The Frontline Animal Rights&Rural Ireland debate last night

scartman1 · 16-05-2010 11:53pm

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

I was keeping out of this thread as I feel it is going nowhere fast but...

To say that moral acceptance should not be a factor in a government making a decision, or policy, on any subject is a step much too far in the argument. You might want to re-phrase it somewhat.

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath
I shall restate rather than rephrase as the segment of the entire post which you highlighted may have been misintrepreted my you. The entire post should be read to get my point.

The whole issue of coursing or any field sport is that it needs to be sustainable from the perspective of the state or the Republic with regard to conservation, respect for the body and property of others, not being a drain on the resources of the state etc. All our field sports can and do demonstrate this sustainability. Should sections of the Government deem it to be morally unacceptable that is not grounds for it to be banned.

I think many who continually try to impose their beliefs on others damage the republic and effectively no one is free in this soceity if the will of others who are morally opposed to certain issues are allowed to dominate.

You will admit we aspire to live in a modern secular state which we define as a republic. Some may be morally oppossed to homosexuality but this is not reason enough to have it prescribed illegal. Similarly sex outside marraige, telling lies and so on. When however an action that is undesirable to the state due to its effect on the state, financially, physically, depleting its resources or damaging the person and property of the citizens or a a single citizen then the state shall act to protect the state and its citizens.
Conversly the citizens of the country may have no moral objection to immigrants entering the state to avail of welfare, but the state in protecting its resources is entiltle to act to conserve the republic. Similarly certain percentage of the citizens may wish to legalise some drugs but the overall good of the state is served better by reducing their sale as it should reduce Health implications and costs to the state and prevent crime and other lesser effects.

In short Moral Theology is not a good measure for prescribing law as it varies from individual to individual, but laws should be prescribed to protect the interests of the state and its citizens including minorities based on the state viewed financially, social order, sustainability etc.

scartman1 · 17-05-2010 12:29am

Discodog,
Your info relating to Spanish Galgos being 50,000 killed each year,which you later corrected to include lurchers and others says a lot really for your approach to publicising your intention to ban Greyhound Racing.
Its sensationalist and misleading and bordering on racist. You can't just throw figures around like confetti while making such strong allegations.
Greyhound figures are at least confirmable if you relate to the registration figures but to qoute 50,000 greyhounds are killed everyyear in Spain when in Ireland, the leading country in the World breeds approx 20,000.
I don't know how you can state such an outragious figure and confirm 50,000. Your theory that so many of these are lurchers which are mongrel and have no registration process is equally hard to fathom.
Your tactic of firing enough mud in the hope that it will stick is a low form of canvassing your opinion, but I suspect rational people will not be swayed by this outlandishness.

Your humility when you state that your source of propoganda and your skills in presenting same over the internet are not honed over years of peddling your campaign information are a little disengenious when you can pull a letter from 2002 and throw it into the ring. These nuggets of propoganda seem to be at your fingertips. What this letter stated that was that the IGB were concerned with the welfare situation of greyhounds in Spain( which proves my earlier expression that the IGB have welfare to the fore at all times) and there seemed to be some greyhounds still going to Spain. Please note that Greyhounds are not bought and sold by the IGB as they are owned privately. The greyhounds were purchased as such which is outside the remit of the IGB to influence. I suspect the IGB would have replied to the letter, but unfortunately you perhaps did not want to utilise your undoubted computer acumen to include this for the benefit of the public.
As an important additional point, the Greyhound racing stadium in Spain, which I understood only numbered one closed a number of years ago and no Irish Greyhounds are raced there now. Given my lack of ability to link and research my presentation like you, you might do me a favour and help me out by linking this for the interested public.

If welfare problems exist in Spain I think that it is fair to say that they are more widespread than the greyhound sport and your continous attack on the more regulated and high standarded industry is damaging to overall welfare issues.

Hellrazer · 17-05-2010 8:51am

Right Im intervening here.

The rules of boards.ie state that while discussion is part and parcel of boards the rules also state to "attack the post and not the poster"

Ive noticed what I can only describe as "bullying" against some posters with relation to the rule above and some people on this thread seem to have a personal vendetta against other users.

This stops now.

Consider this a warning.Bullying or opinion ramming will not be tolerated in this forum and will be dealt with firstly by a warning to the user and then if this is ignored by a short holiday from the forum.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 17-05-2010 8:54am

scartman1 wrote: »

Srameen
You will admit we aspire to live in a modern secular state which we define as a republic. QUOTE]

I admit to nothing.
This is why I try to avoid threads you are involved in; as you always try to put words in my mouth. What a secular republic has to do with animal welfare is beyond me!

scartman1 · 17-05-2010 11:50am

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

scartman1 wrote: »

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath
You will admit we aspire to live in a modern secular state which we define as a republic. QUOTE]

I admit to nothing.
This is why I try to avoid threads you are involved in; as you always try to put words in my mouth. What a secular republic has to do with animal welfare is beyond me!

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath,
I didn't mean to put words into your mouth and apologies if my statement offended you in the slightest.

My clumsily written statement related to my understanding of the desire generally in Ireland to be a modern secular republic.

As regards the relevence of a modern secular state to Animal welfare I would state that the thread relates to Animal Rights and Rural Ireland. Animal Rights is moral based philosophy and certain political elements may wish to legally impose this moral philosophy onto sections of the Irish Citizenry particularly in Rural Ireland.
My post has tried to highlight the importance of how a state functions when posed with the pressure of implementing a moral philosophy legally on its citizens. This is a valid point and worth considering in this debate.

