Is Ireland really a nation of animal lovers?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Seanachai

archer22 wrote: »

So you expect us to believe that the hunt goes to the trouble of digging out a Fox that has escaped and then decide to let him escape again
You are having a laugh right?.

And you ask where I get my information...first hand Buddy, by seeing it with my own eyes

BTW you still haven't explained whats involved in Cubbing.

Oh and rubbing the blood of the tortured Animal on your face is "done in the spirit of fun" that says it all ...a severe form of Mental illness!!

It's not mental illness, it's actually very old heathen practice. From an anthropological perspective I see the hunt as an allegory for hunting down the Irish native. By and large the fox hunting community come from the Anglo Irish or what you would call the 'Castle Catholic' set who still maintain that connection to their roots through the hunt.

Sam Kade

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Here is a good speech that was researched on the topic of Irish animals, this was made last year at vegvest by a guest speaker. They put a lot of effort into getting the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBy5BqCv4us

00:00 Opening & framing
00:39 Imagine If
03:21 Speaker Intro
03:38 The Challenge
04:10 I Won't Make You Vegan
04:30 Behind Closed Doors
05:18 Ireland Disclaimer
05:45 Source of Facts
06:18 Definition of Vegan
06:47 Vegan Extremism
07:10 It's Not Like That Here
08:27 What IS It Like?
09:30 You Deserve The Truth
09:59 SOPs & Humane Regulations
11:04 Ireland's Population
11:27 Ireland's Output & Consumption
12:18 Ireland's PIG Industry
12:58 Processing Piglets
13:30 Mother Pigs
15:11 Ireland Non-Compliance
15:26 Undercover Pig Investigation
16:26 Highest Standards
17:55 Pig Stats
18:31 Irish CHICKENS & EGGS
20:18 Battery Cages & EU Ban Explained
22:00 Alice & Joy
23:14 Free-Range/Cage-Free
23:52 What Happens To Baby Boys?
24:43 Ireland's Laws For Grinding Chicks
25:52 Why Don't People Know?
26:21 Ireland's Chicken Death Toll & Methods
26:50 Bacterial Outbreak
27:16 COWS of Ireland
27:51 DAIRY
30:26 VEAL
30:57 Mothers Of Dairy
31:33 Mutilation
32:31 The Pus We Drink
33:00 Our Rationalizations
34:32 Irish (LIVE) EXPORTS
3540: Irish IMPORTS
36:20 Consumer Awareness
37:12 Our Absurd Contradictions
39:11 Profound ILLogic
39:58 THE BEST WE HAVE TO OFFER?
40:29 There's Another Option!
41:02 Footage Intro W/Question
41:37 FOOTAGE Of LEGAL PRACTICES
45:15 End of Footage Message
46:22 CO2 Chambers & Corruption
47:15 HEALTH IMPACT - Heart Disease, Kids, Obesity
48:38 ENVIRONMENT & OCEAN
51:15 Grass-Fed & Land
51:55 Personal Choice & Global Crisis
52:20 Saving Ireland
53:00 Traditions Are Not Justifications
53:27 The Good News - You Decide
54:54 Additional Vids

Nothing new most of the filming isn't even from Ireland other than the ear to the ground clip. Amazing the lies vegans tell to justify their cause.

Thelomen Toblackai

fizzypish wrote: »

Fair point about the naming thing. I was being a smart ass. He had a lot of enemies and made it pretty easy for someone to join the ranks of enemies.

I won't stop eating it. I'm selfish and have enough problems to deal with. I'm (We're) top of the food chain an unapologetic about it.
Side note: No one needs to take me seriously. Either the words make sense and are listened to or they don't.

Sounds like you've got a conflicting outlook on life. You understand that something is abusing animals and not good but you're unapologetic about it because you can get away with doing it.

Regardless of other people you should at least take yourself seriously and be capable of justifying your actions beyond "I can do it so I do".

endacl

goose2005 wrote: »

what if it's replacing a lamb shank?

I've had dog (unwittingly). It's never going to be a replacement for lamb shank.

Tar.Aldarion

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nothing new most of the filming isn't even from Ireland other than the ear to the ground clip. Amazing the lies vegans tell to justify their cause.

