Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Celebrating the demise of cruel stag hunting

Options
124

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    planetX wrote: »
    considerthis
    If you have no views, why don't you actually debate STAG HUNTING? All you've produced so far are convoluted diversions.

    Snap! Its ironic indeed that you yourself don't contribute to the debate one jot, except to criticised someone else who you claim doesn't contribute to the debate!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Can we please stop the personal digs and get back on topic please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    If only the fox is usually "taken out" by a single gunshot, then I'd agree. But that's not my experience of what happens when I've seen foxes shot. But you may be right, even where a fox is shot with 2 or three cartridges and still staggers half way across a field.
    Let’s put it like this – which do you suppose is more likely to result in the quicker, less painful death? Being shot, or being attacked by hounds?
    I notice you don't mention whether you think hooking fish with barbed hooks is wrong for (i) catching them for food and (ii) catching them for sport, or where both are on the scale of humans killing or torturing animals.
    I don’t have a problem with anyone hunting/fishing for food, provided the animal is killed in as humane a manner as possible – some suffering is inevitable, but the intent is to obtain food rather than inflict pain. Hunting/fishing for sport, on the other hand, has no such moral justification (in my opinion).
    I think all torture is wrong and to differentiate between fish being played on a barbed hook for sport and, for example, killing a fox for sport, seems morally difficult to do.
    Which is possibly why nobody on this thread has attempted to differentiate between them? What’s with the fishing for sport straw-man?
    In fact, while swatting a fly seems reasonably likely to be painless for the fly, why is killing a fly any more or less morally acceptable than killing a fox or a bird or a fish?
    Is fly-swatting a sport?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Let’s put it like this – which do you suppose is more likely to result in the quicker, less painful death? Being shot, or being attacked by hounds?

    If only one method were always or often better than the other. I've seen a fox killed by hounds in seconds, and one shot by men take much longer to die later as it staggered across fields with 2 BB cartridges in its body. I'm not sure how questions like this, which seems to be designed to be rhetorical and not really looking for an answer, are really of any help in developing the subject.

    For me it's actually not which is better, but why is any cruelty necessary? As to which is more likely to result in a quick death, then the answer must be to be attacked by a pack of dogs. Of course, you'll probably come back now and try to factor in the chase, as opposed to the kill, and maybe you'd be right.

    But to be shot and carry on for some time with shot in ones body, or to be killed instantly, or almost instantly, by a pack of dogs, for me it would be the latter every time.

    I've seen many animals killed in the wild by other animals, and while it's rarely to be recommended, one thing which is apparent is that it's usually swift and reasonably painless, even though it might appear traumatic to us as humans.

    It's possible to transfer human emotions to animals and assume they feel as we do, for example that they know they are about to be killed, as we would if in their situation. It may be a mistake to make such assumptions.

    Choices about killing are rarely easy for us as humans ( they appear to be easy for animals) and, for example, I am not sure if killing animals for meat in a slaughterhouse, where they are stunned by a bolt through the frontal lobe of the skull, is "better" than being killed by having ones throat slit ( as in the halal method). I've seen both methods at close quarters, and I can't honestly say either is better.

    Just as I can't say its better to kill a fox with a shotgun or with a pack of dogs. both have problems and neither is as easy as I might like.

    In stag hunting, my understanding is the animal is not killed, but chased, so the objection here seems to be that an animal which is designed for "flight" is chased, and that some don;t think that is very nice. I'm sure they are right, but I am equally sure that it doesn't exercise me as much as how we kill animals and, fro example, I wonder is it better to play with the marlin on a barbed hook lodged in its flesh for hours, with it pulling against the hook which is all the time tearing deeper into its flesh, or to chase a stag and not kill it. I really can't decide which is "worse".
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don’t have a problem with anyone hunting/fishing for food, provided the animal is killed in as humane a manner as possible – some suffering is inevitable, but the intent is to obtain food rather than inflict pain. Hunting/fishing for sport, on the other hand, has no such moral justification (in my opinion).

    I agree that hunting and fishing for food is morally justifiable. Is fishing for food using a line and barbed hook morally justifiable? Or is it better to fish with a net? Or to farm fish and not fish on a line with hooks at all?

    Being honest, I am not sure.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Which is possibly why nobody on this thread has attempted to differentiate between them? What’s with the fishing for sport straw-man?