Another point to add to the mix is that many animal rights protagonists operate under the guise of implementing Animal Welfare and the debate should highlight this so as to allow the public fully consider the issue at hand.

I hope that you reconsider your position of avoiding threads that I am involved in.

Discodog · 17-05-2010 7:47pm

My sources are Google !. Anyone can access my sources but maybe one only reads one side of the argument. Greyhound racing will not be banned in my lifetime. It will reduce because racing will end in the UK.

The IGB could ban owners from exporting dogs to any country. They could insist that every export is recorded. They could publish deaths. They could publish injuries etc etc etc. If everything is wonderful then why not publish the figures & prove people like me to be wrong

There is a mass of evidence regarding Galgos. Anyone can do a search. Some of the information regarding Galgos is written by Spanish Nationals so I am hardly being racist. Any Greyhound figures can be misleading because the IGB will not supply the real figures & no one here has been able to provide them or a link to them. The Industry can hardly complain if people make estimates or assume that the IGB have something to hide. I cannot publish an IGB reply because it would not be publicly accessible & that is the whole point.

If the IGB standards are so high why don't they publish the figures to prove it.

Until recently this thread was achieving the impossible by providing a good natured reasoned debate. I welcome those that support racing to debate the issues even in an animal welfare forum.

HELEN OF TROY · 17-05-2010 10:55pm

Hi Greg here Helens boyfriend and she has asked me as I am a better typist that her to answer some questions raised. Firstly a family friend returning home brought the dvd's mentioned to her family and it was her family not her who didn't understand that in greyhound track racing a mechanical lure is used.
In many countries animals are treated rather well but that is not enough for some people who are almost avid worshippers of animals as they regard this as being civilized. Civilization is not feeling guilty about seeing a pregnant cat in a pet shop and buying it out of misguided sorrow. Neither is it pampering animals with parlors, professional walkers, animal psychiatrists, pet cemetaries and above all bequeathing estates to animals Civilizations is about lookng after your fellow man first and in this some of the money spend on animals would be better spend on elimination world hunger. I think some people should take a leave from Helens book and not go overboard on animal welfare and respect the views of those who see nothing wrong in a predator chasing its quarry be it for food or sport as long as this is done legally.

Discodog · 18-05-2010 8:54am

HELEN OF TROY wrote: »

respect the views of those who see nothing wrong in a predator chasing its quarry be it for food or sport as long as this is done legally.

The legal aspect is one of the problems. It is never good when we make law & then allow exceptions. Law should apply without favour. In Irish law it is illegal to terrify an animal & the Hare is a protected species. The origin of this debate is the DBEB & that the greyhound lobby want to be excluded from it & create another exception.

Society has decided that we should have laws to protect animals from unnecessary suffering. How can an entertainment be necessary ?.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 18-05-2010 9:22am

HELEN OF TROY wrote: »

...respect the views of those who see nothing wrong in a predator chasing its quarry be it for food or sport as long as this is done legally.

Certainly nothing wrong with a predator chasing it's quarry in order to feed and survive. But chasing another animal at the whim of humans, so they can place bets is another story. The fact that it's done under the current legislation is neither here nor there if we are to consider it morally.

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 10:06am

Discodog wrote: »

My sources are Google !. Anyone can access my sources but maybe one only reads one side of the argument. Greyhound racing will not be banned in my lifetime. It will reduce because racing will end in the UK. .

Greyhound racing in the UK may not be as strong as it previously was and this is probably due to a lot of issues. These issues range from such issues as property values, the restricted training system(people cannot own and train their own dogs, they have to place them with a trainer, and the trainers are affiliated to certain tracks), The lack of contribution of the bookies to the sport/industry, poor administration/vision by the boards that run the industry and the Animal rights campaigns over there. However, the ownership of greyhounds and lurchers is at very high levels still. It is sad that people who have a genuine interest in greyhounds are not better served by having a stronger regulated industry. Should it decline further or as you state end altogether Greyhounds and lurchers and peoples interest in them will still exist but have no regulated framework in which to express their interest. This can give rise to a whole new set of issues on welfare and conservation. Hopefully it won't come to this, the English people are resilient and practicable and will arrive at an improved process to reinvigorate their industry.

Discodog wrote: »

The IGB could ban owners from exporting dogs to any country. They could insist that every export is recorded. They could publish deaths. They could publish injuries etc etc etc. If everything is wonderful then why not publish the figures & prove people like me to be wrong.

We have established that it is not the IGB that export greyhounds to Spain. Whether they can impose a ban on exporting greyhounds to locations that are lets say undesireable is a legal issue which is beyond my ability to comment but I would appreciate that it would be very difficult to legislate for without infringing on property rights. Greyhounds are private property and the state cannot willy nilly intervene. Greyhounds are no longer exported to Spain in anycase as the track in Spain closed down a number of years ago.
As regards recording deaths and injuries, this has a lot of practicable difficulties associated with its implementation which I have previously commented. Perhaps you could provide some constructive suggestions as to how it would be processed to arrive at a worthwhile result.

