Acceptable that a Minister takes part in blood sports?

Scofflaw

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It ia because they choose not to do it themselves. Cruelty is subjective. And some people like to impose their view of what is cruel on others. And deem that because they consider something cruel, others should not engage in it. This is gross arrogance

I don't think there's any set of standards in which an animal being torn to pieces by others while alive is not cruel. To claim that seeing it that way is just some kind of personal view is slightly comical, and suggests you may be confusing the word 'cruel' with some other word.

Better have the definition, which I admit I didn't think was somewhere we'd need to go:

cruel: wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

Are you claiming that the fox is not caused pain and suffering, or are you claiming that the people causing it are ignorant of the fact that this is so? Do you, perhaps, believe that foxes are incapable of feeling pain?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Villain

Scofflaw wrote: »

The claim that foxes might "kill a field of lambs" is contradicted by every expert body, as is the Minister's further claim:

Which experts say Foxes don't kill livestock?

I personally have seen the results of an attack by a Fox on lambs and chickens many times?

walshb

Villain wrote: »

Which experts say Foxes don't kill livestock?

I personally have seen the results of an attack by a Fox on lambs and chickens many times?

Let's be real, the hunt happens because those engaging enjoy the thrill of the hunt and the ride, enough to numb some of them to the horrendous pain and torture they are inflicting on another animal. It's very little to do with saving livestock.

Villain

walshb wrote: »

Let's be real, the hunt happens because those engaging enjoy the thrill of the hunt and the ride, enough to numb some of them to the horrendous pain and torture they are inflicting on another animal. It's very little to do with saving livestock.

That is mostly true, the issue I have is Scofflaw made a statement that based on my experience is simply wrong.

Hunting can be a sport or simply to protect ones livestock, the merits of each are of course open to debate.

I have seen the damage that foxes can do, I have hunted and killed foxes because of that but they were killed in a quick and clean manner. I have never taken part in a hunt and I don't particularly support them but I don't think they should be banned.

BoatMad

John_Rambo wrote: »

Do a quick search on the farming and forestry you'll find plenty of evidence of bad and selfish practice from various hunt outfits around the country.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89062992

Op was actually in Northern Ireland, thread confirms what I said , Hunt seek permission , several landowners on thread confirm.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77224859

OP here actually stated they were on neighbours land, didn't want them on his land, which they didn't come into, other posters agreed permission is sought

www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70964205

poster confirmed that he gave permission, but wasn't happy with the way some fences where left, then withdrew permission , other landowners confirm they are always asked for permission

Sorry if this doesn't suit you argument.

No , its you that twist this argument, mis representing information and twisting it to suit a lie.

The fact is Hunts just like everyone else must seek permission and are responsible for any damage . IN my experience of several of them , they are very careful to seek specific permission and the continuance of the hunt to use those lands relies on them doing so.

MY all means debate your topic, dont lie about the facts

Discodog

Villain wrote: »

Which experts say Foxes don't kill livestock?

I personally have seen the results of an attack by a Fox on lambs and chickens many times?

Foxes can kill Lambs & Poultry but correct stewardship can greatly reduce the risks. I have kept free range chickens, ducks etc & not lost any to foxes.

The neighbouring farmers have Lambs & poultry. They see the fox as part of nature & don't harm them.

As for perceptions of cruelty the law defines it as causing unnecessary suffering. Hunts aren't prosecuted because they argue that the suffering is necessary.

There tend to be a lot of wealthy & influential people involved in hunting so it will remain part of Irish life even though, I suspect, the majority would ban it.

I wonder if the Minister proposes to attend the Coursing at Clonmel?

Villain

Discodog wrote: »

Foxes can kill Lambs & Poultry but correct stewardship can greatly reduce the risks. I have kept free range chickens, ducks etc & not lost any to foxes.

The neighbouring farmers have Lambs & poultry. They see the fox as part of nature & don't harm them.

As for perceptions of cruelty the law defines it as causing unnecessary suffering. Hunts aren't prosecuted because they argue that the suffering is necessary.

There tend to be a lot of wealthy & influential people involved in hunting so it will remain part of Irish life even though, I suspect, the majority would ban it.