    I have no idea what this paragraph means and imagine that it's not really meant to develop an argument but more to make some sort of point. If you want to rephrase it and you are genuinely looking to discuss, I'll answer as best I can.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Is fly-swatting a sport?

    I really have no idea, and think we'll have to make up our own minds on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    If only one method were always or often better than the other.
    Which is more likely to be “better”?
    I've seen many animals killed in the wild by other animals, and while it's rarely to be recommended, one thing which is apparent is that it's usually swift and reasonably painless....
    The findings of the Report of Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales would seem to differ. Paragraph 6.49:
    The evidence which we have seen suggests that, in the case of the killing of a fox by hounds above ground, death is not always effected by a single bite to the neck or shoulders by the leading hound resulting in the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. In a proportion of cases it results from massive injuries to the chest and vital organs, although insensibility and death will normally follow within a matter of seconds once the fox is caught. There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
    ... I wonder is it better to play with the marlin on a barbed hook lodged in its flesh for hours, with it pulling against the hook which is all the time tearing deeper into its flesh, or to chase a stag and not kill it.
    I’m unsure as to why you feel the need to continuously allude to Marlin fishing?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Which is more likely to be “better”?

    Please see my previous answer.

    djpbarry wrote: »
    The findings of the Report of Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England & Wales would seem to differ. Paragraph 6.49:

    I can only speak about my own experience in the wild. If your experience comes from reports from the house of commons, rather than your own actual experiences, then that is your choice.
    djpbarry wrote: »

    I’m unsure as to why you feel the need to continuously allude to Marlin fishing?

    Why do you need to understand why I mention it, and are you not able to read something on its own merits, rather than be not able to consider something unless you understand why the writer wrote it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    Quote
    Snap! Its ironic indeed that you yourself don't contribute to the debate one jot, except to criticised someone else who you claim doesn't contribute to the debate!

    I'm just disappointed having seen a thread about stag-hunting, to find that it's all about fishing apparently, or whether this death is better than that death. I'd like to know if anyone can come up with a good reason not to ban stag-hunting, other than that it's fun for a few deranged individuals?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    planetX wrote: »
    Quote
    Snap! Its ironic indeed that you yourself don't contribute to the debate one jot, except to criticised someone else who you claim doesn't contribute to the debate!
    I thought I asked for an end to the personal comments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Please see my previous answer.
    You haven't provided an answer. Which is more likely to result in suffering: being shot, or being attacked by hounds? It's a simple, straightforward question.
    I can only speak about my own experience in the wild. If your experience comes from reports from the house of commons, rather than your own actual experiences, then that is your choice.
    Yeah, I prefer to base my opinions on balanced evidence rather than anecdotes.
    Why do you need to understand why I mention it, and are you not able to read something on its own merits, rather than be not able to consider something unless you understand why the writer wrote it?
    Your refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question (on this thread and others) is growing tiresome. If you're not prepared to discuss the content of your posts, then please don't bother posting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You haven't provided an answer. Which is more likely to result in suffering: being shot, or being attacked by hounds? It's a simple, straightforward question.
    .

    Perhaps you missed it when i said in a previous answer;
    "But to be shot and carry on for some time with shot in ones body, or to be killed instantly, or almost instantly, by a pack of dogs, for me it would be the latter every time.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Yeah, I prefer to base my opinions on balanced evidence rather than anecdotes.

    And I prefer to draw on my own experience of seeing how animals die in the wild, both at the hand of man, at the hand of other animals and of "natural" causes, in addition to discussing it with others and drawing on others experiences. So we are different.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Your refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question (on this thread and others) is growing tiresome. If you're not prepared to discuss the content of your posts, then please don't bother posting.

    As we have seen, I did reply but you seemed to have missed it.

    Sometimes answers are not straightforward and questions are not simple. If you are growing "tiresome" then why engage with me? No one is holding a gun to your head and making you engage with anyone whom you find tiresome.

    Just because someone doesn't answer a question the way you might like them to, perhaps its not a good idea to appear to take it so personally. There are many ways to answer a question and it's boring for others to have to keep repeating what one has said, as in the above example, because someone keeps asking the question and missing that one has already answered it.