Discodog wrote: »

There is a mass of evidence regarding Galgos. Anyone can do a search. Some of the information regarding Galgos is written by Spanish Nationals so I am hardly being racist. Any Greyhound figures can be misleading because the IGB will not supply the real figures & no one here has been able to provide them or a link to them. The Industry can hardly complain if people make estimates or assume that the IGB have something to hide. I cannot publish an IGB reply because it would not be publicly accessible & that is the whole point..

The figure qouted in the previous post was 50,000 galgos killed per annum. The spanish don't breed anywhere near 50,000 greyhounds per year and they have no greyhound racing industry any longer so I think the point being made to attack the IGB for being complicit in the alledged slaughter of 50000 greyhounds is off the mark. If your allegations are correct and 50000 greyhounds, (which are perhaps mongrel type greyhounds as you later suggest) are killed by various means from hanging from lamp posts to drowning in wells, I believe that this would indicate that the lack of a regulated industry in Spain would contribute to this alledged fiasco. How do the Spanish deal with dogs and cats overall would seem to be a more pertinent area to investigate if such figures are true.

Discodog wrote: »

If the IGB standards are so high why don't they publish the figures to prove it. .

By figures, i presume you mean greyhounds PTS and injured each year. I have previously addressed this issue with regard to the practicalities involved. The only point i would add is that the IGB is the only body with a framework that could if it had the resources required, and these would be considerable, to administer such figures. Other breeds and mongrels would get no such analysis as it would be impossible to administer.
Further, please note the IGB is not a secret organisation, it is a semi state body and is readily accountable to the oireachtas. They can be questioned and will no doubt reply as necessary.

Discodog wrote: »

Until recently this thread was achieving the impossible by providing a good natured reasoned debate. I welcome those that support racing to debate the issues even in an animal welfare forum.

Good natured is always the best way to proceed if one is to present the truth to the public. Greyhound people have a genuine love of dogs, much the same as the general public and provide a high level of welfare for their dogs. Welfare can of course be improved in all aspects on a continous basis, but it is fair to say that the Greyhound industry is ran by people with this in mind.
However, I shall not be able to convince an Animal Rights activist who is morally oppossed to the concept of slavery of an animal, be it for racing, for a circus, for meat, for working and so on, and many of the most ardent attackers of the Greyhound Industry have this agenda in mind, while operating under the guise of Animal Welfare. These Animal Rights campaigners are well funded, very focussed, coordinated and tenacious beyond reason in chipping away at many activities where humans interact with animals.
I am a simple greyhound owner myself and generally like to mind my own business, but recent events such as the frontline debate where I first became aware of this attempt by the animal Rights lobby to double regulate the greyhound industry through the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, drafted by the Green Party, made some of my apathy dissappear and I decided to get involved in a small way refuting and debunking some of the mistruths and allegations continually slung at the greyhound industry by the Animal Rights Movement.
This is the thin edge of their wedge. I hope that people can see this.

fatmammycat · 18-05-2010 12:29pm

Funny thing Greg, it doesn't actually cost anything not to be cruel to animals.

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 1:03pm

Discodog wrote: »

The legal aspect is one of the problems. It is never good when we make law & then allow exceptions. Law should apply without favour. In Irish law it is illegal to terrify an animal & the Hare is a protected species. The origin of this debate is the DBEB & that the greyhound lobby want to be excluded from it & create another exception.

Society has decided that we should have laws to protect animals from unnecessary suffering. How can an entertainment be necessary ?.

Coursing is necessary on many fronts, however under conservation measures alone it is necessary. Without the hands on interaction of the coursing public and hare and protection of its environment hare numbers would be severely diminished, as the Queens University report has shown.

Horse Racing and Greyhound Racing, sheep dog trials, fishing, shooting, showjumping, going to restaurants and eating steak, falconry, pidgeon racing, shooting vermin, are all areas where people interact with animals for the purpose of entertainment.
Boxing, football, rugby, wrestling, cycling etc are all areas where people compete for the purpose of entertainment.
Some suffering is involved, its part of what makes us and animals what we are.

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 1:18pm

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

Certainly nothing wrong with a predator chasing it's quarry in order to feed and survive. But chasing another animal at the whim of humans, so they can place bets is another story. The fact that it's done under the current legislation is neither here nor there if we are to consider it morally.

Each persons morals are their own and what we must avoid is imposing our morals on others. The state must run its affairs on a different basis to imposing the morals of some on others.

I don't bet myself, but am not morally oppossed to it. Others are.
The recent issue relating to a Danish Cartoonist lampooning the Propher Mohammed, is another case. Morally some are fundamentally oppossed to this lampoon, however it should not be grounds for legislating against same. We have free speech, it is a cornerstone of democracy.

On that basis I believe the Helen of Troy post is a valid position, that coursing is acceptable once legally done. I too would argue that Coursing should be stopped if it was endangering hare numbers as this would be unsustainable and the government of the day would have to legislate to prevent a destruction of Hare numbers. As this is not the case and in fact the contrary is the position then coursing should be encouraged. Moral arguments should not be involved in legislation.

fatmammycat · 18-05-2010 2:26pm

scartman1 wrote: »

Boxing, football, rugby, wrestling, cycling etc are all areas where people compete for the purpose of entertainment.
Some suffering is involved, its part of what makes us and animals what we are.