Nothing new means what? Nothing new to you? Most of it would be new to 99% of the population. What lies?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tar.Aldarion

That is the way everybody is, the difference is what you do when you confront yourself about it, do you try to change for the better or ignore it? I think we do ourselves a disservice if we don't try and do better. nobody is going to be perfect but it's definitely worth improving yourself.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lady Haywire

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nothing new most of the filming isn't even from Ireland other than the ear to the ground clip. Amazing the lies vegans tell to justify their cause.

It's the pus in milk one that gets me every time :rolleyes:

Sam Kade

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Nothing new means what? Nothing new to you? Most of it would be new to 99% of the population. What lies?

Nothing new means typical vegan cherry picked videos. So you think putting up cherry picked videos of farming from other countries and passing it off as what's happening in Ireland isn't lying?

Will I Am Not

I stood on a snail today.

Thelomen Toblackai

....... wrote: »

Most people have a conflicting outlook on life, its a quite normal part of the human psyche.

I dont like cruelty to animals but I eat meat. I dont like damage to the environment but I use fossil fuels. I dont like cruelty to children but I buy cheap clothes.

The world be live in allows people to remove themselves from specific acts of cruelty or destruction.

The human brain allows for compartmentalisation. Its the way we are.

When you enter a discussion about it you're not removed it. People who try to justify actions they know are wrong but they do anyway aren't doing anything but refusing to accept they are deliberately acting in a way that conflicts with their own moral compass.

It's just a lazy argument to avoid having to take responsibility for their own actions. Human brains are built to make decisions and capable of using reason, logic and empathy to make them. Ignoring all that because you want to eat a big mac doesn't leave you in any position to play helpless because of how your brain works.

Fair enough if you are trying to change but not if you're trying to justify what you know is already wrong to avoid having to deal with it.

Tar.Aldarion

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nothing new means typical vegan cherry picked videos. So you think putting up cherry picked videos of farming from other countries and passing it off as what's happening in Ireland isn't lying?

It's more nuanced than that, if it's outright lies then yes it is a lie. Some examples of where it is not: A video of a practice that is allowed or happens here but is recorded somewhere else, videos of what happens to animal we export (eg animals exported for veal and saying -oh well we don't do it so it's fine), videos of animals from places we import from etc.

And even if some of it turns out to be wrong, that doesn't throw the baby out with bath water.

....... wrote: »

But maybe people have already tried to improve themselves?

Say, not eating veal or factory farmed meat for example. Its still possible to continue eating meat even after such a self confrontation.

As an extreme example, the Dalai Lama, the head of Buddhism, eats meat. But only on the road and not when he is Dharamsala. Thats his compromise.

I don't think there can be a situation where you have tried and are done, sure that would be great if somebody doesn't eat veal, if they have the attitude that they are done trying that is kinda sad, if they are trying and finding it hard then fair enough. For example, I stopeed eating meat, then stopped eggs and dairy over the course of 10 years, not a short time but slowly did it. I didn't say, oh I'll stop doing this and that's me done. Then I start to think about other things like charity and buying more ethical clothes so people don't suffer here and in other counties, even trying and failing is better than saying, ok I'll do this, now I'm absolved.

AryaStark

AryaStark wrote: »

It is a horrible sport and not necessary anymore... there are other ways of doing this. Of course as you are the type to compete in this sport you will defend it. Doesn't change the fact that it is horrible, pompous and out of date.

First of all, the killing of the fox is not a sport. I am not the one referring to it as sport. It is a necessary activity that operates to control the population of foxes.

Earlier, there was a poster who referred to shooting, which is considered by participants to be a 'sport', and who was apparently praised for condemning foxhunting which, for the reasons i have outlined earlier, statistically more cruel than hunting, since it involves a slow death, in some cases through starvation or hypothermia, over a more protracted period. This is in stark contrast to mounted foxhunting, where death is instantaneous and humane (especially where the fox is humanely destroyed at close range by an expert).

AryaStark wrote: »

So why would the fox be allowed to escape altogether if the purpose is the culling of them?

For the same reason that gun clubs conserve pheasants.

Our farm at home is a conservation area for pheasants. My own mother hand-rears pheasants and these are released into the wild. During the season, some of some of these will be shot for 'sport'. But it doesn't mean anybody hates pheasants. I love to see pheasants in the countryside, and if it weren't for gun clubs, they probably wouldn't exist in the wild.

Foxes are slightly different, in that they are endemic and native. However, a similar principle applies. We want to see healthy foxes, we don't want to eradicate foxes, but we destroy those who are weakest (and, by dint of this, may tend to attack livestock or poultry as 'weak targets').

Not all hunts release foxes that have gone to ground. It varies. Ours does, because we are in a lowland area in the midlands with open countryside, and the fox population is less worrisome than it might be in some upland areas where the fox population might be far more out of control.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can we not make this personal please? All of us are intelligent people. I don't like shooting, despite being raised around guns, because I have seen enough wounded animals to know that shooting (especially shooting foxes) is a serious welfare problem. Don't assume that I haven't reflected, and thought long and hard about hunting, just because I came to a conclusion that you disagree with.

The fox population must be controlled. Shooting and snaring are more cruel, in my view, from the point of view of the fox. In mounted foxhunting, the fox is either killed instantaneously, or is killed humanely by an expert. You will never find a wounded fox. Either death or escape, or indeed release, are the only possibilities.

Seanachai wrote: »

It's not mental illness, it's actually very old heathen practice. From an anthropological perspective I see the hunt as an allegory for hunting down the Irish native. By and large the fox hunting community come from the Anglo Irish or what you would call the 'Castle Catholic' set who still maintain that connection to their roots through the hunt.

I'm puzzled by all of this.

Heathens? What do you mean by heathens? Do you know what the word means? I am neither anglo Irish nor a castle catholic. I am a farmer's son who grew up in an ordinary house as I assume you did. People on this thread have been referring to 'fatties on horses', pompous people, and now you seem to be questioning the purity of our backgrounds. Why the need to make this personal?

Either foxhunting is ethical or it is not. I have many friends who think it is not. That's a legitimate opinion. But can you stop aiming personal insults at people you don't even know?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

endacl wrote: »

If a dog isn't replacing a white stick, it has no place in a restaurant.

Why?

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

So you think you are justified in doing something because wild animals do it ? Is that seriously the level you hold yourself to ?

Are we not also "wild animals"?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wish there was a different name for fox hunting on horses as oppose to hunting foxes with a rifle/shotgun.

Horse hunting is a sport, I have never seen the hounds catch a fox, although you could say that is the main objective, many people go on hunts as a form of sport, riding horses through terrain they otherwise wouldn't go. Hounds are as dumb as a bag of hammers, foxes are caught due to human interaction, standing in front of areas where the fox might go to ground for example.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why do you have to post in that way? That's the second post where you suggest somebody is not intelligent, it doesn't make for a nice debate.

Oddly enough, you don't heed your own advice . Not all on the hunt are blood thirsty lunatics. It's a social event for many.

ScumLord

Shepherd Plump Fumble wrote: »

Are we not also "wild animals"?

No humans are some sort of fairy like creature planted here by god, or maybe aliens.

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

No humans are some sort of fairy like creature planted here by god, or maybe aliens.

Humans have this odd thing called "choice", I'm not sure if you heard of it?

Shepherd Plump Fumble

Shepherd Plump Fumble wrote: »

I have never seen the hounds catch a fox, although you could say that is the main objective, many people go on hunts as a form of sport, riding horses through terrain they otherwise wouldn't go. Hounds are as dumb as a bag of hammers, foxes are caught due to human interaction, standing in front of areas where the fox might go to ground for example.

Precisely!

I have never gone out hunting with the hope of seeing a fox dug out, or even caught overground. By the time the fox has gone to ground and the sun has gone down, I'll be riding back to the lorry. The 'sport' is the cross-country riding; the culling of foxes is the wider objective of the hunt staff, and those farmers who allow us the privilege to ride across their lands.

Culling foxes is a necessary objective, whether people like it or not. In many cases, there is no fox culled, and that doesn't in any way ruin a good day.

ScumLord

Shenshen wrote: »

Humans have this odd thing called "choice", I'm not sure if you heard of it?

Which is largely an illusion. Or magic.

Ush1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

First of all, the killing of the fox is not a sport. I am not the one referring to it as sport. It is a necessary activity that operates to control the population of foxes.

Earlier, there was a poster who referred to shooting, which is considered by participants to be a 'sport', and who was apparently praised for condemning foxhunting which, for the reasons i have outlined earlier, statistically more cruel than hunting, since it involves a slow death, in some cases through starvation or hypothermia, over a more protracted period. This is in stark contrast to mounted foxhunting, where death is instantaneous and humane (especially where the fox is humanely destroyed at close range by an expert).


For the same reason that gun clubs conserve pheasants.

Our farm at home is a conservation area for pheasants. My own mother hand-rears pheasants and these are released into the wild. During the season, some of some of these will be shot for 'sport'. But it doesn't mean anybody hates pheasants. I love to see pheasants in the countryside, and if it weren't for gun clubs, they probably wouldn't exist in the wild.

Foxes are slightly different, in that they are endemic and native. However, a similar principle applies. We want to see healthy foxes, we don't want to eradicate foxes, but we destroy those who are weakest (and, by dint of this, may tend to attack livestock or poultry as 'weak targets').

Not all hunts release foxes that have gone to ground. It varies. Ours does, because we are in a lowland area in the midlands with open countryside, and the fox population is less worrisome than it might be in some upland areas where the fox population might be far more out of control.

Can we not make this personal please? All of us are intelligent people. I don't like shooting, despite being raised around guns, because I have seen enough wounded animals to know that shooting (especially shooting foxes) is a serious welfare problem. Don't assume that I haven't reflected, and thought long and hard about hunting, just because I came to a conclusion that you disagree with.

The fox population must be controlled. Shooting and snaring are more cruel, in my view, from the point of view of the fox. In mounted foxhunting, the fox is either killed instantaneously, or is killed humanely by an expert. You will never find a wounded fox. Either death or escape, or indeed release, are the only possibilities.


I'm puzzled by all of this.

Heathens? What do you mean by heathens? Do you know what the word means? I am neither anglo Irish nor a castle catholic. I am a farmer's son who grew up in an ordinary house as I assume you did. People on this thread have been referring to 'fatties on horses', pompous people, and now you seem to be questioning the purity of our backgrounds. Why the need to make this personal?

Either foxhunting is ethical or it is not. I have many friends who think it is not. That's a legitimate opinion. But can you stop aiming personal insults at people you don't even know?

Mmmmhmmmm

kunst nugget

Ush1 wrote: »

Mmmmhmmmm

Just in relation to the gun clubs thing, they do run large conservation programmes and do a lot to make sure that what they do doesn't negatively impact the environment they hunt in. The probably do more for wildlife animals and helping them to prosper in our environment than most people out there.

I have zero interest in hunting but I have to hand it to them, they put a lot of effort into conservation.

fizzypish

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Sounds like you've got a conflicting outlook on life. You understand that something is abusing animals and not good but you're unapologetic about it because you can get away with doing it.

Regardless of other people you should at least take yourself seriously and be capable of justifying your actions beyond "I can do it so I do".

Just my outlook on farming practices. If you can infer how I think about life by how I accept the **** lives of chickens then you've got a talent. I think most people if not all realize that a lot of our farming practices are quiet nasty but I think you'll find that an awful lot of people are also unapologetic about it. I am not alone. Right or wrong, I'm not going to worry myself with the harsh reality of a chicken. I've got enough on my plate so to speak. I also meant what I said about being top of the food chain. I can do it so I do sounds like a rapists motto BTW.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

Mmmmhmmmm

Do you have any vowels to offer?

Did you see that i placed 'sport' in quotation marks, and that I said I don't refer to the killing of an animal as sport.

Riding across country, through challenging terrain, is a sport. The killing of an animal, in my view, is not sport. It's a nevessary activity that allows landlowners and their stock to live in peace with wild animals.

In terms of foxhunting, which is the activity I am most familiar with, I have already described the instantaneous killing of the animal, often by humane desctruction with a specially-adapted firearm, if the fox is not, indeed, released altogether.

Gun clubs and hunting organisations do preserve and conserve species, whether you care to admit this or not. We also control pest populations, which would *undoubtedly* be killed through more cruel means by landowners, such as snaring, if we did not exist.

I understand that foxhunting seems intuitively cruel. But you must understand the humane way in which hunts cull fox populations, and the practical alternatives, and how much more cruel they would be.

Ush1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you have any vowels to offer?

Did you see that i placed 'sport' in quotation marks, and that I said I don't refer to the killing of an animal as sport.

Riding across country, through challenging terrain, is a sport. The killing of an animal, in my view, is not sport. It's a nevessary activity that allows landlowners and their stock to live in peace with wild animals.

In terms of foxhunting, which is the activity I am most familiar with, I have already described the instantaneous killing of the animal, often by humane desctruction with a specially-adapted firearm, if the fox is not, indeed, released altogether.

Gun clubs and hunting organisations do preserve and conserve species, whether you care to admit this or not. We also control pest populations, which would *undoubtedly* be killed through more cruel means by landowners, such as snaring, if we did not exist.

I understand that foxhunting seems intuitively cruel. But you must understand the humane way in which hunts cull fox populations, and the practical alternatives, and how much more cruel they would be.

So you say it's for population control and humane?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/418681.stm

"They will say that a fox is always killed by hounds with a quick nip on the back of the neck, thus severing the spinal chord. It may finally die this way, but it is likely that it will suffer multiple agonising injuries before the final 'nip' is given.

"Fox is not a pest" says Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals
"Many foxes have been recovered with their innards torn out, but no sign of that fatal nip."

If having dogs attack is so efficient and humane, why do you have the gun at all?

Ush1

kunst nugget wrote: »

Just in relation to the gun clubs thing, they do run large conservation programmes and do a lot to make sure that what they do doesn't negatively impact the environment they hunt in. The probably do more for wildlife animals and helping them to prosper in our environment than most people out there.

I have zero interest in hunting but I have to hand it to them, they put a lot of effort into conservation.

I agree, and think some hunting is needed but how the hunt is carried out is something else entirely.

Also to add, you can give to conservation without hunting anything.

Sam Kade

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

It's more nuanced than that, if it's outright lies then yes it is a lie. Some examples of where it is not: A video of a practice that is allowed or happens here but is recorded somewhere else, videos of what happens to animal we export (eg animals exported for veal and saying -oh well we don't do it so it's fine), videos of animals from places we import from etc.

And even if some of it turns out to be wrong, that doesn't throw the baby out with bath water.

Your clutching at straws to try and prove that you're right. Most vegans have never even been on a farm and only want to hear what they want to hear to prove a point even even if it's a lie.

jive

Sam Kade wrote: »

Your clutching at straws to try and prove that you're right. Most vegans have never even been on a farm and only want to hear what they want to hear to prove a point even even if it's a lie.

What difference does it make if they've been to a farm or not? The vast majority of vegans are concerned about animals; essentially they are against what they see as something akin to human slavery regardless of the conditions.

I'm not vegan but there's no good argument against it.

ScumLord

Ush1 wrote: »

If having dogs attack is so efficient and humane, why do you have the gun at all?

I'd never heard of the nip to the back of the neck, I don't see why that would kill a fox. It's how terriers kill rats and small animals, grab by the back of the neck and shake it so it's neck snaps. Very quick. Lions will also break the neck to try and kill an animal.

But a pack of dogs or wolves will just gore something to death, they have the numbers so they don't need to make a surgical strike. At the end of the day it's a legitimate method of killing used in nature, to say it's wrong is to say nature is wrong. It can be fairly quick too. A few dozen excited dogs will make short work of any small animal.

archer22

a lot of nonsense being posted here about "Foxes needing to be controlled", for the most part they do not.I don't know how it works but Foxes are brilliant at regulating their own population....if they are put under stress they breed faster if they are in a relaxed environment they breed less....I have never seen an over population of Foxes anywhere.
Overpopulation would mean where animals are at such a level that there is insufficent food leading to disease and starvation...I have never such a scenario in Foxes.Foxes are natures greatest survivors, a truly amazing creature that has taken every vile extermination method that mans evil mind ever devised and still managed to thrive despite it all.
Of course there might be occasions where individual Foxes 'need' to be culled if the Chicken keeper or pheasant rearers can't be assed making secure pens for their stock.

ScumLord

archer22 wrote: »

Overpopulation would mean where animals are at such a level that there is insufficent food leading to disease and starvation...I have never such a scenario in Foxes.Foxes are natures greatest survivors, a truly amazing creature that has taken every vile extermination method that mans evil mind ever devised and still managed to thrive despite it all.

Over population doesn't always lead to a lack of food but a lack of biodiversity. When they reintroduced the wolf to yellowstone park they killed foxes left right and centre. It was like they just didn't like foxes. The thing is though foxes had been breeding uncontrolled and people didn't notice the knock on effects of that overbreeding. With the foxes numbers greatly reduced smaller animals like beavers were under less pressure which had a knock on effect for fauna.

We are foxes natural predator on this island, more foxes means less of other animals and them moving into cities because there's too much competition in the countryside.

kunst nugget

archer22 wrote: »

a lot of nonsense being posted here about "Foxes needing to be controlled", for the most part they do not.I don't know how it works but Foxes are brilliant at regulating their own population....if they are put under stress they breed faster if they are in a relaxed environment they breed less....I have never seen an over population of Foxes anywhere.
Overpopulation would mean where animals are at such a level that there is insufficent food leading to disease and starvation...I have never such a scenario in Foxes.Foxes are natures greatest survivors, a truly amazing creature that has taken every vile extermination method that mans evil mind ever devised and still managed to thrive despite it all.
Of course there might be occasions where individual Foxes 'need' to be culled if the Chicken keeper or pheasant rearers can't be assed making secure pens for their stock.

You should tell Australia that. They're an absolute scourge over there and the dominant reason for the extinction of several species.

Ush1

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd never heard of the nip to the back of the neck, I don't see why that would kill a fox. It's how terriers kill rats and small animals, grab by the back of the neck and shake it so it's neck snaps. Very quick. Lions will also break the neck to try and kill an animal.

But a pack of dogs or wolves will just gore something to death, they have the numbers so they don't need to make a surgical strike. At the end of the day it's a legitimate method of killing used in nature, to say it's wrong is to say nature is wrong. It can be fairly quick too. A few dozen excited dogs will make short work of any small animal.

Interesting thought process. The dogs were selectively bred by people and trained.

If it's a legitimate method of killing in nature(not quite sure what that phrase means) then rather than using lethal injection for human executions, should they just use a pack of hounds?

You don't see any moral problem with killing something, man or otherwise, with a pack of dogs because it's something that could possibly happen "in nature"?

archer22

ScumLord wrote: »

Over population doesn't always lead to a lack of food but a lack of biodiversity. When they reintroduced the wolf to yellowstone park they killed foxes left right and centre. It was like they just didn't like foxes. The thing is though foxes had been breeding uncontrolled and people didn't notice the knock on effects of that overbreeding. With the foxes numbers greatly reduced smaller animals like beavers were under less pressure which had a knock on effect for fauna.

We are foxes natural predator on this island, more foxes means less of other animals and them moving into cities because there's too much competition in the countryside.

I don't think you quite got it...the more you persecute and kill foxes the faster Foxes breed to fill the gap....The population always rebounds back to a natural level..then breeding slows to a figure that maintains that.

Tar.Aldarion

Sam Kade wrote: »

Your clutching at straws to try and prove that you're right. Most vegans have never even been on a farm and only want to hear what they want to hear to prove a point even even if it's a lie.

Most people haven't been on farms. There are plenty of vegans who grew up on and around farms, including myself. Even ones that owned them. It doesn't matter if there wasn't, as another poster said.

archer22

kunst nugget wrote: »

You should tell Australia that. They're an absolute scourge over there and the dominant reason for the extinction of several species.

Good point, they were introduced by Hunters for their "sport".

A disaster caused by Fox Hunters...not Foxes.

ScumLord

Ush1 wrote: »

Interesting thought process. The dogs were selectively bred by people and trained.

If it's a legitimate method of killing in nature(not quite sure what that phrase means) then rather than using lethal injection for human executions, should they just use a pack of hounds?

You don't see any moral problem with killing something, man or otherwise, with a pack of dogs because it's something that could possibly happen "in nature"?

By what standard is it wrong? Goring is how some animals kill. You just see it as wrong because one of your human behaviours is overflowing into areas it wasn't intended to cover.

archer22 wrote: »

I don't think you quite got it...the more you persecute and kill foxes the faster Foxes breed to fill the gap....The population always rebounds back to a natural level..then breeding slows to a figure that maintains that.

That doesn't seem right to me, can you point me towards something that would explain that? Overbreeding when under pressure just makes things worse depending on the circumstances.

Ush1

ScumLord wrote: »

By what standard is it wrong? Goring is how some animals kill. You just see it as wrong because one of your human behaviours is overflowing into areas it wasn't intended to cover.

Well by....human standards!

The thing that this thread is about that separates us from other animals. Which is generally why if we have what we deem a legitimate reason to end life we try to do it humanely.....unless of course you like to hunt a fox and watch it get torn apart by dogs.

El_Duderino 09

JupiterKid wrote:

I've heard that Ireland doesn't have great form historically when it comes to animal welfare. I've also heard that animal cruelty and neglect cases have been decreasing in the past 20 years but that these rates were appalling in the 1970s and 1980s. Why is this? The UK is known as a nation of animal lovers. Is this true? Are we playing catch up?

The UK has a different attitude to domestic pets. They would consider keeping a pet outside to be animal cruelty. The same with walking dogs daily. They treat dogs and cats like family members. Much more pet grooming and that kind of thing. I'm not sure if that really counts as great behaviour.

On the other hand I think they interact more with animals like their dogs and cats by meeting need for play and walks. But some of the treating indoor pets is well intentioned but ultimately hurts dogs. I've seen dogs who aren't treated​like dogs to the extent that they don't know how to socialise with other dogs.

I wouldn't have a clue how they treat farm animals and wild animals relative to Ireland.

archer22

ScumLord wrote: »

By what standard is it wrong? Goring is how some animals kill. You just see it as wrong because one of your human behaviours is overflowing into areas it wasn't intended to cover.



That doesn't seem right to me, can you point me towards something that would explain that? Overbreeding when under pressure just makes things worse depending on the circumstances.

As I already stated "I don't know how it works" but I have seen it back in the 80s when Foxes were being slaughtered in huge numbers for their fur.

When you saw fox dens back then, litters of cubs would be unusually high I have counted up to 8 at some dens.
After the fur hunting finished Fox numbers bounced back...around here for a while you would see foxes everywhere day and night...but that only lasted for a year or so, then numbers dropped to normal levels.
Also dens you see now tend to have around 4 cubs on average.

So yes when you think about it high breeding when under duress is the perfect strategy for survival and probably the reason we still have Foxes.

ScumLord

Ush1 wrote: »

Well by....human standards!

The thing that this thread is about that separates us from other animals. Which is generally why if we have what we deem a legitimate reason to end life we try to do it humanely.....unless of course you like to hunt a fox and watch it get torn apart by dogs.

Do you expect other animals to follow human standards, not even human behaviour but standards we've developed recently. Humans are animals, we can't really be separated from them.

archer22 wrote: »

As I already stated "I don't know how it works" but I have seen it back in the 80s when Foxes were being slaughtered in huge numbers for their fur.

When you saw fox dens back then, litters of cubs would be unusually high I have counted up to 8 at some dens.
After the fur hunting finished Fox numbers bounced back...around here for a while you would see foxes everywhere day and night...but that only lasted for a year or so, then numbers dropped to normal levels.
Also dens you see now tend to have around 4 cubs on average.

That's very anecdotal, it's not going to convince me what your saying is true. I'm not saying it's false, it just doesn't seem like it would really work in the real world, they're just putting more pressure on themselves over breeding.

archer22

ScumLord wrote: »

Do you expect other animals to follow human standards, not even human behaviour but standards we've developed recently. Humans are animals, we can't really be separated from them.

That's very anecdotal, it's not going to convince me what your saying is true. I'm not saying it's false, it just doesn't seem like it would really work in the real world, they're just putting more pressure on themselves over breeding.

Well in the area where I live there has been no hunting or any "control" of Foxes for about 30 years now...but there is no "overpopulation" of Foxes, its a stable population that stays pretty much the same year after year decade after decade.....so they must have an inbuilt population control mechanism of their own.
Cos there sure as hell ain't nothing else controlling them around here.

ScumLord

archer22 wrote: »

Well in the area where I live there has been no hunting or any "control" of Foxes for about 30 years now...but there is no "overpopulation" of Foxes, its a stable population that stays pretty much the same year after year decade after decade.....so they must have an inbuilt population control mechanism of their own.
Cos there sure as hell ain't nothing else controlling them around here.

That's still all very anecdotal. You don't know for sure there isn't a farmer down the road shooting or poisoning foxes. If there's anyone around you raising sheep they most certainly hate foxes and will kill any they see on site.

It would be interesting to see some impartial statistics on what we actually know about fox populations.

archer22

ScumLord wrote: »

That's still all very anecdotal. You don't know for sure there isn't a farmer down the road shooting or poisoning foxes. If there's anyone around you raising sheep they most certainly hate foxes and will kill any they see on site.

It would be interesting to see some impartial statistics on what we actually know about fox populations.

I can 100% assure you that there is no farmers or anybody else killing Foxes in this area.
And have heard no complaints about Foxes from anybody...This is Cattle country.

Thelomen Toblackai

fizzypish wrote: »

Just my outlook on farming practices. If you can infer how I think about life by how I accept the **** lives of chickens then you've got a talent. I think most people if not all realize that a lot of our farming practices are quiet nasty but I think you'll find that an awful lot of people are also unapologetic about it. I am not alone. Right or wrong, I'm not going to worry myself with the harsh reality of a chicken. I've got enough on my plate so to speak. I also meant what I said about being top of the food chain. I can do it so I do sounds like a rapists motto BTW.

Why did you post here out of curiosity ? You think it's a nasty practice, you take the time to discuss it online with a random stranger. But when it comes to dealing with whether or not you should care you're suddenly too busy with more important stuff...

And you meant what you said about being top of the food chain validating what you've clearly called nasty, and abusive practices. While also thinking the phrase "I can do it so I do" sounds like a rapists motto? Do you see anything odd about making those two statements at all ?

ScumLord

archer22 wrote: »

I can 100% assure you that there is no farmers or anybody else killing Foxes in this area.
And have heard no complaints about Foxes from anybody...This is Cattle country.

That might be why you don't have issues with foxes. No fox is going to be taking on a cow of any age. Sheep and chickens are a different matter.

Thelomen Toblackai

ScumLord wrote: »

That might be why you don't have issues with foxes. No fox is going to be taking on a cow of any age. Sheep and chickens are a different matter.

I've lived around farms most of my life. Never seen a fox take a sheep or a lamb or a chicken from anyone that locked them up at night.

Only ones they took were from chicken runs on the ground without proper wiring.

Other people's pet dogs are a much much bigger problem for farmers as they will be around during the day when birds are out and hunt in packs when they get going. Only sheep issue I've actually seen has been sheep attacked by dogs.

Neighbours dog also got loose at my home place before and killed 7 chickens just for the sheer hell of it. More than has been taken by foxes for 20 years despite there always been foxes around.

Fox hunting is an excuse for idiots to act like idiots nothing more.

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

Do you expect other animals to follow human standards, not even human behaviour but standards we've developed recently. Humans are animals, we can't really be separated from them.

Are you seriously arguing that setting dogs on foxes is just human nature, and we don't have any other option but following our nature? Because I personally have, oddly enough, never felt that urge.

event

me_right_one wrote: »

And you will NEVER find a homeless domesticated animal wandering around sleeping in doorways.
:

Well this is entirely incorrect

fizzypish

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Why did you post here out of curiosity ? You think it's a nasty practice, you take the time to discuss it online with a random stranger. But when it comes to dealing with whether or not you should care you're suddenly too busy with more important stuff...

And you meant what you said about being top of the food chain validating what you've clearly called nasty, and abusive practices. While also thinking the phrase "I can do it so I do" sounds like a rapists motto? Do you see anything odd about making those two statements at all ?

Posted because of your user name (which I like BTW) mainly. I also don't need to justify why I would post on a topic in AH. I do think a lot of farming is nasty (e.g. battery farming) but I don't need to deal with it. I can have that opinion without being required to do anything about that opinion. I could change my diet and protest battery farming and setup a better type of farm to cater for people with similar beliefs to mine but I don't want to. I never said I'm too busy to deal with it because of important stuff, I said I've enough occupying my mind. I never planned to deal with it. I can know something is ****ty and still do it. I smoke, I get it.

We're top of the food chain, we subjugate all species below us. We're kinda dicks. All true. Figure out a way to change that thats not too obstructive to peoples daily lives and I'll probably follow along.

I eat chicken and I know battery farming is not a good life for the poultry. Maybe that make me a bit hypocritical or at least it would if I was screaming the evils of the practice. Your phrase "I can do it so I do" which you have applied to me in general after my opinion on this one topic sounded like a rapist motto. Poor joke and first thought that popped into my head when I read it. I still don't see the oddness of the statements which you were alluding to? I'm confused? Heartless? Lacking in empathy?