Correct stewardship when you have farms many miles from your home is rather difficult, hunting and killing any vermin is and always has been a requirement for many farmers, doing so with a large pack of dogs and horses is of course a different question but I wouldn't be so sure the majority would ban it.

SpaceTime

The Irish establishment has always had a weird attitude to animal welfare. This isn't anything new.

We have a large rural electorate and it would seem that a high % of them do not want to implement tighter controls on animal welfare. That's a democratic decision, I don't agree with it, but the only way you'll change those attitudes is by publicly lobbying for change.

Attitudes in Britain are different because Britain is majority urban, Ireland absolutely isn't. It's still mostly a rural community with 1 average sized European city (Dublin), one small city (Cork) and a few towns that call themselves cities.

Even in Britain when they tried to implement anti-hunting laws, the rural communities were up in arms about it and there were some very nasty stand offs in London between Countryside Alliance members and Animal Rights groups.

The issue is that you've got a Minister for Agriculture who is from a quasi-urban / quasi-rural farming background on the outskirts of Cork City. So, naturally enough he's likely to have some connections to those kinds of activities because they tend to go on in those kinds of areas.

On the other side of it, he has huge insight into farming, food production, agribusiness etc, which is all quite a strong point in his job and he also is from an area which, a bit like North County Dublin, straddles the line between major urban and rural.

dodderangler

Villain wrote: »

Correct stewardship when you have farms many miles from your home is rather difficult, hunting and killing any vermin is and always has been a requirement for many farmers, doing so with a large pack of dogs and horses is of course a different question but I wouldn't be so sure the majority would ban it.

And even with dogs an horses the fox normally gets away where as I could go out lamping and shot 4-5 in a night if I'm lucky

BoatMad

There tend to be a lot of wealthy & influential people involved in hunting so it will remain part of Irish life even though, I suspect, the majority would ban it.

I would suggest the opposite, most people in Ireland have rural connections. I would not be so sure.

for me I see all these issue selectively. I dont support coursing for example. ( because the hare is constrained), I dont support hunts that "dig out " foxes gone to ground. for me if the animal has a fair fighting chance and the species is not in danger, I see no issue.

From my personal experiences , most hunts typically dont succeed in getting a fox. If you think about it, its a very inefficient way to chase down an animal

walshb

SpaceTime wrote: »

The Irish establishment has always had a weird attitude to animal welfare. This isn't anything new.

We have a large rural electorate and it would seem that a high % of them do not want to implement tighter controls on animal welfare. That's a democratic decision, I don't agree with it, but the only way you'll change those attitudes is by publicly lobbying for change.

Attitudes in Britain are different because Britain is majority urban, Ireland absolutely isn't. It's still mostly a rural community with 1 average sized European city (Dublin), one small city (Cork) and a few towns that call themselves cities.

Even in Britain when they tried to implement anti-hunting laws, the rural communities were up in arms about it and there were some very nasty stand offs in London between Countryside Alliance members and Animal Rights groups.

The issue is that you've got a Minister for Agriculture who is from a quasi-urban / quasi-rural farming background on the outskirts of Cork City. So, naturally enough he's likely to have some connections to those kinds of activities because they tend to go on in those kinds of areas.

On the other side of it, he has huge insight into farming, food production, agribusiness etc, which is all quite a strong point in his job and he also is from an area which, a bit like North County Dublin, straddles the line between major urban and rural.

A lot of salient points. One missed. He's a human, and surely as a human with any compassion or care he would distance himself from the barbaric torturing of animals?

blindside88

I have no problem with the minister taking part in fox hunting and I find it refreshing to see a politician willing to support rural traditions, far too many want fox hunting and coursing banned.

BoatMad

walshb wrote: »

A lot of salient points. One missed. He's a human, and surely as a human with any compassion or care he would distance himself from the barbaric torturing of animals?

and Hallal killing of beef cows, ban fishing as its kills dolphins.

The issue is one of scale, not absolutes.

SpaceTime

walshb wrote: »

A lot of salient points. One missed. He's a human, and surely as a human with any compassion or care he would distance himself from the barbaric torturing of animals?

That's the issue though.

I'm totally opposed to blood sports myself but I think the only way forward is to change the culture.

Ireland's a democracy and politicians respond to voters' attitudes.

They follow more than they lead, especially in the very extreme form of proportional representation voting that we operate.

I think we need to be educating, getting people to think differently in rural areas and breaking the link to hunting.

I'm disappointed that he partakes in blood sports and it's definitely something I'll remember when I'm in the voting booth.

However, it's just not surprising given his background, location etc

I just think that education and changing attitudes is more important than singling out a minister.

Also, I'd be more concerned about some practices in farming : intensive pig rearing, chicken farming etc the worst of which is now outsourced to be far east due to our lax labeling laws allowing people to be confused about product origins (undermining Irish and EU agriculture as well as animal welfare).

BoatMad

Also, I'd be more concerned about some practices in farming : intensive pig rearing, chicken farming etc the worst of which is now outsourced to be far east due to our lax labeling laws allowing people to be confused about product origins (undermining Irish and EU agriculture as well as animal welfare).

Indeed, far more an issue then a few hunts. The EU needs to fix the origin labelling system asap

SpaceTime

BoatMad wrote: »

Indeed, far more an issue then a few hunts. The EU needs to fix the origin labelling system asap

I'm not saying blood sports are right, but that labeling issue is hurting tens millions of animals every year, undermining farm incomes and damaging consumer safety.

"Big Food" is clearly lobbying the EU very hard to avoid change given how powerful the agricultural lobby is!

Icepick

It's not acceptable.

John_Rambo

BoatMad wrote: »

MY all means debate your topic, dont lie about the facts

I'm not lying, just pointing out the facts. You obviously didn't read the threads. Here's some quotes. Are all these farmers lying too?

pakalasa wrote: »

The 'Local Hunt' went through a local farmers land a few years back. He has a big flock of sheep and the land is low lying with trenches full of water. Of course the dogs sent most of the sheep into the water and they drowned. A lot of those that did survive either died later from shock or aborted.

Dusty87 wrote: »

A couple of years ago a hunt asked could they go through, to which he said yea just close gates etc. They went through a ditch, and didnt so much as pull a branch back across it, to which the neighbours cattle got in and made **** of the place.

vanderbadger wrote: »

they used to come thru our place, always asked first in fairness but called a halt to it last year, fcukers used to come along to a strained fence and just cut it where ever they fancied and 2 years ina row they never even fixed it, i wouldnt mind but it was a few neighbours involved, jaysus hard to believe lads can be such assholes, anyway last year i told them to stay out and you know well the fcukers are giving out about you..they wont be getting back in either

marknjb wrote: »

the hunt was stoped in our area years ago because of the damage they did
they had no problem tearing up fields and ditches but if u went down to shoot on their land (gentry in their own heads) u would be run fairly lively
one old lad stood up on a ditch and told them he would shoot the dogs as they came out. he would have too

Min wrote: »

I don't allow the hunt onto my lands, though during the winter they chanced their arms and entered and pretended not to know they were on land where they had no permission to be. They do be out in the area every year so their excuse was poor.
They came in a way that they thought they would get away with, when I had stopped them, a few of them continued on which didn't impress me one bit, maybe it was to look for some dogs but they had been told they were to leave.
When it comes to fencing holes they don't leave the ditch in the same condition they found it, this is what we found fro past experiences.

My land is not for galloping horses on, especially when the ground is wet after a lot of rain.

lefthooker wrote: »

They haven't asked here for several years but I have a neighbour bounding me who's horse mad and they're always in with him so probably believe they have right to cross mine. Last year a few rode into the yard, the head lad came over to talk ****e to me while another fella dismounted to open a gate so they could head off down the car roads. I went checking fences before I let cows out and found a strand of high tensile wire cut and hoof marks up the ditch, there was no chance of rejoining it. This winter I parked a tractor across every gate out of the yard and watched them wonder how they would get down across the fields before they had to ride back out the lane.
I'll never let them have access to my yard or land as long as they don't have the manners to ask for permission

bob charles wrote: »

Theyre a joke in my area, I support the local hunt up to a point but the others I have little respect for. Some of the other hunts are offshots from the main hunt and now hunt before the local hunt just to annoy everyone. The county hunt just ride roughshot over any lands and have no respect even when told they are not welcome. It hard for a fragmented farm, as usually we will only visit each farm once in the day and we are not around to observe the going on for the rest of the day. I would nearly take the opportunity to name these gits that are causing the proper hunt so many problems. Most farmers now are not letting them in. Unfortunately its a couple of bad apples that destroy it for everyone

TopCon wrote: »

I too have had a couple of rather unfortunate encounters with 'the hunt'.

Damage to fences, by damage I mean intentionally cutting wire etc. Trampling of ground and worst of all upset livestock.

The most ignorant shower of .... That I have ever met. DO NOT believe the b.s. people spout 'oh they're all farmers, repair fences, ask for permission etc etc'

dodderangler

I've also heard of the dogs from hunts that may stray and get lost are just forgotten about. They don't care to retrieve a lost dog or claim it if found.
I'd associate these hunts with snobs and upper class people who in my experience are the most ignorant people I've ever met.
I've also seen the damage left after them of a days hunt and fences , ditches etc destroyed and not repaired.

Discodog

SpaceTime wrote: »

Attitudes in Britain are different because Britain is majority urban, Ireland absolutely isn't. It's still mostly a rural community with 1 average sized European city (Dublin), one small city (Cork) and a few towns that call themselves cities.

Even in Britain when they tried to implement anti-hunting laws, the rural communities were up in arms about it and there were some very nasty stand offs in London between Countryside Alliance members and Animal Rights groups.

Britain & Ireland are poles apart regarding animal welfare. The sorry state of the SPCA's is a good example. The Irish donate more per capita to charity than the British. But the British donate six times more, per person, to animal charities.

Good loser

I've no problem with hunting. have serious trouble with deer tresspass and damage.

Don't think there is any great question of cruelty as animals cannot think; they have no conception of the word cruelty operating,as they do, on instinct. They will run when chased and if caught will be instantly killed - probably the most humane way they could end their lives; no lingering death from diseases or parasites. The instant they are caught has no meaning for them - in the sense of being intelligble.

Also there is much enjoyment taken by the human participants (I do not hunt) in the activity. It would be extremely illiberal to deny them their traditional pastime. Live and let live.

On last weeks BBC Countrywide the journalist considered some hunts didn't break the law, some did some of the time and some hunts broke the law all the time.

Discodog

Good loser wrote: »

I've no problem with hunting. have serious trouble with deer tresspass and damage.

Don't think there is any great question of cruelty as animals cannot think; they have no conception of the word cruelty operating,as they do, on instinct. They will run when chased and if caught will be instantly killed - probably the most humane way they could end their lives; no lingering death from diseases or parasites. The instant they are caught has no meaning for them - in the sense of being .

Cannot think? That is a ridiculous opinion. They may have no human concept of cruelty but they feel pain & experience fear.

dodderangler

Discodog wrote: »

Cannot think? That is a ridiculous opinion. They may have no human concept of cruelty but they feel pain & experience fear.

Pain lasts for 2 seconds and they are ripped to shreds. Gruesome yes but pain doesn't last.

conorh91

dodderangler wrote: »

Pain lasts for 2 seconds and they are ripped to shreds.

Only if you ignore the stress of being chased for miles by a pack of dogs before getting 'ripped to shreds'

Discodog

dodderangler wrote: »

Pain lasts for 2 seconds and they are ripped to shreds. Gruesome yes but pain doesn't last.

And they think that being chased to the point of exhaustion is just a game.

Scofflaw

Good loser wrote: »

I've no problem with hunting. have serious trouble with deer tresspass and damage.

Don't think there is any great question of cruelty as animals cannot think; they have no conception of the word cruelty operating,as they do, on instinct. They will run when chased and if caught will be instantly killed - probably the most humane way they could end their lives; no lingering death from diseases or parasites. The instant they are caught has no meaning for them - in the sense of being intelligble.

Also there is much enjoyment taken by the human participants (I do not hunt) in the activity. It would be extremely illiberal to deny them their traditional pastime. Live and let live.

On last weeks BBC Countrywide the journalist considered some hunts didn't break the law, some did some of the time and some hunts broke the law all the time.

Ah, animals as kind of mindless machines which are kind of incapable of suffering really, so what's the problem?

You're aware that that's not actually known to be the case? People just kind of assume it, on basically medieval grounds (we have souls, they don't, although we like to call it "consciousness" now) - it's a view that went out with Skinner, and which has no legal or scientific basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, animals as kind of mindless machines which are kind of incapable of suffering really, so what's the problem?

You're aware that that's not actually known to be the case? People just kind of assume it, on basically medieval grounds (we have souls, they don't, although we like to call it "consciousness" now) - it's a view that went out with Skinner, and which has no legal or scientific basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is human and animal suffering equivalent then? Would you consider the cruel and brutal killing of an animal as equivalent to the cruel and brutal killing of a human being? Should that be enshrined in law?

SpaceTime

Discodog wrote: »

Britain & Ireland are poles apart regarding animal welfare. The sorry state of the SPCA's is a good example. The Irish donate more per capita to charity than the British. But the British donate six times more, per person, to animal charities.

That could be in part down to the confusing way the Irish SPAs are setup compared to the RSPCA which is an incredibly well organised charity with very large presence in the public mind in the UK.

I find in Ireland you never know what which one is which, you've the ISPCA and then tons of other organisations with SPCA in the title lobbying for funds all the time.

The RSPCA is well branded, well recognised, highly organised and probably one of the most effective animal welfare organisation in the world.

dodderangler

dodderangler wrote: »

I've also heard of the dogs from hunts that may stray and get lost are just forgotten about. They don't care to retrieve a lost dog or claim it if found.

I'm very skeptical about that claim. The hounds are the greatest resource available to a hunt, and hound bloodlines can often be documented back through more generations than the bloodlines of its human subscribers. The huntsman and the whippers-in take their job very seriously in any hunt I have ever attended, and if you're ever in doubt, just wait for the bollocking you'll get if you absent-mindedly turn your horse's quarters into the hounds. If that horse dares kick a hound you might as well dismount and go home, in my experience.

Discodog wrote: »

Britain & Ireland are poles apart regarding animal welfare.

A vet once told me he dreads British pet-owners, because of this cultural difference towards animals. I suspect this British attitude is now creeping into Irish cities as Ireland becomes more urbanized.

One of the explanations, according to my vet, is pet insurance, which is more common in the UK. This is a sociological-economic argument. The high costs of veterinary care incurred by owners means households have to be better-disposed to take realistic and calculated decisions about animal care.

My own theory would be that people who live in urban environments tend not to see death as natural, being detached from the cruel realities of nature where, like it or not, the image of a predator pursuing his quarry is older than mankind. They often think that every animal deserves to live, and don't understand the pragmatic approach that farmers take to life and death.

They are also unaware of the benefits of hunting which I have already outlined - conservation of hedgerows, preservation of lands and foxes, prevention of overpopulation, economic interests, and indeed the preservation of rural communities.

Kevhog1988

I hunt. I fish & i shoot... I have seen foxes take newborn lambs etc... The majority of fox control is completed with a rifle nowadays but i do agree that it is mostly the sick or old foxes that hounds catch. A young healthy fox who knows the lie of his land usually runs rings around the hounds.

KingBrian2

Are the pro hunters the same people who defend the right of farmers to poison rare Gold Eagles.

Discodog

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A vet once told me he dreads British pet-owners, because of this cultural difference towards animals. I suspect this British attitude is now creeping into Irish cities as Ireland becomes more urbanized.

One of the explanations, according to my vet, is pet insurance, which is more common in the UK. This is a sociological-economic argument. The high costs of veterinary care incurred by owners means households have to be better-disposed to take realistic and calculated decisions about animal care.

My own theory would be that people who live in urban environments tend not to see death as natural, being detached from the cruel realities of nature where, like it or not, the image of a predator pursuing his quarry is older than mankind. They often think that every animal deserves to live, and don't understand the pragmatic approach that farmers take to life and death.

They are also unaware of the benefits of hunting which I have already outlined - conservation of hedgerows, preservation of lands and foxes, prevention of overpopulation, economic interests, and indeed the preservation of rural communities.

I might of met your Vet. I recall one who was horrified at the idea that a dog could live a good life with three legs. I have also been told, by an impeccable source, that some rural vets won't cooperate with the ISPCA & SPCA's over cruelty cases because they see it as bad publicity.

The old rural urban argument. Blame the ignorant townies. What right do they have to decide the laws of our land ? The pragmatic farmer approach is that, if it is of no economical value, then kill it. It's the same view that the Hunts have towards their hounds & Greyhound owners have towards their dogs.

You now argue that Hunting leads to the preservation of foxes presumably so that you can kill them.

John_Rambo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

My own theory would be that people who live in urban environments tend not to see death as natural, being detached from the cruel realities of nature where, like it or not, the image of a predator pursuing his quarry is older than mankind. They often think that every animal deserves to live, and don't understand the pragmatic approach that farmers take to life and death

You're dead right, people in cities don't have to face death ever, they don't understand it. They love the chasing game that cheetah's and gazelle's play. All city people think chicken comes from a supermarket fridge and that The Lion King is a true story documentary. They haven't a clue, they don't support Irish farmers by buying Irish produce.

Ever.

(cop on please)

KingBrian2

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're dead right, people in cities don't have to face death ever, they don't understand it. They love the chasing game that cheetah's and gazelle's play. All city people think chicken comes from a supermarket fridge and that The Lion King is a true story documentary. They haven't a clue, they don't support Irish farmers by buying Irish produce.

Ever.

(cop on please)

I do all those things but I fundamentally disagree with blood sports. Their is no excuse for poisoning Golden Eagles. I have no respect for people who pollute Irish environment and damage our wildlife. Owls, Badgers and Foxes nor do I tolerate Farmers that kill helpless species.

John_Rambo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Their is no excuse for poisoning Golden Eagles

Idiocy isn't exclusive to hunters or farmers.

Idiots shoot and poison Golden Eagles. 99.9% of hunters respect raptors and fellow hunters.

steddyeddy

John_Rambo wrote: »

Idiocy isn't exclusive to hunters or farmers.

Idiots shoot and poison Golden Eagles. 99.9% of hunters respect raptors and fellow hunters.

I'd say 90%. The hunting community isn't doing enough to protect the killing of this endangered species.

dodderangler

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'd say 90%. The hunting community isn't doing enough to protect the killing of this endangered species.

So it's the hunting communities fault?
Where is the proof that these eagles are shot with legally held firearms of a member of the hunting community?

Sand

Discodog wrote: »

Britain & Ireland are poles apart regarding animal welfare. The sorry state of the SPCA's is a good example. The Irish donate more per capita to charity than the British. But the British donate six times more, per person, to animal charities.

Irish people value people more than animals. I think that's normal.

What is odd and horrifying is people who worry more about the welfare of animals whilst human beings are beaten, starved and abused within a few hundred yards of where they sleep. That the British prioritise animals over humans for their charity is frankly shameful.

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

So it's the hunting communities fault?
Where is the proof that these eagles are shot with legally held firearms of a member of the hunting community?

We'd find out if we banned firearms.

steddyeddy

Good loser wrote: »

I've no problem with hunting. have serious trouble with deer tresspass and damage.

Don't think there is any great question of cruelty as animals cannot think; they have no conception of the word cruelty operating,as they do, on instinct. They will run when chased and if caught will be instantly killed - probably the most humane way they could end their lives; no lingering death from diseases or parasites. The instant they are caught has no meaning for them - in the sense of being intelligble.

Also there is much enjoyment taken by the human participants (I do not hunt) in the activity. It would be extremely illiberal to deny them their traditional pastime. Live and let live.

On last weeks BBC Countrywide the journalist considered some hunts didn't break the law, some did some of the time and some hunts broke the law all the time.

It's not the animals that cannot think!

Dozen Wicked Words

Sand wrote: »

Irish people value people more than animals. I think that's normal.

What is odd and horrifying is people who worry more about the welfare of animals whilst human beings are beaten, starved and abused within a few hundred yards of where they sleep. That the British prioritise animals over humans for their charity is frankly shameful.

Because Britain has large, national and visible animal charities that actually have power to attempt to stop animal cruelty, Ireland doesn't. Charities like that will always draw more donations than local ones with zero advertising budgets and zero power to change anything. If Ireland had powerful, national animal charities I dare say the generous Irish public would give to them as they do other national charities.

And worrying about animal welfare doesn't mean you can't still worry about your fellow man.

John_Rambo

dodderangler wrote: »

So it's the hunting communities fault?
Where is the proof that these eagles are shot with legally held firearms of a member of the hunting community?

Nope, not at all. It was an idiots fault. I don't know who shoot or poisons.

dodderangler

steddyeddy wrote: »

We'd find out if we banned firearms.

Never happen

Good loser

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, animals as kind of mindless machines which are kind of incapable of suffering really, so what's the problem?

You're aware that that's not actually known to be the case? People just kind of assume it, on basically medieval grounds (we have souls, they don't, although we like to call it "consciousness" now) - it's a view that went out with Skinner, and which has no legal or scientific basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course animals can suffer. What they don't have is consciousness.

Animals have instincts. You can train an animal but not reason with it. Over 50 years I have vast experience of owning animals and their behaviour.

In slaughterhouses I can tell they haven't the slightest idea whats ahead of them.

Discodog

SpaceTime wrote: »

That could be in part down to the confusing way the Irish SPAs are setup compared to the RSPCA which is an incredibly well organised charity with very large presence in the public mind in the UK.

I find in Ireland you never know what which one is which, you've the ISPCA and then tons of other organisations with SPCA in the title lobbying for funds all the time.

The RSPCA is well branded, well recognised, highly organised and probably one of the most effective animal welfare organisation in the world.

It's much deeper than that. There are obviously exceptions but the British have a much higher regard for animal welfare. I have worked in both & the difference is huge.

Discodog

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're dead right, people in cities don't have to face death ever, they don't understand it. They love the chasing game that cheetah's and gazelle's play. All city people think chicken comes from a supermarket fridge and that The Lion King is a true story documentary. They haven't a clue, they don't support Irish farmers by buying Irish produce.

Ever.

(cop on please)

What a ridiculous, sweeping generalisation. Yet more townies shouldn't interfere rubbish.

Discodog

John_Rambo wrote: »

Idiocy isn't exclusive to hunters or farmers.

Idiots shoot and poison Golden Eagles. 99.9% of hunters respect raptors and fellow hunters.

The only people with a vested interest in killing Hen Harriers are those who want to protect game to preserve it for shooting. It's a bizarre thought that one would shoot a beautiful bird of prey to preserve other birds to shoot later.

In my area there were several incidents of the poisoning of domestic dogs with bait, laced with Warfarin, left out to kill foxes.

Discodog

Sand wrote: »

Irish people value people more than animals. I think that's normal.

What is odd and horrifying is people who worry more about the welfare of animals whilst human beings are beaten, starved and abused within a few hundred yards of where they sleep. That the British prioritise animals over humans for their charity is frankly shameful.

Why should either be exclusive ? The British don't prioritise animals but they do have cruelty laws & impose them. Irish history suggests that we aren't very good at protecting our humans either.

I would argue that if you don't have a problem with animal cruelty you probably won't be too concerned about human cruelty. The FBI consider animal cruelty as a major indicator in human crime.

Discodog

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Because Britain has large, national and visible animal charities that actually have power to attempt to stop animal cruelty, Ireland doesn't. Charities like that will always draw more donations than local ones with zero advertising budgets and zero power to change anything. If Ireland had powerful, national animal charities I dare say the generous Irish public would give to them as they do other national charities.

And worrying about animal welfare doesn't mean you can't still worry about your fellow man.

I agree. The ridiculous feud between the ISPCA & local SPCA's causes a lot of problems.

John_Rambo

Discodog wrote: »

What a ridiculous, sweeping generalisation. Yet more townies shouldn't interfere rubbish.

Dude, that was a joke, look back at what I quoted and the context. How you thought I was serious is beyond me.

Discodog wrote: »

The only people with a vested interest in killing Hen Harriers are those who want to protect game to preserve it for shooting.

And those that want to farm the preserved habitat?

Discodog wrote: »

TIn my area there were several incidents of the poisoning of domestic dogs with bait, laced with Warfarin, left out to kill foxes.

Fair enough. Anyway you can try and find out which of your neighbours is the dickhead?