People who involve themselves in a sport where they suffer ( I know, I kickbox myself) do so through choice. Hares have no choice in their abuse. Your comparison does not stand. And the idea that you want to conserve an animal so that you might later abuse it for entertainment is frankly a massive fail in logic.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 18-05-2010 2:32pm

I'm certainly thick! It has taken me until now to realise you will accept anything on any moral grounds, condone any actions, and support any argument once it is in favour of coursing. What a dim cluts I am! You will defend inarticulate ramblings as long as they lean in the right direction. Let's at least be honest with each other and ourselves. I don't object to betting at all. I do object to coursing with Hares because I have seen it. My Dad had dogs for years and we were reared with the "sport". But I have seen the cruely. I have seen Hares captured in one location where they can thrive and released to find their way in totally unsuitable terrain. I, thankfully, have seen the change to muzzles and while relieving one major concern does not remove the cruely from the event.
One big issue is how you can honestly say coursing aids Hare numbers. That is nonsense in most parts of the country and I suspect you know that. Yes some clubs do good work but the vast, and I emphasise vast, majority are distructive to Hare numbers. In addition to bird census and other field work I have keep records of Hares across a large region for decades. Coursing activity has ebbed and flowed over that period and Hare numbers dropped when coursing clubs were more active.
You know I'm kicking myself for even entering this thread. I think reason has seen through though. I'm off to reclaim my sanity. I'm currently sitting watching a stretch of bog with pasture behind me. I can hear Sedge Warblers in front and Song Thrush behind. Last time here I saw 3 Hares - hopefully I'll see some more to-day. Yes, sanity is returning.

Bye!

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 5:01pm

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

I'm certainly thick! It has taken me until now to realise you will accept anything on any moral grounds, condone any actions, and support any argument once it is in favour of coursing. What a dim cluts I am! You will defend inarticulate ramblings as long as they lean in the right direction. !

Apologies but I don't follow your drift. Surely my earlier posts indicated that the moral objection of an individual to some issue was not a good ground for legislating against it.

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

Let's at least be honest with each other and ourselves. I don't object to betting at all. I do object to coursing with Hares because I have seen it. My Dad had dogs for years and we were reared with the "sport". But I have seen the cruely. I have seen Hares captured in one location where they can thrive and released to find their way in totally unsuitable terrain. I, thankfully, have seen the change to muzzles and while relieving one major concern does not remove the cruely from the event.
One big issue is how you can honestly say coursing aids Hare numbers. That is nonsense in most parts of the country and I suspect you know that. Yes some clubs do good work but the vast, and I emphasise vast, majority are distructive to Hare numbers. In addition to bird census and other field work I have keep records of Hares across a large region for decades. Coursing activity has ebbed and flowed over that period and Hare numbers dropped when coursing clubs were more active.
You know I'm kicking myself for even entering this thread. I think reason has seen through though. I'm off to reclaim my sanity. I'm currently sitting watching a stretch of bog with pasture behind me. I can hear Sedge Warblers in front and Song Thrush behind. Last time here I saw 3 Hares - hopefully I'll see some more to-day. Yes, sanity is returning. Bye!

The following is a link to an independendent report carried out by Queens University College Belfast. It shows when coursing was stopped in the North of Ireland that hare numbers actually decreased while in the republic they actually increased, particularly in areas where Coursing Clubs were active.

This reports demonstrates the link between coursing and conservation.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/Quercus/News/Title,184184,en.html#d.en.184184

As regards your assertion that coursing is ebbing and flowing periodically i would point out that most of the 80 or so clubs, if not all the clubs working through out Ireland are in existance for more than 30 years with some, if indeed most going back to the early twentys when the ICC was founded. Some go back even further. This in itself is evidence enough to show that coursing is sustainable. Coursing clubs are well established in their areas and well supported.

Hares are generally taken from areas in which they thrive, generally the coursing clubs own preserves, and returned to same after the coursing meeting. This is ICC policy and is vetted by the Wildlife Rangers.These preserves are supervised to prevent poaching and vermin control is carried out through out the year with coursing clubs often working in conjuction with local gun clubs to ensure biodiversity in the preserves and adjoining lands. While I can't explain why the coursing club that you were involved with in your youth did not follow this common sense approach, it is strange in the extreme. Can you advise if this club is still in operation. Its unlikely they are if they were acting in this counter productive manner.

I hope the above will help you and others to reconsider your views on coursing and evaluate its importance to conservation. I hope also that we are debunking any myths and untruths that are constantly being protrayed in relation to coursing.

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 5:19pm

fatmammycat wrote: »

People who involve themselves in a sport where they suffer ( I know, I kickbox myself) do so through choice. Hares have no choice in their abuse. Your comparison does not stand. And the idea that you want to conserve an animal so that you might later abuse it for entertainment is frankly a massive fail in logic.

To ban coursing as you suggest and remove its most fervent supporter, allowing it to decrease its numbers in the name of protecting it, is I would point out more illogical. Its counter productive.

Conserving hares for coursing is logical, even if it is selfish in a human perspective the hare also benefits. Its a classic win win situation.
Did you know a Male Hare will kill a leveret including its own offspring if it comes across them while they are being nursed by their mother. Apparently its a darwinian principle so as to protect its own gene pool. The point being is that life is tough being a hare and they are animals well adapted for there niche in nature. Everything in nature is red in tooth and claw. There are no protections provided, it is survival of the fittest. However a hare needs to be protected from the pressures of modern agriculture, poaching, and urbanisation as these pressures move more quickly than he can adapt to. The coursing club, as volunteers do more to assist the hare than any other section in Ireland in this regard.

Discodog · 18-05-2010 7:12pm

Scartman I will try to address some of the many points that you have made.

Your reasons for the demise of racing in the UK misses out the main one which is that the majority of the British public find it unacceptable as they do with Coursing. The awareness of the welfare issue is much stronger in the UK. Your comment that the death of racing might have a negative effect on welfare just shows how little owners really care. Are you suggesting that these owners would dispose of their dogs ?.

Regarding export the IGB could make it mandatory that no registered dog is exported to a specific country. The IGB do make rules.

As for deaths/injuries I have already pointed out that this is very easy to achieve by making mandatory for owners to notify the IGB as they are supposed to do with changes of ownership. If the IGB are not capable of recording simple data then how can they rely on self regulation. The Pounds record every death so why can't the IGB ?.

Who funds this "well funded" animal rights movement ?. I have never found any animal welfare group in Ireland to be well founded.

Snip Nua's death was only "discovered" because an insider posted on a UK Greyhound welfare forum - Sighthounds online, the thread is still there. The IGB said that they did not know if the dog was alive or dead. As usual there was a discussion regarding getting an FOI order. The death was then confirmed. Greyhound Data shows the results & "performance" of every dog so why can't it show deaths & injuries.

This continuing claim that "greyhound people" care about their dogs is unbelievable. According to your figures there should be about 200,000 Greyhounds alive & well yet you can give no explanation as to where they are.

Coursing is necessary to provide entertainment & lots of money. Are you suggesting that the Coursers, who you claim look after the Hares, would stop if there were no Coursing ?. Any wild animal population will increase if people allow the animals to breed so that they can be abused for entertainment. You don't need a report to confirm the obvious.

scartman1 · 18-05-2010 9:45pm

Discodog wrote: »

Scartman I will try to address some of the many points that you have made.

Your reasons for the demise of racing in the UK misses out the main one which is that the majority of the British public find it unacceptable as they do with Coursing. The awareness of the welfare issue is much stronger in the UK. Your comment that the death of racing might have a negative effect on welfare just shows how little owners really care. Are you suggesting that these owners would dispose of their dogs ?..

Animal Rights Movement in England is pretty strong int he UK I will admit and they are one and the same with the Irish movement. They are constantly appraising each other of their progress and updating each other on the latest techniques to get their message across. But the Greyhound industry has other issues also which have contributed to some of its decline as I have previously advised in the earlier post. Greyhound industry is regulated and welfare issues can be controlled via this structure. More dogs will suffer without this framework, just look in the pounds and you will see that there are a lot of imperfect people causing problems for all of us. Why you don't focus in working with the industry to prevent such behaviour is baffling. The greyhound industry is not the enemy here, poor welfare is what is the issue. HH

Discodog wrote: »

Regarding export the IGB could make it mandatory that no registered dog is exported to a specific country. The IGB do make rules..

What about the property rights issue, can you ignore this. To say otherwise is showing a lack of practicable knowledge of how the world works and is proving to be the achilles heal of the Animal Rights Movement.

Discodog wrote: »

As for deaths/injuries I have already pointed out that this is very easy to achieve by making mandatory for owners to notify the IGB as they are supposed to do with changes of ownership. If the IGB are not capable of recording simple data then how can they rely on self regulation. The Pounds record every death so why can't the IGB ?..

So you make it mandatory, and one owner says my dog died from cancer, my other dog died from flu, another owner says the dog is retired at home with my mother in law. Can't you see that you need a steward to police this in order for it to be worthwhile and accurate. It should be like a death certificate in reality if you want to use it for the application of the rates of attrition in greyhound racing. And why don't you do it with other dogs and cats and horses for that matter. The reason it is not done is that we all only have a limited amount of resources, individuals, the state and companies, and the costs simply outweigh the benefits.

Discodog wrote: »

Who funds this "well funded" animal rights movement ?. I have never found any animal welfare group in Ireland to be well founded. .

They Animal Liberation Front, the association of hunt saboteurs, etc all use the one PO box for donations and advertise for donations through propoganda, exploiting peoples good nature and disposition towards animals. Thats how they are funded. They are a global movement. Those interested might Google Helen Newkirk of Peta to get some further insight into their modus operandii and funding.

Discodog wrote: »

Snip Nua's death was only "discovered" because an insider posted on a UK Greyhound welfare forum - Sighthounds online, the thread is still there. The IGB said that they did not know if the dog was alive or dead. As usual there was a discussion regarding getting an FOI order. The death was then confirmed. Greyhound Data shows the results & "performance" of every dog so why can't it show deaths & injuries..

Snip nuas death was not a cover up. The plain fact is that this sort of event does not make headline news but it was not covered up, proof being that we are talking about it now. To say that it was only 'discovered by an insider' is again somewhat sensationalist. The IGB is not the KGB and we don't have insiders or outsiders, just people who are involved in greyhounds. We do however have 'railers' and 'middle seeds' and 'wide runners' i am pleased to let you know.
Can you advise how many dogs are run over by cars every day? If this event was to happen, and no one reported it in the sunday newspapers was because it was not news worthy. They would hardly report on a person being killed not to mind a dog.

Discodog wrote: »

This continuing claim that "greyhound people" care about their dogs is unbelievable. According to your figures there should be about 200,000 Greyhounds alive & well yet you can give no explanation as to where they are..