    Please feel free to not engage with me if you find my answers tiresome. All I can do is give my opinion drawn from my experience, and if you don't like it I am sorry.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Perhaps you missed it when i said in a previous answer;
    "But to be shot and carry on for some time with shot in ones body, or to be killed instantly, or almost instantly, by a pack of dogs, for me it would be the latter every time.
    No, I didn’t miss it, but it doesn’t answer my question (but then, I think you know that).
    And I prefer to draw on my own experience of seeing how animals die in the wild, both at the hand of man, at the hand of other animals and of "natural" causes, in addition to discussing it with others and drawing on others experiences.
    So in other words, you consider your personal experience to be more reliable than published evidence? Is that not somewhat hypocritical, given that you earlier scoffed at another poster for failing to produce evidence to support their opinion?
    Sometimes answers are not straightforward and questions are not simple. If you are growing "tiresome" then why engage with me?
    Rest assured that if I were not the forum moderator, I would not bother.
    Just because someone doesn't answer a question the way you might like them to, perhaps its not a good idea to appear to take it so personally. There are many ways to answer a question...
    Avoiding the question is not one of them. Now, back on-topic please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, I didn’t miss it, but it doesn’t answer my question (but then, I think you know that).

    Perhaps you want to think I know that, but you are wrong. I have repeated the answer in my last post, and if you choose to continue to claim that i haven't answered it, then thats up to you. Others can make up their own mind.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So in other words, you consider your personal experience to be more reliable than published evidence?

    Yes, in this case it is. Having seen a considerable number of animals dying on 4 continents, some killed by man, some killed by other animals and others dying of "natural" causes, I don;t need a house of commons report to tell me that the evidence I have seen is not correct.

    You seem to like polarised discussions, where either the house of commons report or me must be right. Where we differ is that I understand it's possible we both may be right, and that there is no right or wrong, but merely different opinions.

    Incidentally, do you also put your complete faith behind the house of commons report which concluded that Blair & Campbell had no hand, act or part in "sexing up" whats become known as the dodgy dossier? Certainly, if you do, you will be the first person I have met either inside or outside of the house of commons who does believe that, which seems to indicate that the house of commons reports are not always believed.

    ( ps, the last paragraph is somewhat rhetorical so don't feel the need to answer it)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭fairplay


    "Consider This"'s credibily is in shreds...he has described angling as "barbaric cruelty"...and then in another posting says he has no views either way on this whole bloodsports issue. Using such strong terms to describe an activity that is the subject of differing views is most certainly expressing a view on it.

    He waffles and meanders every which way, wriggling on the end of a hook upon which he has freely impaled himself.

    Hob philosophers are great at showing off their imagined philosophical prowess, but they always end up making asses of themselves...

    You don't have to be a great thinker to act on that sound old piece of advice...

    When you're in a hole, stop digging...


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭madmac187


    Personally, I don't think that there is any point debating this topic. You will always have stereotypical views of people as I read earlier, calling people who shoot deer barbaric and culshies.

    I think that people usually who do so call such things barbaric and stupid never really understand what occurs. In most situations, first of all deer are shot. Yes it is a sport and yes it is a source of enjoyment for others. Have any of the people who condemn it been up any of the mountains in the Midlands lately anyway. You have deer at the moment in peoples gardens, farmland and roadways. Without them being culled they would run riot, damage people's livelihoods and even put public safety in danger with regard to road accidents. So how do people propose to control them when numbers grow to uncontrollable numbers, deer condoms, abortion of calves etc? I suppose might create a few jobs :D

    Not only that but if someone has not attended a stalk how can one judge. When stalking occurs the deer dies instantly, in a more humane manner than it does in a slaughter house. More so what is wrong with hunting them for meat. Just because something doesn't come from Tescos doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. This concept maybe alien to someone livnig in a city, but not to everyone. No one can judge.

    As with regard to someone saying it damages the environment, well, the manufacture of an Ipod is more harmful to the environment, in production and power than stag hunting. Not saying ban that, just saying everyone contributes, so why stop something that is helping the environment maintain equilibrium.

    Also no one recognises how well monitored and regulated it is in this country. We actually do one thing right. In that instant when someone abuses their right to hunt, they suffer the consequences.

