would be very little left.

As it is, we live in a bountiful country, but it needs to be conserved.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic.....

People down this way tend to conserve their own thing. Estates are kept by whoever runs the estates, farms by the farmers, and people keep their own thing. Any big patch of wild land is usually entrusted to some organisation or anything that conserves it. All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

StinkyMunkey

Blay wrote: »

Usually those who are against foxes being shot etc. are from the town..at least in my experience and have no clue about the realities of lambs and poultry being taken by them or even how farms operate in general.

A few months ago in a thread like this on AH I questioned how a person who was aginst foxes being shot would protect sheep etc. Their answer was to build a wall around the entire farm...it that doesn't typify the ignorance people harbour about farming I don't know what does. I live in the town but I've been on farms and understand that just because I don't have a problem with foxes here doesn't mean they're not an issue for farmers and need to be dealt with. Wildlife isn't like the Animals of Farthing Wood no matter how much people would wish it so.

Whats a farmer shooting a predator got to do with hare coursing?

He is protecting his livelihood, he is not going out shooting foxes for fun!

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Whats a farmer shooting a predator got to do with hare coursing?

He is protecting his livelihood, he is not going out shooting foxes for fun!

The poster was talkign about the town/country divide. Foxes being shot is the most common complaint you hear on threads like these. Farmers don't shoot foxes themselves., generally they have hunters do it for them.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.

clashburke

Artful_Badger wrote: »

All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

do you mean lawfully enter a farmers land with permission to hunt/shoot vermin??

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.

I seen them killing things, I'd be willing to bet they were killing things. They were on someone elses property, safe bet it wasnt theirs. Havent seen them do much else. So yanno, I might tend to go with the things I actually seen with my own two eyes rather than whatever mystical thing you might think could have happened.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I seen them killing things, I'd be willing to bet they were killing things. They were on someone elses property, safe bet it wasnt theirs. Havent seen them do much else. So yanno, I might tend to go with the things I actually seen with my own two eyes rather than whatever mystical thing you might think could have happened.

That's generally what hunters do..they aren't there to have tea with the rabbit/fox/pheasent.

You're aware hunters can get permission from land owners to shoot on their land and that your local Superintendent and every other one in the country licences firearms for just this reason? How do you know the landowner didn't give them permission?

Artful_Badger

clashburke wrote: »

do you mean lawfully enter a farmers land with permission to hunt/shoot vermin??

That makes it conservation does it ?

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

That's generally what hunters do..they aren't there to have tea with the rabbit/fox/pheasent.

So what was with this ?

What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

People down this way tend to conserve their own thing. Estates are kept by whoever runs the estates, farms by the farmers, and people keep their own thing. Any big patch of wild land is usually entrusted to some organisation or anything that conserves it. All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

While we're still on the subject of hunting......Estates involved with hunting charge for the privilege and use some of the income for conservation - correct.
Farmers work with the likes of gun clubs in reciprocal arrangements and gun clubs were funded to do this from a % of national gun licence fees until 1985, since when they have to spend their own resources.
And there are the government agencies who oversee wild land, as you say, where hunters have to pay to shoot on them.

The final category you mention are what we call poachers.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

That makes it conservation does it ?

You don't conserve vermin. It's game birds(pheasent, woodcock, duck etc.) that hunters help to conserve by rearing chicks, feeding them, providing cover for them and allowing those they don't shoot to spread out when the season is over.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

So what was with this ?

Just because you didn't see them raise and feed the pheasents doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Foxes and rabbits are generally shot as a favour for the farmer for letting you use their land.

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

You don't conserve vermin. It's game birds(pheasent, woodcock, duck etc.) that hunters help to conserve by rearing chicks, feeding them, providing cover for them and allowing those they don't shoot to spread out when the season is over.

Whatever pheasants are in the area usually get shot in hunting season, thats why they have to release more the next year. They dont conserve anything, they just kill what they can while they can and do whatever they can to enable them to do so. Less of a shít could these people give about other peoples property if there was nothing to kill on it.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Whatever pheasants are in the area usually get shot in hunting season, thats why they have to release more the next year. They dont conserve anything, they just kill what they can while they can and do whatever they can to enable them to do so. Less of a shít could these people give about other peoples property if there was nothing to kill on it.

No they don't, those that survive the season generally spread out across the surrounding land and new ones are bought, fed, watered and sheltered to raise the concentration of them in the area, those are hunted in season and the cycle begins again.

So the feed that is left out for the pheasents doesn't provide food for other ground nesting species?

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

Just because you didn't see them raise and feed the pheasents doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Foxes and rabbits are generally shot as a favour for the farmer for letting you use their land.

Still doesnt change anything, they raise and feed birds to kill them during hunting season. Its farmland, the birds they kill are ones they put there themselves. They are not conserving anything.

Foxes are not shot as favours for using the land, on very rare occasions do they cause problems for farmers. More often than not they are just spotted and hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Whatever pheasants are in the area usually get shot in hunting season, thats why they have to release more the next year. They dont conserve anything, they just kill what they can while they can and do whatever they can to enable them to do so. Less of a shít could these people give about other peoples property if there was nothing to kill on it.

All the pheasants do not get shot, it's necessary to release 3 pheasants to harvest one.

Many more pheasants are killed by cars every year than are ever shot. Foxes eat them, the weather can kill them, even domestic cats kill them. Magpies and grey crows eat their eggs. I could go on....

I presume you are still talking about the people you know, so again, they sound like poachers.

Hunter21

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Foxes are not shot as favours for using the land, on very rare occasions do they cause problems for farmers. More often than not they are just spotted and hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

Are you a farmer with tillage or grazing fields? Doubtfull as you do not know the damage a few rabbits could do to the land.
I know a farmer that could not do silage on 25 acres of his 50 acre farm and had to buy in feed for the winter as the rabbits had eaten all his grass and cost him a fair few pound.

Hunters are given permission by that farmer to help him save his livelyhood.

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

No they don't, those that survive the season generally spread out across the surrounding land and new ones are bought, fed, watered and sheltered to raise the concentration of them in the area, those are hunted in season and the cycle begins again.

So the feed that is left out for the pheasents doesn't provide food for other ground nesting species?

You think because some birds eat the stuff left out for the hunting birds its conservation ??

They feed in the wild to keep them in the hunting area and generally only start to leave stuff out approaching hunting season after the release the ones they raised at home. Its not conservation by a long stretch.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You think because some birds eat the stuff left out for the hunting birds its conservation ??

Totally ignoring the number of pheasents that are free in the country as a direct result of a raise, shoot, release system.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Still doesnt change anything, they raise and feed birds to kill them during hunting season. Its farmland, the birds they kill are ones they put there themselves. They are not conserving anything.

Foxes are not shot as favours for using the land, on very rare occasions do they cause problems for farmers. More often than not they are just spotted and hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

They're leaving feeding bins out that help to feed other ground nesting species. I know of people who raise poults to shoot and they provide feed for ducks on the river/lake nearby and they're not shooting them. You're clearly ignorant of how these things are carried out..it's ok.

Yes they are? A gun club needs land to raise poults on, a farmers price for the use of the land is usually that vermin numbers..both foxes & rabbits are kept down. You're talking to a shooter here that knows people doing these things..so you're talkign bollocks to the wrong person frankly:pac:

fiacha

Voted for a ban.

I'm a hunter myself and would eat a lot of wild meat harvested by myself and rest of the family.
Hare coursing has nothing to do with hunting. It's 100% a bloodsport...People gambling on the outcome of dogs chasing a live "lure".

The vast majority of hunters I know have a lot of respect for their quarry. They go to a lot of trouble to ensure that it is killed as humanely as possible. Why any hunter would support the torture of animals in this manner is beyond me, but time and again I'm told that I have to suport all "bloodsports". I don't consider hunting game a bloodsport.

Just my 2 cents after reading about this thread over on the Shooting forum.

archer22

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I done some research on my own (as opposed to being spoon fed) and found that Michael D Higgins Ireland's current President and the late Tony Gregory TD are both former vice chairpersons of this organisation.

Hunt the hare and turn her
Down the rocky road
And all the way to Dublin
Whack fa loll dee da

Artful_Badger

Hunter21 wrote: »

Are you a farmer with tillage or grazing fields? Doubtfull as you do not know the damage a few rabbits could do to the land.
I know a farmer that could not do silage on 25 acres of his 50 acre farm and had to buy in feed for the winter as the rabbits had eaten all his grass and cost him a fair few pound.

Hunters are given permission by that farmer to help him save his livelyhood.

I myself am not a farmer no but I know and grew up with plenty and never seen an issue such as the one you mention. If he had a problem he had a problem but I havent seen its like round here. So just as people would say to me not to tar all hunters with the same brush I'd say to you that just because a guy you knew had a problem doesnt mean that everyone has a problem.

There isnt even that much rabbits hunted around here and still there hasnt been a problem. Most hunting is of pheasants which were released by the hunters themselves.

Anyway, back on topic.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There isnt even that much rabbits hunted around here and still there hasnt been a problem.

They're not being because they're not a problem. When they become an issue for the farmers in your locality they will be shot and hunted.

fathersymes

A taste of what these extremist groups get up to. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Ireland/BitebackReports2008.htm

Voodoo_rasher

an unsophisticated, uncivilised form of entertainment cruelty for backward, moronic oafs and

bumpkins who have yet to have a 21st century experience in their lives.

What is sporting about 2 extremely agile predatory dogs tearing a defenceless animal to shreds..? The Romans had to have thought of that one.

Would also be one less leisure pursuit for the parish priest patron..

Artful_Badger

Blay wrote: »

Totally ignoring the number of pheasents that are free in the country as a direct result of a raise, shoot, release system.

Less than there would be if they were left alone I'd wager.

Yes they are? A gun club needs land to raise poults on, a farmers price for the use of the land is usually that vermin numbers..both foxes & rabbits are kept down. You're talking to a shooter here that knows people doing these things..so you're talkign bollocks to the wrong person frankly:pac:

If you're a shooter then you have no involvement in the raising of birds because you clearly havent a clue, you dont need farmers land to raise birds nor is it paid for by killing vermin. Killing things isnt wildlife conservation sorry to break it to ya.

Anyway as I said back on topic.

fathersymes

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

an unsophisticated, uncivilised form of entertainment cruelty for backward, moronic oafs and

bumpkins who have yet to have a 21st century experience in their lives.

What is sporting about 2 extremely agile predatory dogs tearing a defenceless animal to shreds..? The Romans had to have thought of that one.

Would also be one less leisure pursuit for the parish priest patron..

Dear oh dear, Inform yourself please, dogs are muzzled during coursing.

Witcher

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Less than there would be if they were left alone I'd wager.



If you're a shooter then you have no involvement in the raising of birds because you clearly havent a clue, you dont need farmers land to raise birds nor is it paid for by killing vermin. Killing things isnt wildlife conservation sorry to break it to ya.

Anyway as I said back on topic.

The pheasents that are shot are bought as poults, raised and released by the very people shooting them, they're not wild pheasents being shot and those that live through the season spread out into areas that aren't hunted and nest, breed and increase the numbers further.

Where are the birds released and shot then..a public park? Gun clubs require land permissions from farmers..the benefit they gain is in vermin numbers being kept down. I don't know why I'm even talking you you..you've no clue:pac:

Grizzly 45

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Limerick, need we say more?


I don't get how any seemingly civilised person could get their jollies watching it.

I dont see how any "civilised person " can be so PIG ignorant to run down a city or place by sweeping general comments!! Ever been there??Lived there??Know anyone from there??If not STFU!!

Hunter21

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I myself am not a farmer no but I know and grew up with plenty and never seen an issue such as the one you mention. If he had a problem he had a problem but I havent seen its like round here. So just as people would say to me not to tar all hunters with the same brush I'd say to you that just because a guy you knew had a problem doesnt mean that everyone has a problem.

There isnt even that much rabbits hunted around here and still there hasnt been a problem. Most hunting is of pheasants which were released by the hunters themselves.

Anyway, back on topic.

Ya you want to get back to the original topic because you are after stepping on your own toes

You stated earlier;

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Foxes are not shot as favours for using the land, on very rare occasions do they cause problems for farmers. More often than not they are just spotted and hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

Then you stated;

Artful_Badger wrote: »

just because a guy you knew had a problem doesnt mean that everyone has a problem.

Your generalising!
You know about 0.1% of the Irish population of farmers, but because you know a few farmers you assume no other farmers have rabbit or fox problems.

The same as you assume that hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

Don't generalise as you do not know all the facts, your quoting a small minority of what you have seen or know of.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I didnt accuse anyone of anything merely stated my opinion that killing for sport is unnecessary and cruel. Which it is.

That's the accusation. Re-read the law; being cruel to animals is illegal under the act.

Yeah, I was arguing that animals should be represented in government. :rolleyes:

No, you were just saying they had rights without thinking about what that statement meant.

This is what I mean when I say that people sweep the difference between animal welfare and animal rights aside like it was some sort of ethereal academic debate that had nothing to do with the real world, even though it's nothing of the sort and is in fact one of the fundamental principles on which our laws in this area are founded.

It will change in time as most laws do.

It might; or it might not.
However, that's all in the future. The law today is what we live by today.

If the law prohibits unnecessary cruelty to animals then its a civic duty (animals cant be relied on as you say) to stop such a thing if you believe it to be going on.

Indeed; and we have a means for doing just that. You pick up the phone, dial Gardai and report it.

You don't start a petition accusing someone of breaking the law without proof.

Arguing semantics isnt really gonna change it to be honest.

semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word.

Yeah, because arguing over that would be utterly pointless since we're all telepathic...

Sparks

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Whats a farmer shooting a predator got to do with hare coursing?

Both are condemned by ICABS et al in the same breath, by the same means, and as part of the same agenda.

It's not a slippery slope argument if it's a stated agenda of someone to ban everything in a set order.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Less than there would be if they were left alone I'd wager.

You'd lose, according to every study ever done on the practice.

Hunter21

Artful_Badger wrote: »

If you're a shooter then you have no involvement in the raising of birds because you clearly havent a clue, you dont need farmers land to raise birds nor is it paid for by killing vermin. Killing things isnt wildlife conservation sorry to break it to ya.

I raised my own pheasants, I raised them in a bedroom in my house and had breakfast at the kitchen table every morning with them and dropped them to school.. :rolleyes:

Get a grip will you! Your the one that knows nothing about it, wild birds or any wild animal for higher success rates has the be raised in the surroundings it will live its life- it's called a habitat.

archer22

I would say the poll might as well be knocked off as its obviously being deliberately manipulated.Or else the People of Ireland have gone mad pro coursing in the last few hours :rolleyes:

Witcher

archer22 wrote: »

I would say the poll might as well be knocked off as its obviously being deliberately manipulated.Or else the People of Ireland have gone mad pro coursing in the last few hours :rolleyes:

If it was pro ban it would be legit but if it's anti ban it's being 'manipulated'. You guys crack me up:pac:

Artful_Badger

Hunter21 wrote: »

Ya you want to get back to the original topic because you are after stepping on your own toes

It was getting off topic and the argument was repeating itself.

You stated earlier;


Then you stated;


Your generalising!
You know about 0.1% of the Irish population of farmers, but because you know a few farmers you assume no other farmers have rabbit or fox problems.


The same as you assume that hunters jump at the chance to kill them for the sport.

Don't generalise as you do not know all the facts, your quoting a small minority of what you have seen or know of.

I was speaking about my own experience in relation to the hunters I knew I made that perfectly clear. If you're too lazy to read the full conversation then dont be so eager to throw your two cents in. Because you just end up looking like a fool.

Hunter21

archer22 wrote: »

I would say the poll might as well be knocked off as its obviously being deliberately manipulated.Or else the People of Ireland have gone mad pro coursing in the last few hours :rolleyes:

It's not over yet, but some people are Sour loosers.

Just because its not going as predicted it was fixed.. God this is the best laugh I've had all week.. :pac:

ejmaztec

It must be that time again :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

archer22

Blay wrote: »

If it was pro ban it would be legit but if it's anti ban it's being 'manipulated'. You guys crack me up:pac:

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

Witcher

archer22 wrote: »

No it would not be legit being manipulated pro or anti but everybody knows the majority are anti coursing and a poll is an attempt to get a realistic picture of how many are for and against...now its sabotaged and is an obvious meaningless joke.

How do ya know that? Was there a poll done...maybe that was 'manipulated' too:pac:

yubabill1

[QUOTE=Artful_Badger;83445840

I was speaking about my own experience in relation to the hunters I knew I made that perfectly clear. If you're too lazy to read the full conversation then dont be so eager to throw your two cents in. Because you just end up looking like a fool.[/QUOTE]

AHEM...