The only thing unbelievable is that you insist that Greyhound owners don't care about their dogs. This is constant haranging of decent people and is without foundation. Most parents care for their children yet some few don't do right by them.
As regards the whereabouts of 200,000 greyhounds They are spread around Ireland from Caherciveen to the Inisowen penninsula, across Scotland England and Wales, and it would be the mother and father of a job to take a census of where they all are. Some are rehomed on the continent on top of that and some have been put to sleep. The whole basis of your argument is using the IGBs regulatory framework against them, while other less regulated or indeed unregulated dog breeding goes entirely unchecked. Could you advise how many Pit Bull Terriers are bred each year and how many are alive at 10 years of age. The whole premise of your argument is constantly to throw the dirt and see the Greyhound industry duck and dive. Why attack the better areas in dog welfare, surely this is counter productive.

Discodog wrote: »

Coursing is necessary to provide entertainment & lots of money. Are you suggesting that the Coursers, who you claim look after the Hares, would stop if there were no Coursing ?. Any wild animal population will increase if people allow the animals to breed so that they can be abused for entertainment. You don't need a report to confirm the obvious.

I would invite you to get involved in the coursing industry and make money from it. If you can your a better man or woman than I am. Its a hobby for the bulk of us and it costs money to be involved. Some may break even and some if you are fortunate to have a good stud dog or brood bitch may even make a profit. With food, vetinary bills, travel, entry fees, collars, leads, coats, registration fees, stud fees, weighing scales, mincers, walking machines, an presents for the wife to stay in the good books, its an expensive passtime.
I'm glad that you concur that coursing conserves hares. The converse is also true, no coursing diminishes hares. See the report for evidence.

DePurpereWolf · 18-05-2010 10:52pm

scartman1 wrote: »

...
The following is a link to an independendent report carried out by Queens University College Belfast. It shows when coursing was stopped in the North of Ireland that hare numbers actually decreased while in the republic they actually increased, particularly in areas where Coursing Clubs were active.

This reports demonstrates the link between coursing and conservation.
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/Quercus/News/Title,184184,en.html#d.en.184184

This link you describe is that there are more hares in conservations due to active population control. So, in some sense the ICC 'breeds' hares to course with, nothing I would be surprised about.
It goes on by declaring that if there are changes in the legal status of coursing in Ireland, the conservation of the Irish hare would fall on the government and may necessitate an increase in subsidies.

The abstract from the paper:

Conflicts between field sports, animal welfare and species conservation are frequently contentious. In Ireland, the Irish Coursing Club (ICC) competitively tests the speed and agility of two greyhounds by using a live hare as a lure. Each coursing club is associated with a number of discrete localities, known as preserves, which are managed favourably for hares including predator control, prohibition of other forms of hunting such as shooting and poaching and the maintenance and enhancement of suitable hare habitat. We indirectly tested the efficacy of such management by comparing hare abundance within preserves to that in the wider countryside. In real terms, mean hare density was 18 times higher, and after controlling for variance in habitat remained 3 times higher, within ICC preserves than the wider countryside. Whilst we cannot rule out the role of habitat, our results suggest that hare numbers are maintained at high levels in ICC preserves either because clubs select areas of high hare density and subsequently have a negligible effect on numbers or that active population management positively increases hare abundance. The Irish hare Lepus timidus hibernicus Bell, 1837 is one of the highest priority species for conservation action in Ireland and without concessions for its role in conservation, any change in the legal status of hare coursing under animal welfare grounds, may necessitate an increase in Government subsidies for conservation on private land together with a strengthened capacity for legislation enforcement.

Digital object identifier (DOI):
10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.030.2009

I am not outright against coursing, and I don't feel that this is what the thread should be about. I believe the hares have a much better live than the greyhounds.
But you have to be correct about your point. Which is that with coursing, the population of hares is actively kept high by the coursers. This doesn't say anything about coursing being 'good' or 'bad'.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 19-05-2010 8:48am

scartman1 wrote: »

Hares are generally taken from areas in which they thrive, generally the coursing clubs own preserves, and returned to same after the coursing meeting...I hope also that we are debunking any myths and untruths that are constantly being protrayed in relation to coursing.

I think you need to come into the real world. Taken from club preserves? On 2 Sunday mornings in a row (a few months back) I was surveying bird activity in pastureland when I met men who were catching Hares for coursing. There was no coursing Club preserve; indeed I know of no such thing in my division in the North East. Also, I have been to Coursing meets and Hares are certainly not returned to where they were caught around here. There maybe some clubs you know who do things "right" but please see that the picture you keep painting is not of the whole country by any stretch of the imagination.

Far from debunking any so-called myths you are fueling a platform to allow others show exactly what coursing is. I never gave it great thought (having been brought up in a coursing family) but your highlighting of the subject sparked me to consider it more and to make enquires on the subject among my collegues. I have come to the conclusion that for me it is cruel and unnecessary.

Discodog · 19-05-2010 9:47am

Scartman:

You seem to think that there is this huge animal rights army with limitless resources. If this is true then would it not suggest that they have a lot of support ?. How could there be so much animal cruelty if there was this imagined army patrolling the land ?. The groups that promote awareness have influenced some people in the UK but the majority simply know that exploiting a dog, purely for entertainment & then casting it away is wrong. The situation in Ireland will slowly change as people become more aware.

There is no framework in the IGB. According to you owners can do as they like because of their supposed property rights. Do you really believe that there are 200,000 Greyhounds living happy lives here ?. That would be one for every 6 households. I live in a fair sized rural village & I am the only one with a pet Greyhound. You are right that the Pound situation is bad & the huge numbers of Greyhounds ending up there make it much worse. If Greyhound owners care so much why do so many Greyhounds die in the Pound ?. Why don't the caring Greyhound owners re-home them ?. Regarding property rights you imply that an owner can do as he likes yet you also claim that the owners care.

When a Greyhound is put down the Vet could easily supply a certificate but it isn't necessary. If the Industry suddenly suggested that lots of dogs had died of cancer no one would believe it. Give us the figures & we are perfectly capable of analysing them.

If you believe that it is easy to get information from the IGB why don't you prove it ?. Why have you failed to provide one single link to the IGB accounts, welfare spending, etc ?. You keep linking the fate of greyhounds to other breeds but there is a huge difference. You & the IGB tell us that the Industry is well regulated & that births are recorded. You use this as an argument to justify us giving €12 million of our hard earned money never mind the huge betting revenue. Your industry breeds 20,000 dogs every year when they know that only a small percentage of those dogs will ever race & then they cannot account for the fate of the rest.

If the figures were going to show the Industry in a good light they would be broadcast from the rooftops. We all use good numbers as PR & we hide the bad. If the IGB cannot provide basic information then it cannot argue that the Industry is well regulated. It is no longer acceptable for any publicly funded body to be self regulated as we have all seen the results. So justify your claims & give us some real numerical evidence ?.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 19-05-2010 4:09pm

Well said Discodog. Scartman would have us believe that there is a huge Animal Rights lobby in Ireland. I have been involved with animals and Wildlife all my life - including professionally - and I can honestly say even when dealing with wildlife poisoning, crulety or killing cases I have never come across anybody from any organised Animal Rights groups. Yes there are animal welfare and animal rescue groups, but these are not the legions Scartman refers to. I believe he is trying to steer the boards towards a myth that such lawbreaking organisations are patrolling the Irish countryside, in an effort to deflect attention from the activities of some groups involved in blood sports. Regardless of my opinion on blood sports I take exception to him trying to brand those of us who love nature, and nurture it, as fanatics. Let's be honest if there are any Animal Rights groups (as portrayed by Scartman) in Ireland they are a very very small and inactive group. Certainly not worth the weight of words directed at them on this thread to date.

scartman1 · 19-05-2010 11:07pm

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

Well said Discodog. Scartman would have us believe that there is a huge Animal Rights lobby in Ireland. I have been involved with animals and Wildlife all my life - including professionally - and I can honestly say even when dealing with wildlife poisoning, crulety or killing cases I have never come across anybody from any organised Animal Rights groups. Yes there are animal welfare and animal rescue groups, but these are not the legions Scartman refers to. I believe he is trying to steer the boards towards a myth that such lawbreaking organisations are patrolling the Irish countryside, in an effort to deflect attention from the activities of some groups involved in blood sports. Regardless of my opinion on blood sports I take exception to him trying to brand those of us who love nature, and nurture it, as fanatics. Let's be honest if there are any Animal Rights groups (as portrayed by Scartman) in Ireland they are a very very small and inactive group. Certainly not worth the weight of words directed at them on this thread to date.

I am concerned that your replies relating to my posts seem to continually miss the point and you strive to dismiss my postings as those of a crank. Please don't concern yourself as to my mental well being as I am a cheerful sort and can take your sling shots on the chin without flinching. However the problem is that readers need to be aware that Animal Rights, while small in number, are very adept at increasing their profile, thro constant propoganda as the following links will demonstrate. Rey Rhythmic Sociopaths attempts to advise otherwise leads to people sticking their heads in the sand. While Rey Rhythmic Sociopath is correct that large numbers of them don't stalk the land, those few that do try to make their presence felt by using less that peaceful means and other media. At the national coursing meeting this year they arranged for a demonstration and while they only numbered 30 or so, compared with the 30,000 inside supporting, they are continually bombarding field sports and currently through their connections in the Green Party, inspite of their miniscule numbers, they are attempting to dictate government policy with regard to Animal Welfare. This not only affects field sports but also farming practices.

Nuala Fenlon, Claire O Donavan are well known activists in the Animal Rights Front and they are 2 of a four member Green Party Animal Welfare advisory commitee charged with drafting the upcoming Bills on The Ban on Carted Stag Hunting, The Dog Breeding Establishments Bill and the Animal Wellfare Bill. Another major contributer to Green Party Policy is Bernie Wright who is a life long animal Wrights activist with connections to the UK movement.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire/animalrights This group are very media savvy and promote various causes that are questionable to say the very least. Bernie Wright is very much involved with them.
image.php?v=PqmbL19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXkKbk_R8Is This is the kind of activites that she supports.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2000/0930/journal_2/index.html. This is what the farmers think.

I will try and dig out a few more links for the public to consider, and perhaps you can judge for yourself whether Animal Rights have a foothold in Ireland or not.

scartman1 · 19-05-2010 11:19pm

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

This link you describe is that there are more hares in conservations due to active population control. So, in some sense the ICC 'breeds' hares to course with, nothing I would be surprised about.
It goes on by declaring that if there are changes in the legal status of coursing in Ireland, the conservation of the Irish hare would fall on the government and may necessitate an increase in subsidies.

The abstract from the paper:

Digital object identifier (DOI):
10.4098/j.at.0001-7051.030.2009

I am not outright against coursing, and I don't feel that this is what the thread should be about. I believe the hares have a much better live than the greyhounds.
But you have to be correct about your point. Which is that with coursing, the population of hares is actively kept high by the coursers. This doesn't say anything about coursing being 'good' or 'bad'.

I'm glad that you read the report and found it interesting. I agree with your statement that it does not say coursing is good or bad in a moral sense, but it provides Independent evidence as to the link between coursing and conservation. I agree with your emphasis Which is that with coursing, the population of hares is actively kept high by the coursers. Whether this is right or wrong morally is another question.

The welfare of the Greyhounds that course is I admit another related issue which has basically been discussed at lenght between disco dog and You and I over a number of posts. I think we all are approaching it from different angles, but i believe your position and mine are more closely aligned in dealing with the welfare issues that arise from Greyhound Racing/Coursing than Discodogs position of banning it outright. I believe in the fact that we have an imperfect situation, (who does?) but we can work on it together.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 20-05-2010 8:35am

It has become clear that this is not a thread about Animal Rights activists but a simple Coursing/Stag Hunt V Anti Blood Sports groups or Hunt Saboteurs.

A few links to obscure websites and Youtube doesn't cut the mustard with me, I'm afraid. Even the article from the Journal emphasises that attempts by UK activists to hold a meeting here were boycotted by Irish Animal Welfare groups. Honestly, this is not an issue in Ireland. I'm not trying to personalise this. I simply want to state that the notion that Animal Rights groups are anything other than a small handful of individuals is absurd. Some posters obviously have given this a political slant but let's face it 99% of the people of Ireland have never considered such groups and are totally unaware of them due to their minute impact. Even within those who have a Nature/Environmental interest Animal Rights groups are alien and immaterial.
Mountains are certainly being made of Molehills here!

A straight forward debate on the merits, or otherwise, of Stag Hunting and Coursing would have been more appropriate and would probably have led to a more informative discussion - however it's too late for that now.

scartman1 · 21-05-2010 6:26pm

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

It has become clear that this is not a thread about Animal Rights activists but a simple Coursing/Stag Hunt V Anti Blood Sports groups or Hunt Saboteurs..

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath
The title on the thread is The Frontline Animal Rights and Rural Ireland Debate. I think we have all followed the essence of the topic to date. Basically the Frontline program had a Green Senator Niall O Brollachain on in relation to defending the Green Party and Their intention to bring 2 Bills to the Dail. One relateed to the Ban on Carted Stag Hunting, and the Other to the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill. A portion of the audience siding with the minister contained many well known animal rights activists and a farmer representing Farmers against the Hunts, and those against the Bills contained representatives from RISE,(rural Ireland Says Enough), The IGB, The ICC, and the Hunt association of Ireland. I think that we have followed the basic thread quite well considering tha above.

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

A few links to obscure websites and Youtube doesn't cut the mustard with me, I'm afraid. Even the article from the Journal emphasises that attempts by UK activists to hold a meeting here were boycotted by Irish Animal Welfare groups. Honestly, this is not an issue in Ireland. I'm not trying to personalise this. I simply want to state that the notion that Animal Rights groups are anything other than a small handful of individuals is absurd. Some posters obviously have given this a political slant but let's face it 99% of the people of Ireland have never considered such groups and are totally unaware of them due to their minute impact. Even within those who have a Nature/Environmental interest Animal Rights groups are alien and immaterial.
Mountains are certainly being made of Molehills here! .

I would respectfully dissagree here, as , though I agree with your assertion that the Animal Rights people are few on the Ground, they have become involved in the Green Party, and given this parties involvement in the Government they are now striving to implement their objectives politically, and are working under the guise of animal welfare. Many of the audience on the Frontline program are active animal rights campaigners and even a quick sconce at their websites show them supporting the release of Mink from farms, and even carrying out this act. The evidence is clear that they have an agenda and are in a position to put the Ward Union out of business and the give the Greyhound industry and the Hunt Kennels a kick in the teeth by putting them under the scope of the DBEB.

I'm not alone in my concern and the size of the petition raised to date by the RISE will illustrate this.

I could and will post more links from reputable sources illustrating the connection between the government and the animal rights and how it is affecting our country and how it is run. The links posted to date which you state doesn't cut the mustard with you are in fact the sites of the Animal Rights people themselves, its their position in their own language, and the Farmers Journal is obviously a well known and respected media.

Rey Rhythmic Sociopath wrote: »

A straight forward debate on the merits, or otherwise, of Stag Hunting and Coursing would have been more appropriate and would probably have led to a more informative discussion - however it's too late for that now.

Its never too late discuss the above in more detail as it is still covered by the scope of the thread.
I was curious by your previous statement that you were prepared to support fishing yet saw coursing and the stag hunting as activities that should be banned. Surely this position lacks consistency, particularly when you consider that the objective of the latter is not to kill the animals where fishing does, and fishing does. Fishing where you catch and release is however very similar.

tomybhoy · 24-05-2010 6:56pm

Lets be fair, the antis are willing to portray themselves as pro animal welfare when in fact the animals are the last thing on their minds.
I have heard it more than once from antis saying they love nature when the anti philosophy would lead to the extinction to a number of species that are now thriving.
The hare population in the North is proof enough for people who really do love animals, the Green/anti policies are aspirational policies that will see the destruction of habitats and species on a scale we have not seen in Ireland in our life times.

The Frontline Animal Rights&Rural Ireland debate last night

Comments