    My two cents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 blueharvest


    just wondering if there is anyone on this thread from the country....also, for that matter is there anyone here who supports hunting....I have a few small sheep for the love of the animals, and if I was to show you pictures of the mutilated carcasses of lambs after being attacked by ruthless foxes, your opinion would soon be changed. 3 lambs, all dead

    "He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
    And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
    No one believed. They listened at his heart.
    Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
    No more to build on there. And they, since they
    Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs."


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭madmac187


    just wondering if there is anyone on this thread from the country....also, for that matter is there anyone here who supports hunting....I have a few small sheep for the love of the animals, and if I was to show you pictures of the mutilated carcasses of lambs after being attacked by ruthless foxes, your opinion would soon be changed. 3 lambs, all dead

    "He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
    And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
    No one believed. They listened at his heart.
    Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
    No more to build on there. And they, since they
    Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs."

    I am for it man and from the country..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 blueharvest


    madmac187 wrote: »
    I am for it man and from the country..

    who is out protesting for the lambs and the other animals being killed by foxes....hypocrites them all if you ask me


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    who is out protesting for the lambs and the other animals being killed by foxes....hypocrites them all if you ask me

    I think that part of it may be that in Dublin there are quite a few foxes knocking about - and for a lot of people seeing one in the morning or late at night is the closest they get to nature and wildlife. Also they don't tend to kill too many city dwellers' livestock so they are seen as 100% cute. If peoples livelihoods were affected attitudes would immediately change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13 blueharvest


    Morlar wrote: »
    I think that part of it may be that in Dublin there are quite a few foxes knocking about - and for a lot of people seeing one in the morning or late at night is the closest they get to nature and wildlife. Also they don't tend to kill too many city dwellers' livestock so they are seen as 100% cute. If peoples livelihoods were affected attitudes would immediately change.

    They (city dwellers) are insulated from the true nature of the fox, and as you said, view it as a cute, adorable creature who could cause no harm. Dead lambs cannot defend themselves from foxes. I'm sure opinion would change if they saw what these "adorable" creatures are truly capable of


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Perhaps you want to think I know that, but you are wrong. I have repeated the answer in my last post, and if you choose to continue to claim that i haven't answered it, then thats up to you.
    I asked which is more likely to result in the greater suffering; being shot or being attacked by hounds. You replied with “But to be shot and carry on for some time with shot in ones body, or to be killed instantly, or almost instantly, by a pack of dogs, for me it would be the latter every time.”. In other words, you would, obviously, rather be killed instantly. But that’s not what I asked.

    Let’s rephrase; how likely is it that a pack of hounds will kill instantly? How likely is it that a marksman will require more than one shot to kill?
    Yes, in this case it is. Having seen a considerable number of animals dying on 4 continents, some killed by man, some killed by other animals and others dying of "natural" causes, I don;t need a house of commons report to tell me that the evidence I have seen is not correct.
    But in the context of an anonymous online discussion forum, your experience is irrelevant, because nobody can possibly know whether it is grounded in reality. Hence the need for verifiable evidence. If everyone were to counter arguments with “Well, in my experience...”, discussions would quickly descend into farce.
    You seem to like polarised discussions, where either the house of commons report or me must be right.
    No, I like evidence-based discussions in which the participants rely on more than just anecdotes to support their points.
    Incidentally, do you also put your complete faith behind the house of commons report which concluded that Blair & Campbell had no hand, act or part in "sexing up" whats become known as the dodgy dossier?
    I don’t put complete “faith” in any report. Nor do I have complete faith in anonymous postings on an internet discussion forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    madmac187 wrote: »
    Personally, I don't think that there is any point debating this topic. You will always have stereotypical views of people as I read earlier, calling people who shoot deer barbaric and culshies.

    I think that people usually who do so call such things barbaric and stupid never really understand what occurs. In most situations, first of all deer are shot. Yes it is a sport and yes it is a source of enjoyment for others. Have any of the people who condemn it been up any of the mountains in the Midlands lately anyway. You have deer at the moment in peoples gardens, farmland and roadways. Without them being culled they would run riot, damage people's livelihoods and even put public safety in danger with regard to road accidents. So how do people propose to control them when numbers grow to uncontrollable numbers, deer condoms, abortion of calves etc? I suppose might create a few jobs :D

    Not only that but if someone has not attended a stalk how can one judge. When stalking occurs the deer dies instantly, in a more humane manner than it does in a slaughter house. More so what is wrong with hunting them for meat. Just because something doesn't come from Tescos doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. This concept maybe alien to someone livnig in a city, but not to everyone. No one can judge.

    As with regard to someone saying it damages the environment, well, the manufacture of an Ipod is more harmful to the environment, in production and power than stag hunting. Not saying ban that, just saying everyone contributes, so why stop something that is helping the environment maintain equilibrium.

    Also no one recognises how well monitored and regulated it is in this country. We actually do one thing right. In that instant when someone abuses their right to hunt, they suffer the consequences.

    My two cents.

    You seem to be talking about deer stalking, as opposed to stag hunting , which is the subject of this thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    madmac187 wrote: »
    When stalking occurs the deer dies instantly, in a more humane manner than it does in a slaughter house. More so what is wrong with hunting them for meat.
    I don’t believe anyone has said there is anything wrong with hunting for meat. “Hunting” with hounds is a different matter entirely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fairplay wrote: »
    "Consider This"'s credibily is in shreds...he has described angling as "barbaric cruelty"...and then in another posting says he has no views either way on this whole bloodsports issue. Using such strong terms to describe an activity that is the subject of differing views is most certainly expressing a view on it.

    He waffles and meanders every which way, wriggling on the end of a hook upon which he has freely impaled himself.

    Hob philosophers are great at showing off their imagined philosophical prowess, but they always end up making asses of themselves...
    STOP PERSONALISNG THE DISCUSSION.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    Still not on staghunting :( but to respond re foxes - I for one am out in the country, and I'll tell you that we are overrun with rats thanks to the near elimination of foxes in this area. Foxes mainly hunt rats, and if they take the odd lamb (it would have to be a tiny one), well that's a blow for the farmer, but then the lamb is hardly destined for a pretty end.
    My experience of the hunt where I live is having a pack of hounds tearing uncontrolled through my garden twice last year, terrorising my pets and child. There is nothing you can do to stop them. There are plenty of farmers who don't want hunts on their land, they do a huge amount of damage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    planetX wrote: »
    Still not on staghunting :( but to respond re foxes - I for one am out in the country, and I'll tell you that we are overrun with rats thanks to the near elimination of foxes in this area. Foxes mainly hunt rats, and if they take the odd lamb (it would have to be a tiny one), well that's a blow for the farmer, but then the lamb is hardly destined for a pretty end.
    My experience of the hunt where I live is having a pack of hounds tearing uncontrolled through my garden twice last year, terrorising my pets and child. There is nothing you can do to stop them. There are plenty of farmers who don't want hunts on their land, they do a huge amount of damage.

    I'd love to see an area in the british isles where foxes have been nearly eliminated. I have lived in areas where there have been plenty of foxes and the rat population was also in healthy numbers.

    Foxes will take almost anything for food, which includes ducks, chickens, an occasional lamb, dog food, pig feed, cattle feed, and almost any other animal feed etc etc. I've never known rats to be top choice for foxes, and certainly never known foxes to be instrumental in keeping the rat population down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭fairplay


    djpbarry wrote: »
    STOP PERSONALISNG THE DISCUSSION.

    I don't agree, "djbarry"...this is part of the cut and thrust of debate and well within the bounderies of fair comment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭planetX


    I've never known rats to be top choice for foxes, and certainly never known foxes to be instrumental in keeping the rat population down.

    I suggest a bit of research then, try James Fairley's book of Irish Wild Mammals for a start. I would tend to believe people who have analysed the contents of droppings, rather than anecdotes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fairplay wrote: »
    I don't agree, "djbarry"...this is part of the cut and thrust of debate and well within the bounderies of fair comment.
    In your opinion. However, attacking a poster, or slighting a poster's character, is against the rules of this forum.

    Now, less of the discussion on moderation please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 84 ✭✭fairplay


    djpbarry wrote: »
    In your opinion. However, attacking a poster, or slighting a poster's character, is against the rules of this forum.

    Now, less of the discussion on moderation please.

    I replied to your criticism. One cannot slight the "character" of a pseudynom. Robust criticism is not an "attack".

    May I suggest that you allow this debate to flow...without these wimpy interventions?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    fairplay wrote: »
    May I suggest that you allow this debate to flow...without these wimpy interventions?
    May I suggest you stick to the charter and take heed of moderator warnings? Now drop it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement