5,000 attend pro-hunting rally

harryd2

Just saw this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0327/breaking17.html

I was surprised to see such a turnout..
Didn't think there was such a motivated pro-hunting community in Ireland..

what is being done in their name is a major attack on the lifestyle of the ordinary people in the countryside

Has the obvious response of - the alternative been an attack on basic animal rights of Irish wildlife..
I hope the gov don't listen

It wasn't me!

harryd2 wrote: »

Just saw this http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0327/breaking17.html

I was surprised to see such a turnout..
Didn't think there was such a motivated pro-hunting community in Ireland..

Has the obvious response of - the alternative been an attack on basic animal rights of Irish wildlife..
I hope the gov don't listen

Hunting, in all forms, is a seriously large part of Irish rural tradition. It's not some bastion of leftover imperialism or anything of the sort, as it's often characterised.

There's never been such vocal support for fieldsports as there is now, but the numbers have always been there. There are about 232,000 firearms licensed in the country, as a conservative estimate. The majority of these are for hunting. Hunting on horseback is still immensely popular as well, with the traditional hunt on December 26th still a visible part of Irish life.

The anti-hunting lobby is tiny. It always has been, comprised of a very few individuals. Its main strength is that it's always been extremely vocal, and for its size, it makes a lot more noise than those involved in fieldsports (I'm hesitant to use the term "hunting lobby", for such a thing does not, quintessentially, exist, while the anti-hunting groups certainly constitute a lobby). The key picture is of the relative sizes. The anti-hunt protesters were outnumbered in Waterford yesterday by about a thousand to one. Outside a coursing meeting in Clonmel a year or two ago, there was a protest, which they claimed was an enormous success, with an attendance of sixteen people, while the stadium they protested outside contained 20,000.

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem. There are a great number of mistaken views about the nature of killing involved in all sorts of fieldsports, and the important thing is to correct them where possible. The turnout yesterday demonstrates that rural sportspeople can be vocal where necessary. I heard John Gormley on the radio claiming that the fact that there were people protesting outside the conference meant the Greens were being effective in government. I don't know where he gets the impression that their role is to be so deeply unpopular, to be honest, but it's not for me to figure it out either.

I hope the Ward Union continue to hunt on. I hope traditional fieldsports continue to grow in popularity and that the administration of the countryside and its animals is left to the country people who understand it best, that people respect and admire our wildlife for what it is, rather than elevate it to some pedestal, failing to understand its subtle structures. What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

ISDW

I love where I live, as all of the local farmers have banned hunting on their land, and will come together to ensure it doesn't happen. These are rural Irish people, and they 'protest' by stopping it on their land rather than going to a political conference - I guess they're too busy looking after their rural way of life to take time off from it.

Maybe I misunderstand about the Ward Hunt, please tell me if I do, but are the stags not bred and then released so they can be hunted? If that is the case, I fail to see how it is management of the land. Obviously if that is not the case, then I still think there are more humane ways of controlling their numbers than chasing them before killing.

PaulB91

my personal view is that "hunting" in such forms as horse and hound is very outdated, and where i understand the need for keeping down certain forms of wildlife, is a pack of hounds and riders really the most humane form? for instance the Ward hunt from what i understand is the hunting of a stag whom's life is created purely for the hunt, i.e. they are farmed and then chosen from the herd by the hunt, released into the wild and chased down by horse and hound, i mean that's like breeding foxes and releasing them just to be hunted!

as for hunting foxes by horse and hound, i'm pretty sure that there is a more cost affective way than 40 or so hounds and 40 or so riders running across the countryside, knocking down fences and cutting wire fences in order to continue the hunt? I mean on what grounds are hunts still justified?

oh and i love the "leave the countryside to those who know it" argument, there are plenty of farmers against hunting mainly due to the damage it causes to their land - that is like splitting the country in two - people in towns and cities have as much say in the countryside as those in the country have a say in the towns and cities

Discodog

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem.

What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

Would you call digging up cubs & throwing them to hounds humane killing ?. or chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion ?.

The 1911 Act defines cruelty. It is illegal to "ill treat, infuriate or terrify" an animal or subject it to "unnecessary suffering ".

You may believe that there is no such thing as rights for animals but the law say different. The forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill which RISE oppose will bring Ireland in line with most European Countries who also believe that animals have rights.

Perhaps you would prefer Ireland to be the last outpost of cruelty ?.

Graces7

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Hunting, in all forms, is a seriously large part of Irish rural tradition. It's not some bastion of leftover imperialism or anything of the sort, as it's often characterised.

There's never been such vocal support for fieldsports as there is now, but the numbers have always been there. There are about 232,000 firearms licensed in the country, as a conservative estimate. The majority of these are for hunting. Hunting on horseback is still immensely popular as well, with the traditional hunt on December 26th still a visible part of Irish life.

The anti-hunting lobby is tiny. It always has been, comprised of a very few individuals. Its main strength is that it's always been extremely vocal, and for its size, it makes a lot more noise than those involved in fieldsports (I'm hesitant to use the term "hunting lobby", for such a thing does not, quintessentially, exist, while the anti-hunting groups certainly constitute a lobby). The key picture is of the relative sizes. The anti-hunt protesters were outnumbered in Waterford yesterday by about a thousand to one. Outside a coursing meeting in Clonmel a year or two ago, there was a protest, which they claimed was an enormous success, with an attendance of sixteen people, while the stadium they protested outside contained 20,000.

There's no such thing as animal rights, only welfare. Provided animals are treated with respect and killed humanely, I have no problem. There are a great number of mistaken views about the nature of killing involved in all sorts of fieldsports, and the important thing is to correct them where possible. The turnout yesterday demonstrates that rural sportspeople can be vocal where necessary. I heard John Gormley on the radio claiming that the fact that there were people protesting outside the conference meant the Greens were being effective in government. I don't know where he gets the impression that their role is to be so deeply unpopular, to be honest, but it's not for me to figure it out either.

I hope the Ward Union continue to hunt on. I hope traditional fieldsports continue to grow in popularity and that the administration of the countryside and its animals is left to the country people who understand it best, that people respect and admire our wildlife for what it is, rather than elevate it to some pedestal, failing to understand its subtle structures. What's best is that people continue to manage the countryside, effectively, that outdated and cruel practices are discontinued and that we'll be enjoying Irish wildlife and the countryside long after I'm gone.

Much of this comes across as very condescending indeed. And not the perception and clear knowledge that many who are anti-hunting hold.

Killing for sport and not need is .. barbaric.

It wasn't me!

Discodog wrote: »

Would you call digging up cubs & throwing them to hounds humane killing ?. or chasing an animal to the point of exhaustion ?.

The 1911 Act defines cruelty. It is illegal to "ill treat, infuriate or terrify" an animal or subject it to "unnecessary suffering ".

You may believe that there is no such thing as rights for animals but the law say different. The forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill which RISE oppose will bring Ireland in line with most European Countries who also believe that animals have rights.

Perhaps you would prefer Ireland to be the last outpost of cruelty ?.

Since hounds kill in a humane manner, then yes, as a rule, it will be humane, much as other humane, if aesthetically unappealing, methods such as crushing of skulls with a blunt object, is humane. It isn't pretty, but that's not wrong. Personally, I'm a sportsman, and I have no inclination to dig out foxes. I also believe that a sporting pursuit demands that an animal that makes it to earth should be allowed sanctuary there. There are occasions where simple population control demands that earths be dug, but it's not a sport. I personally find it distasteful and would rather the rifle as a method of fox control.

Surely from what you're saying there it would be feasible to pursue charges of cruelty since a definition exists in the 1911 act in order to establish case law? Wouldn't that be a far more useful mechanism than the creation of further laws? You have to enforce what exists before you create more, otherwise there's no point to any of it.

I do not support cruelty to animals, I merely disagree with regard to descriptions of certain things as cruel. I don't agree with trespassing, and I know of many hunts which are very well regarded, who do not trespass, and who engage in their activities with the full support of their local farming community.

Graces7 wrote: »

Much of this comes across as very condescending indeed. And not the perception and clear knowledge that many who are anti-hunting hold.

Killing for sport and not need is .. barbaric.

I enjoy my hunting for deer, rabbits and birds, which I eat. I don't need to do it, as I could buy the meat, but I choose to be actively involved in the procurement of my own sustenance. I have no false illusions about where my food comes from, mountain side to table, and I regularly satisfy my conscience that there's nothing wrong with what I do. I believe it's important that people should have an understanding of this, and killing your own food is an excellent way for people to understand it. A lot of people will not be able to do this. While I would never go so far as to suggest that they shouldn't eat it if they can't kill it, I would go so far as to suggest that if they can eat it, but not kill it, then they really don't have a useful position from which to condemn anyone who can do both. What perception and clear knowledge do you refer to in any case?

Discodog

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Since hounds kill in a humane manner, then yes, as a rule, it will be humane, much as other humane, if aesthetically unappealing, methods such as crushing of skulls with a blunt object, is humane. It isn't pretty, but that's not wrong. Personally, I'm a sportsman, and I have no inclination to dig out foxes. I also believe that a sporting pursuit demands that an animal that makes it to earth should be allowed sanctuary there. There are occasions where simple population control demands that earths be dug, but it's not a sport. I personally find it distasteful and would rather the rifle as a method of fox control.

Surely from what you're saying there it would be feasible to pursue charges of cruelty since a definition exists in the 1911 act in order to establish case law? Wouldn't that be a far more useful mechanism than the creation of further laws? You have to enforce what exists before you create more, otherwise there's no point to any of it.

I do not support cruelty to animals, I merely disagree with regard to descriptions of certain things as cruel. I don't agree with trespassing, and I know of many hunts which are very well regarded, who do not trespass, and who engage in their activities with the full support of their local farming community.

You are correct that, in law, there is enough legislation to pursue a legal case against hunting. The existing law does not set definitions in what defines suffering or set minimum standards. So for example a puppy farmer can say, & did on RTE, that his dogs did not need exercise. The new legislation should (we are waiting to see it) define minimum standards of care.

As someone who has lived in the countryside for all of my life I will always be at a loss as to why people feel a need to kill wildlife. When defending their sport the Hunts claim that they kill very few foxes. In the next breath they claim that their "sport" provides an effective method of control.

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

planetX

They got such a big turnout because they pulled in all sorts of other issues - farming, live export etc. Classic tactics of the bloodsports crowd, to detract attention from their own activity by surrounding themselves with other issues. If dogfighting was still legal they'd be claiming it was the thin end of the wedge, and banning it would collapse farming. That's what they're claiming for stag hunting. They make me sick.

crotalus667

ISDW wrote: »

I love where I live, as all of the local farmers have banned hunting on their land, and will come together to ensure it doesn't happen. .

that has happend in alot of places not really on account of the farmers not liking hunting (alot of people that ban it on their land hunt them selves) they tend to ban it because tourist hunting parties come threw and clear everthing out while causing damage to the property :mad:

ISDW

crotalus667 wrote: »

that has happend in alot of places not really on account of the farmers not liking hunting (alot of people that ban it on their land hunt them selves) they tend to ban it because tourist hunting parties come threw and clear everthing out while causing damage to the property :mad:

Maybe they do, but not around here.

I have no objection to people killing an animal humanely to eat, I am a meat eater, so can't be hypocritical about that. But I don't think tearing an animal apart would leave much to eat?

It wasn't me!

Discodog wrote: »

You are correct that, in law, there is enough legislation to pursue a legal case against hunting. The existing law does not set definitions in what defines suffering or set minimum standards. So for example a puppy farmer can say, & did on RTE, that his dogs did not need exercise. The new legislation should (we are waiting to see it) define minimum standards of care.

As someone who has lived in the countryside for all of my life I will always be at a loss as to why people feel a need to kill wildlife. When defending their sport the Hunts claim that they kill very few foxes. In the next breath they claim that their "sport" provides an effective method of control.

Both are technically correct, while being difficult to reconcile. If you want to kill a large number of foxes, you use a lamp and a rifle. No question whatsoever about that. If you want to selectively kill foxes which are older or weaker or less capable of protecting themselves and escaping, you use dogs. Rifle shooting can't be selective in the same way, so hunting with dogs is a more effective way from that perspective.

Minimum standards of care are great to see with regard to domestic animals. It becomes a lot more complicated where wild animals are concerned however, as hunting is going to continue to be a necessity in its various forms. You're seeking to prevent undue stress and suffering, as am I, because it taints my meat with adrenaline, rather than putting an animal out like a light. However, let's say I take a shot on the hill at a hundred and fifty yards, a nice handy shot, but at a very steep angle, which affects the trajectory of the bullet. My nice point of aim is based on it being a more shallow angle, so rather than obliterating the heart and lungs, I only smash the top bit of the lungs. That's still a dead deer, but it's not a perfect shot, and it'll have that bit more poke before it gives up the ghost. Now, I'd be a little miffed with that shot, because it could have gone more wrong if I made the same calculation and the bodged the shot a bit high, missing the vitals altogether, and since it would have been easily avoidable by correctly gauging the angle, it was an unnecessary error, which could have led to suffering. Happily, in this case, it didn't (hypothetical scenario, never bodged a shot yet) but it was a good faith judgement. Now, under a loose definition of unnecessary suffering, the suffering caused by that shot (and quickly ended by a follow up shot, obviously) could be deemed unnecessary, but it was a good faith error. Indeed, it would also be extremely impractical to legislate for standards of marksmanship and terrain reading abilities with failure to demonstrate these things in the hunt becoming a criminal offence. That would be a complete failure in terms of justice and a waste of legislative time, since it couldn't be practically enforced.

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

It's really not. I mean, you only have to look at the numbers turning out in Clonmel for the example I gave earlier. No diversity of issues there at all, just coursing. And again you had a ratio of a thousand to one and better for the fieldsports group. For the matter of it, I don't know of any hunt within a long distance of me wearing red coats. Know quite a few with beautiful green ones, some tans and some black ones. The notion that it's a hangover of imperialism just doesn't stick. Both forms of hunting have their place. Provided the hunts don't stray onto land they're not allowed on, I've no problem. Nobody has the right to be on land they've no permission to be on, rather a large pet peeve of mine.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Drag hunting provides a good substitute but it does not have the kill & for some that is the most important part. The anti hunt lobby is much larger that you claim. Given the number of farmers in Ireland & the fact that RISE are combining all "rural" issues 5000 is not very many. Stag & Fox hunting is a leftover. There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

With drag hunting there is often less access to land. Drag hunting is a different sport, instead of having breaks/checks it is a lot more full on and can just keep going often covering more land, sometimes this can mean a change of horse.

Look at the letters in papers, it is the same names that pop up. Look at each animal rights group, the names names pop up. I fully support animal welfare but am under no illusions about animal rights.

I really doubt there was no stag/deer hunting or fox hunting before the Normans. Hunting is hunting regardless of whether or not followers are on horseback. Hunting with scent hounds has been around since the Egyptians.

Would you prefer if the pink (which is what it is referred to) coat is green?

This smacks more of preconceived notions about other people than anything else.

Just because land may be closed to hunting doesn't mean it is not hunted at all (with the exception of sanctuaries). Those that close it may hunt it themselves or give permission to a few.

Whispered

I'm delighted this debate is being held with such good manners and less of the usual hysteria surrounding such discussions.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I enjoy my hunting for deer, rabbits and birds, which I eat. I don't need to do it, as I could buy the meat, but I choose to be actively involved in the procurement of my own sustenance. I have no false illusions about where my food comes from, mountain side to table, .......... I believe it's important that people should have an understanding of this, and killing your own food is an excellent way for people to understand it.

I am absolutely anti cruelty, I personally fnd hunting distasteful, as I find aspects of animal farming distasteful.

My father hunts, with both dogs and a gun, what he kills he eats and he has more respect for he countryside than most people I know. While I find it difficult to "excuse" it (not that it's my place to excuse my father) he very rightly pointed out that the game he kills, has had a better life and quicker death than a chicken dinner. It's thanks to this I don't eat any meat. It kind of had the opposite effect to what he hoped. I fully agree with the notion that more people would be vegetarian if they had to kill their own animals. But it's easy to turn a blind eye to cruelty when it comes nicely packaged with a sell by date.

I think game hunting for food (rabbits, deer, phesants) is in a different category to the likes of fox hunting which is purely about the sport of hunting and killing. Aren't humans the only animal which does that, or do others do it too (I'm thinking killer whales might for some reason). In my mind, hunting for food is natural and no worse, perhaps better, than what happens in slaughter houses all over the country, hunting for the sake of killing is simply, as Graces said....barbaric.

convert

PaulB91 wrote: »

my personal view is that "hunting" in such forms as horse and hound is very outdated, and where i understand the need for keeping down certain forms of wildlife, is a pack of hounds and riders really the most humane form? [...]

as for hunting foxes by horse and hound, i'm pretty sure that there is a more cost affective way than 40 or so hounds and 40 or so riders running across the countryside, knocking down fences and cutting wire fences in order to continue the hunt? I mean on what grounds are hunts still justified?

Hunting with hounds is the most natural form of hunting. Hounds naturally prey on quarry, such as foxes, hares, deer, rabbit, mink, to name but a few, the same way as wolves or dingo do in the wild. It's in their nature, just like a cat will chase and kill birds, rats, mice, etc., except the hounds will kill their prey instantly rather than playing with it for hours.

Discodog wrote: »

There is no history in Ireland prior to the British - even the red coats are a hangover from military uniform.

I really, really hope that this is some form of a joke! Do you really believe that Ireland has no history prior to the arrival of the Normans to Ireland in 1169? :eek: Not to mention that hunting didn't exist here before that date?

planetX wrote: »

They got such a big turnout because they pulled in all sorts of other issues - farming, live export etc. Classic tactics of the bloodsports crowd, to detract attention from their own activity by surrounding themselves with other issues. If dogfighting was still legal they'd be claiming it was the thin end of the wedge, and banning it would collapse farming. That's what they're claiming for stag hunting. They make me sick.

The RISE Campaign -Rural Ireland Says Enough! - is not just about hunting - it encorporates all fieldsports, from shooting, to angling, to point-to-pointing and National Hunt racing to hunter trialling.

PaulB91

convert wrote: »

Hunting with hounds is the most natural form of hunting. Hounds naturally prey on quarry, such as foxes, hares, deer, rabbit, mink, to name but a few, the same way as wolves or dingo do in the wild. It's in their nature, just like a cat will chase and kill birds, rats, mice, etc., except the hounds will kill their prey instantly rather than playing with it for hours.

I think we both know that neither of us will change each others minds but i hope you don't mind a little debate on this

OK dogs are preditors, trust me i know this from watching my four hunting cats while out on my daily walks (don't worry they are all on leads and don't get near the cats) but just because my dogs naturally want to hunt and kill cats doesn't mean thats right in this day and age.

In the same way it wouldn't be right for me to let them ravage a herd of sheep - in fact some of the people who hunt fox's would also own sheep i guess and they would be pretty quick to shoot my dogs if they did to the sheep what their dogs would do to the fox, so barring that in mind saying that hunting should be allowed because it natures way is a bit dead in the water

crotalus667

ISDW wrote: »

Maybe they do, but not around here.

I have no objection to people killing an animal humanely to eat, I am a meat eater, so can't be hypocritical about that. But I don't think tearing an animal apart would leave much to eat?

I am talking about people where my grandmother lived (in kenmare) and when i say hunt i mean with guns, not every one ate what they shot but most of them would use it to feed their dogs (mainly rabbits and hairs that needed to be kept in check)

doctor evil

PaulB91 wrote: »

In the same way it wouldn't be right for me to let them ravage a herd of sheep - in fact some of the people who hunt fox's would also own sheep i guess and they would be pretty quick to shoot my dogs if they did to the sheep what their dogs would do to the fox, so barring that in mind saying that hunting should be allowed because it natures way is a bit dead in the water

A flock of sheep is someones livelihood and are owned, foxes are not.

TBF hounds kill foxes very swiftly not in the same way that roaming dogs will go through a flock leaving wounded survivors. If a hounds catches a fox it gets killed. If a hound looked at a sheep funny it certainly won't be used for hunting. It is not a very good comparison.

doctor evil

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think game hunting for food (rabbits, deer, phesants) is in a different category to the likes of fox hunting which is purely about the sport of hunting and killing. Aren't humans the only animal which does that, or do others do it too (I'm thinking killer whales might for some reason). In my mind, hunting for food is natural and no worse, perhaps better, than what happens in slaughter houses all over the country, hunting for the sake of killing is simply, as Graces said....barbaric.

In my mind hunting is hunting, what happens to the carcass afterwards is immaterial (immoral to waste good meat, although if left there it is eaten by other creatures/microbes/insects etc)

There is more to hunting with hounds than for the sake of killing.

If near the front followers get to watch the hounds and whippers in work, further back in the field everyone can hear the hounds 'sing' and have access to ride on land they would not normally have.

You may ask are the followers at the back necessary? Fair question. The money they pay to attend goes towards the running of the hunt and the kennels/pays the workers. With drag hunting followers don't get to enjoy the countryside as there aren't as many checks and the hounds work differently as the scent is prelaid and does not have to be found/refound. It is also less social as it is a lot more full at a much faster pace.

Hunting can be great for horses as it helps them to become brave with jumping and can teach them to be more nimble on their feet. It also stops them becoming sour if they are only doing the one job over and over.

I agree that people should visit abattoirs and see where their meat comes from. I'd love it if there could be local abattoirs dotted about the place instead of a few big ones.

PaulB91

doctor evil wrote: »

A flock of sheep is someones livelihood and are owned, foxes are not.

TBF hounds kill foxes very swiftly not in the same way that roaming dogs will go through a flock leaving wounded survivors. If a hounds catches a fox it gets killed. If a hound looked at a sheep funny it certainly won't be used for hunting. It is not a very good comparison.

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age, so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

doctor evil wrote: »

There is more to hunting with hounds than for the sake of killing.

If near the front followers get to watch the hounds and whippers in work, further back in the field everyone can hear the hounds 'sing' and have access to ride on land they would not normally have.

You may ask are the followers at the back necessary? Fair question. The money they pay to attend goes towards the running of the hunt and the kennels/pays the workers. With drag hunting followers don't get to enjoy the countryside as there aren't as many checks and the hounds work differently as the scent is prelaid and does not have to be found/refound. It is also less social as it is a lot more full at a much faster pace.

Hunting can be great for horses as it helps them to become brave with jumping and can teach them to be more nimble on their feet. It also stops them becoming sour if they are only doing the one job over and over.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages, not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

Graces7

It seems incredible that any intelligent person can aver that chasing a creature for many miles to exhaustion and then letting it be torn apart is humane.

Especially if the idea is that this is the weaker and older ones?

Reminds of the American craze, whereby zoo animals that are too old to be of any use there are "released" and they let "hunters" shoot them to pieces. After "the chase" of course.

Reminds of the old saying, "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."

Helena; you are a star! A fine example to us all. I cannot yet go so far. Organic and free range are too costly on a small pension and with medical needs also

Shooting cleanly for food is one thing.

We would accept that source of meat. Happily.

In the US also, many deer hunters donate ground venison to food banks to be given to the poor. Wonderful use of it.

But this is quite another.

This is quite another.

It wasn't me!

PaulB91 wrote: »

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age, so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

Probably about as fast in most cases. Guns are excellent, but not all shots are perfect, and sometimes perfect shots don't kill instantaneously either.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages, not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

There's absolutely nothing elitist in what you've said there. The element of spectating puts it in the same bracket as watching another sporting event. The word elitist is clearly not appropriate.

PaulB91

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Probably about as fast in most cases. Guns are excellent, but not all shots are perfect, and sometimes perfect shots don't kill instantaneously either.

skipping past the point there - which was, if there is a reason to cull wildlife/vermin the gun is a lot more humane and cost effective than the "hunt" - i'm not talking about gentry going shooting pheasants who've been raised to be shot either

It wasn't me! wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing elitist in what you've said there. The element of spectating puts it in the same bracket as watching another sporting event. The word elitist is clearly not appropriate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitists

e·lit·ism


1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

the elitism is in the group at the front

doctor evil

PaulB91 wrote: »

good avoidance of the actual point and deviation of my meaning, so, my point is just because it's in a dogs nature to hunt, doesn't make it right to do so in this age,

In this day and age it is also possible to live a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, lets ban all meat! Just because it is 'this day and age' does not mean it has to be so. There is room for everyone with different views and activities. In the garden, if your dog goes after a bee/fly/butterfly do you punish it?

so in your view any living creature that is not "owned" is fair game to be hunted and killed?

Of course not, it would be daft and somewhat illegal to think that. There are animals that are protected and cannot be hunted/killed at all and there are others that have seasons.

do hounds kill quicker than a gun?

If a hound catches its quarry it is a goner whereas a bullet if its not an instant kill shot can mean the animal such as a fox can get away and end up dying a slow death from gangrene.

so you think hunting is a good thing because the people on horse back get to watch the "foot soldiers" and dogs work? seems a bit elitest to me - oh and they get to ride on different land and the folk at the back pay the wages,

The whippers in are often mounted. Who else would pay their wages?

Do you think the spectators in football or any other sport are elitist as they get to watch someone else do the work and have to pay to have access to an area that they otherwise would not have?

not the best arguments in the world for the terorising and murder of critters

Anthromorphising has no place in reasonable discussion.



Once again preconceived notions of other people crops up...

doctor evil

Graces7 wrote: »

It seems incredible that any intelligent person can aver that chasing a creature for many miles to exhaustion and then letting it be torn apart is humane.

If Ireland still all her native animals foxes would be chased by the likes of wolves. It is in their nature to run, it is how they are evolved. They don't stand there and try to reason it out with the hound/wolf/Golden Eagle. They run and try to get to underground. They don't do this blindly, foxes are smart they will double back and go through water to disrupt their scent. The quarry is caught/killed swiftly and then the body is torn apart, not the living animal. People get this mixed up.

Especially if the idea is that this is the weaker and older ones?

The older/weaker foxes are often the ones that will go after the easy meal, new born lamb/chickens etc

Shooting cleanly for food is one thing.

How is it one thing? It still involves the death of an animal.

Whispered

doctor evil wrote: »

In my mind hunting is hunting, what happens to the carcass afterwards is immaterial (immoral to waste good meat, although if left there it is eaten by other creatures/microbes/insects etc)
.

I think it's a matter of opinion really (I don't mean that sarcastically). I am not niave enough to think that death doesn't have to happen for survival of others. But the intention behind it almost changes it IMO. Obviously not for the animal, the result is the same. Where death HAS to occur then so be it. Inflicting death on an animal for entertainment, is different.

My problem with the hounds is not that the death is slower, it may not be, either way it is a natural death, may not be what we like, but animals killing each other happens in the wild regardless. However, the sheer scale of the hunt is what is barbaric in my eyes. I understand that there is excitement, challenge etc in it for riders, horses and dogs, but it is NOT natural for a pack that large to chase down one animal.

How do the dogs form? Like do they follow one leader and almost go in file, or do they fan out? If they fan out, then the fox has only one option, to outrun the hunt. But in nature, doesn't a prey animal usually weave, change direction etc? Can they still do this when being followed by such a large pack of dogs?

Is it true that once the fox goes to ground, he is left? Is there a certain season for fox hunting?

Discodog

convert wrote: »

I really, really hope that this is some form of a joke! Do you really believe that Ireland has no history prior to the arrival of the Normans to Ireland in 1169? :eek: Not to mention that hunting didn't exist here before that date?

I would never joke about causing suffering to animals purely for pleasure.

Fox hunting as we know it was started by Charles II in 1660 however according to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association, who should know, the start date in Ireland was 1859. It was always highly elitist & was the sole pursuit of wealthy landowners.

To me the hunting/shooting fraternity tend to divide in the way that they justify their "sport". Some will say that it is tradition that should continue even though society has banned many previous traditions like child labour. Others will say that their methods are justified because the fox is vermin, as if the central nervous system & ability to feel pain are different for a fox.
There is the argument that we do worse things to other animals. We also let children starve but that doesn't stop us trying to end hunger. Some here will not accept drag hunting because it's not quite as good as the real thing or is it that they don't like people interfering ?.

I admire the honesty of those who admit that they enjoy killing animals. The custom of first blood, where the newest/youngest member of the hunt has warm fox blood wiped on their face is testimony. When hunting came under pressure in the UK hunts were told to stop the practice as it was "bad PR".

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare. The insinuation is that those who believe in animal rights are shadowy figures on the verge of legality. The ISPCA & many other organisations fight for animal rights & animal welfare. The two are inextricably linked.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance. The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

History is full of causes, that we now accept as civilised, but had a long fight for acceptance including slavery. Ireland has one of the worst records regarding animal welfare in Europe. To date 21 countries have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals & Ireland is not one of them.

PaulB91

doctor evil wrote: »

In this day and age it is also possible to live a healthy life on a vegetarian diet, lets ban all meat! Just because it is 'this day and age' does not mean it has to be so. There is room for everyone with different views and activities. In the garden, if your dog goes after a bee/fly/butterfly do you punish it?

OK – how about human sacrifice, that was legal once upon a time, oh wait it became outdated, as time moves on! At the end of the day blood sports of all forms will be banned - just a matter of time and deaths.

doctor evil wrote: »

Of course not, it would be daft and somewhat illegal to think that. There are animals that are protected and cannot be hunted/killed at all and there are others that have seasons.

And who decides which animals become protected, us, so if foxes became protected due to low numbers would you send you dogs chasing rabbits across the countryside, or would that be not as much “fun”

doctor evil wrote: »

If a hound catches its quarry it is a goner whereas a bullet if its not an instant kill shot can mean the animal such as a fox can get away and end up dying a slow death from gangrene.

I wonder why the army never used the dogs to execute soldiers, you know instead of the firing squad? Apologies for the sarcasm but to say it's better to be torn apart than shot is ludicrous

doctor evil wrote: »

The whippers in are often mounted. Who else would pay their wages?

Who else would need their services?

doctor evil wrote: »

Do you think the spectators in football or any other sport are elitist as they get to watch someone else do the work and have to pay to have access to an area that they otherwise would not have?

Forgive me if I am wrong but no one or thing actually dies in a football game, and to a certain extent it is elitist – ever seen the “executive boxes” that only the wealthiest can afford?

doctor evil wrote: »

Anthromorphising has no place in reasonable discussion.

Sorry not meaning to be picky but did you mean Anthropomorphising -

the attribution of human characteristics to, or, some would argue, recognition of human characteristics in non-human creatures and beings

as i had to look it up - in which case i apologise for the use of the word "murder" as i think this is what you mean as "murder" can only be performed on a human being - so would you prefer "not the best arguments in the world for the terrorising and removal of the life force of critters"

doctor evil wrote: »

Once again preconceived notions of other people crops up...

Preconceived – sorry did I miss what happens, some people have dogs who scent out the fox, others ride behind on horse back and follow the hounds, the hounds track down the fox and kill it, everybody congratulates themselves and those who are on the first hunt have their face whipped with the blood of the fox?

Sittingpretty

Discodog wrote: »

I would never joke about causing suffering to animals purely for pleasure.

Fox hunting as we know it was started by Charles II in 1660 however according to the Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association, who should know, the start date in Ireland was 1859. It was always highly elitist & was the sole pursuit of wealthy landowners.

To me the hunting/shooting fraternity tend to divide in the way that they justify their "sport". Some will say that it is tradition that should continue even though society has banned many previous traditions like child labour. Others will say that their methods are justified because the fox is vermin, as if the central nervous system & ability to feel pain are different for a fox.
There is the argument that we do worse things to other animals. We also let children starve but that doesn't stop us trying to end hunger. Some here will not accept drag hunting because it's not quite as good as the real thing or is it that they don't like people interfering ?.

I admire the honesty of those who admit that they enjoy killing animals. The custom of first blood, where the newest/youngest member of the hunt has warm fox blood wiped on their face is testimony. When hunting came under pressure in the UK hunts were told to stop the practice as it was "bad PR".

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare. The insinuation is that those who believe in animal rights are shadowy figures on the verge of legality. The ISPCA & many other organisations fight for animal rights & animal welfare. The two are inextricably linked.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance. The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

History is full of causes, that we now accept as civilised, but had a long fight for acceptance including slavery. Ireland has one of the worst records regarding animal welfare in Europe. To date 21 countries have signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals & Ireland is not one of them.

Excellent Post

cos!!

This can all be brought down to the dreaded cat and dog argument!Most owners let their cats out because they feel it natural for them to roam, hunt ect.. we have all seen the arguments on other threads, its the same for dogs only there are laws in place which restrict their instinct to chase, hunt and so on!This is what these dogs where bred for and the people who own the feel its only fair to enrich a dog with what it was bred to do, track, chase and kill.

Note:Sorry i used cat vs dog, I dont want it to be referred as it would ruin a so far good debate

Whispered

PaulB91 wrote: »

those who are on the first hunt have their face whipped with the blood of the fox?[/COLOR]

Does this really happen? :eek:

Doctor Evil; Sorry to bring up the point you made about what happens to the corpse meaning nothing, I know you didn't get a chance to respond to my last post yet, but I remembered something last night that I wanted to mention.

I was at my dads brothers funeral a few weeks ago. I was speaking to a very elderly woman, a neighbour, beside the casket, and she told me that she was diagnosed with an illness years ago (I didn't ask what) and she was advised to improve her diet. This is easier said than done when money is tight. She told me that until her health improved, either my father, or his brother, would arrive at her door each and every day with a rabbit, phesant or a fish.

I really don't think that could, or should be compared, to fox hunting. Killing for a days entertainment.

convert

PaulB91 wrote: »

I think we both know that neither of us will change each others minds but i hope you don't mind a little debate on this

lol

helena.ryan wrote: »

How do the dogs form? Like do they follow one leader and almost go in file, or do they fan out? If they fan out, then the fox has only one option, to outrun the hunt. But in nature, doesn't a prey animal usually weave, change direction etc? Can they still do this when being followed by such a large pack of dogs

It's kind of difficult to explain how hounds work, but I'll try and do it as best as possible without being able to use diagrams.
As with any animals who are in a group, there's always two or three who are the 'leaders' or the 'boss', and hounds are no exception to this. When cast into a covert, the few 'leaders' will take separate paths in, but the hounds who aren't leaders will follow them in and will normally follow them closely rather than actually fanning out. So instead of having maybe 15 hounds abreast (imagine how people search fields, etc. for something) the hounds actually are maybe only 4 or 5 abreast with the others following behind. Then, when one hound picks up on the scent they usually give tongue and run off following the scent. When this happens, the other hounds follow the 'leader' and while one or two may be upsides the 'leader', most of them are actually following the leader rather than actually following the scent. Moreover, as some hounds are quicker than others, then tend to come in small groups with gaps in between rather than actually being all together in a pack or tight group, or all fanned out. (kind of imagine how horses run in a long distance jump race - not all of them are up front, and tend to be in a line one behind another, often in smaller groups with spaces between groups).

I've often watched hunts on foot and have seen foxes using many techniques to 'lose' and 'confuse' the hounds. First of all, most foxes have already left the covert before the hounds have actually picked up his scent and started in pursuit. This gives the fox time to lay false scents by doubling back on his tracks. I remember watching a fox one day who laid three false scents up and down along a ditch before hopping into the shallow stream that ran along the back of the ditch to prevent leaving any scent. It then hopped out about 20 yards further down the stream and cantered off across the field. When the hounds finally managed to pick up on his scent, they were caught out by all the false scents the fox had laid, and failed to pick up the scent where the fox had hopped out of the stream 20 yards further down the field.

Another tactic used by foxes is to run through a flock of sheep or herd of cattle. The animals will then group together in the field, normally across the track that was taken by the fox, thus 'spoiling' the scent and preventing the houds from picking up on his scent.

Is it true that once the fox goes to ground, he is left? Is there a certain season for fox hunting?

Yes, there is a set season for hunting. The opening meet is usually towards the end of October, around the bank holiday weekend, while the last meet is normally the first week in March. However, if the spring is early (unlike this year! ) then hunts will often stop hunting in February as the breeding season is earlier.

Regarding a fox going to ground, it is normally left and there are rules governing this issued by the governing bodies.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Does this really happen? :eek:

(In reference to 'blooding' of children out hunting).

I've being hunting for well over 20 years, and began when I was 3. In all my years hunting, I have never once seen this happen, nor have I ever heard of this happening. There was a thread about this in the Equestrian forum a while back, and nobody who replied to the thread had heard of it before.

PaulB91

helena.ryan wrote: »

Does this really happen? :eek:

I know it did in the UK until it was banned in 2004/05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting

One of the most notable was the act of blooding. This is a very old ceremony in which the master or huntsman would smear the blood of the fox or coyote onto the cheeks or forehead of a newly initiated hunt follower, often a young child.[66] Another practice of some hunts was to cut off the tail ('brush'), the feet ('pads') and the head ('mask') as trophies, with the carcass then thrown to the dogs.[66] Both of these practices were widely abandoned during the nineteenth century, although isolated cases may still have occurred to the modern day.[66]

convert

PaulB91 wrote: »

I know it did in the UK until it was banned in 2004/05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

That only refers to the banning of hunting. I didn't see any reference to 'blooding' in it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting

Of course, wikipedia is the most reliable source in the world - did you know that horses in the eighteenth century weighed 5lbs in weight? And that the Irish Constitution was drawn up in 1916! :eek: :rolleyes:


(Sorry, I'm not attacking you or the fact that you quoted wikipedia, I just have an absolute detestation for that site and the blatant inaccuracies that are taken as fact by so many people).

Back on topic, and to my absolute horror I realise I'm going to refer to a quotation from wikipedia!:

One of the most notable was the act of blooding. This is a very old ceremony in which the master or huntsman would smear the blood of the fox or coyote onto the cheeks or forehead of a newly initiated hunt follower, often a young child.[66] Another practice of some hunts was to cut off the tail ('brush'), the feet ('pads') and the head ('mask') as trophies, with the carcass then thrown to the dogs.[66] Both of these practices were widely abandoned during the nineteenth century, although isolated cases may still have occurred to the modern day.[66]

This quotation you've included here says that while blooding did exist in the past, it was abandoned during the 1800s, which perhaps explains why neither I, nor other posters in the Equestrian forum, have ever witnessed it.

Whispered

Convert - do you have any idea of the % of successful hunts?

Discodog

It does seem strange that there is so much emphasis on hunting when the only proposed ban is on Stag hunting. Whatever we think of fox hunting it will not be banned by Irish legislation.

RISE are using the old "thin edge of the wedge" argument & are claiming that there will soon be bans on everything. By that argument we can't have speed limits because it will lead to us driving at 5kph !.

European opinion may end up as a major factor. There have been significant protests against Bull fighting in Spain. One of the arguments is that it is putting off potential tourists. Ireland's animal abuse has been a fairly well kept secret but the internet is changing this. To date the appalling Pound figures, whilst being public, have been well hidden especially since ANVIL stopped posting them. Luckily this will be changing & more of the World will become aware of our record.

Ireland needs tourism, especially now. The majority of tourists come from the UK. A few will come to partake in blood sports that are banned in the UK but other may decline to come here if we are seen as a nation of animal abusers.

ppink

It has been a long time(20yrs) since I have hunted but they definatley did cut the foxes tails off and there were races to get the tail (ie the prize)

Also they covered in the foxes dens before dawn so the fox was caught out and could not get back into the den.

Foxes were definately dug out too.

We had one hunt videoed and when all were finished for the day they loaded their horses covered in mud, tack still on, into their boxes and left them there and went to the neares pub to watch the video. I was stunned at the amount of them that did this.

On my first hunt we had to jump a stone wall down onto a track beneath ( big drop). A kid (10yrs) could not get her pony over it as he was unable to see the ground on the far side. The whipper in (name??) beat that pony solid over that wall. Between him hitting it and the childs mother screaming at it the poor pony eventually jumped it. This was after a nine hour day.

I am sure a lot has changed since my experiences but it really put me off hunting. I would be interested to see how much it has changed now.

johngalway

Discodog wrote: »

RISE are using the old "thin edge of the wedge" argument & are claiming that there will soon be bans on everything.

The thin edge of the wedge argument is perfectly sound. Do you honestly think that if the WH is banned, people protesting will stop there - specifically in regards to hunting. They will move on to attack another aspect of hunting, and so on.

Some folks would want to take a look at the people doing the protesting. You may well not wish to be associated with them.

eilo1

I have no problem with fox hunting, in fact I think it as a bad name.
I was a vegetarian for 10 years and also worked in the horse industry (showjumpers and flat racing).

I think its far more complex than killing an animal for fun.
If we are talking about hunting being wrong because of its motive then maybe we should look at our motives for killing other animals.

Farming has a lot of practices that are not very kind to the animals such as battery hens and live transport and the reason for this is a demand for cheap meat. Do we really need so much cheap meat? Is all this meat production really out of necessity or is it preference and indulgance? And there fore what are our motives for buying it? Are our motives simply that we like it and not that we need it. So did we kill that that chicken just for the pleasure of eating it?
Would it be better to only have meat 3 times a week and buy organically and then you may have a better motive for eating meat.

I now LOVE eating meat and I eat it because i like it and not because I need it. I buy cheap chicken and pork (god i love sausages) knowing that the animals my meat came from had a horrid life, never saw sunlight and were transported in god awful conditions before being killed at a young age.

Am I any better than someone who attends a local hunt meeting?

When the hounds pick up a scent it is up to the fox to out smart them. Very often they do, just because there is a chase does not mean that the fox will die. The fox population does need to be controlled in Ireland and at least if a hunt goes out instead of a farmer with a gun, the fox dies quickly, almost instantly. The reasoning behind saying that it is the weaker and older ones that get caught is that at least if the hunt gets them they dont die in a ditch from disease or hunger. They also are the ones that tend to go for chickens. The young healthy clever foxes tend to get away, still giving the ridersa good day out.

I prefer to see the hunt go out and chase foxes as there are many benifits finacially as well as socially to the country side. The hunts provide services such as taking dead animals from farmers (its expensive to despose of carcuses) to feed the hounds, most of the riders will meet at a local pub after the meet, they buy horses from breaders, they employ farriers to shoe the horses, they give the vets alot of buisness. The horse industry is the 4th biggest employer in Ireland and hunting is a big part of that.

My last thought on this is that, nobody likes to see animals suffer and most people who hunt will say they love the counrty side and the animals in it. Hunting plays a part in keeping the countryside finacially viable and does attract tourist coming to ride in hunts. Weather you like that or not money matters!

Hope I havnt offended any one!

convert

helena.ryan wrote: »

Convert - do you have any idea of the % of successful hunts?

What exactly do you mean by successful hunts? Is it the number of days upon which a given hunt catches quarry?
(sorry, I've had a very long day, am really tired, and things that probably should be very clear to me aren't...)

The Sweeper

I'm not anti-hunting.

However I find chase hunting extremely distasteful, purely due to the prolonged distress caused to the quarry animal, be it fox or deer. The final death may be quick, but stand that against the potential hours of high-adrenaline running - literally for its life - hiding, the final panicked scatter as it's held at bay and then the pain when it's torn apart (and it does NOT always die instantly - if you have one good lead dog that catches and wools the animal it will indeed kill it instantly by breaking its neck or back, but if a second dog gets a hold before the shaking, the quarry animal becomes the living rope in a tug of war).

That is in marked contrast to a man with a rifle and a dog, heading out on a long, long walk in the woods; or sitting freezing his arse off in a hide for hours, and then exercising what will be hopefully excellent marksmanship to kill an animal that will literally hardly know what hit it, or even a sport where a dog flushes a quarry animal that is then dispatched with a shot. Frankly that sort of hunting is far more humane even than production slaughterhouses as the distress caused to the animal is absolutely minimal.

Think about it - would you rather die by being shot by a sniper you didn't know was there, or would you rather be chased for hours before being killed? If the welfare of animals is really the question, hunting involving the prolonged distress caused by a chase would be banned.

Whispered

eilo1 wrote: »

Am I any better than someone who attends a local hunt meeting?

It may not be the popular answer, but in my opinion, no you're not. We all have an obligation to source our animal products with as little suffering caused as possible. To describe the horrific conditions these animals live in and then say you simply don't care is horrible imo.

convert wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by successful hunts? Is it the number of days upon which a given hunt catches quarry?
(sorry, I've had a very long day, am really tired, and things that probably should be very clear to me aren't...)

Yes, how many hunts come back having caught a fox. And once one is caught, do you all head home then?

The Sweeper wrote: »

I'm not anti-hunting.

However I find chase hunting extremely distasteful, purely due to the prolonged distress caused to the quarry animal, be it fox or deer. The final death may be quick, but stand that against the potential hours of high-adrenaline running - literally for its life - hiding, the final panicked scatter as it's held at bay and then the pain when it's torn apart (and it does NOT always die instantly - if you have one good lead dog that catches and wools the animal it will indeed kill it instantly by breaking its neck or back, but if a second dog gets a hold before the shaking, the quarry animal becomes the living rope in a tug of war).

That is in marked contrast to a man with a rifle and a dog, heading out on a long, long walk in the woods; or sitting freezing his arse off in a hide for hours, and then exercising what will be hopefully excellent marksmanship to kill an animal that will literally hardly know what hit it, or even a sport where a dog flushes a quarry animal that is then dispatched with a shot. Frankly that sort of hunting is far more humane even than production slaughterhouses as the distress caused to the animal is absolutely minimal.

Think about it - would you rather die by being shot by a sniper you didn't know was there, or would you rather be chased for hours before being killed? If the welfare of animals is really the question, hunting involving the prolonged distress caused by a chase would be banned.

Exactly my sentiments.

convert

ppink wrote: »

It has been a long time(20yrs) since I have hunted but they definatley did cut the foxes tails off and there were races to get the tail (ie the prize)

I've never heard of races in order to get the brush. Traditionally (and I'm going back years here, way more than twenty years - back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) the brush used to be presented to the lady who was riding closest to the front of the hunt.

We had one hunt videoed and when all were finished for the day they loaded their horses covered in mud, tack still on, into their boxes and left them there and went to the neares pub to watch the video. I was stunned at the amount of them that did this.

Leaving tack on the horse in a box for a short while isn't all that unusual as the saddle can help keep the horse's back warm, especially if one only has a warm rug with them (putting a warm rug on a warm horse will only result in the horse getting too hot and they can get a chill from it). If it's a short trip home (less than 20 minutes), I'd often loosen the girth, but leave the saddle on the horse under a cooling rug so that the horse's back doesn't get cold. If it's longer journey home, I'd often leave the saddle on for a while with the cooling rug and then stop on the way home to take off the saddle and put on a warmer rug when the horse has cooled off.

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry (unless you can wash it off with a hose and then you need to have the facilities to dry the horse's legs relatively quickly). The horse's legs will dry on the journey home, so when they get home the owner/rider can simply brush off the mud without rubbing it into the horse's coat.

This was after a nine hour day.

With all due respect, I really doubt that a hunt could have gone on for 9 hours. Besides the fact that neither horses nor humans would be able to stay out for 9 hours, the fact that the hunting season runs from October to March would mean that there isn't enought daylight to stay out for 9 hours, even if the hunt starts at 7.30am. Hunts don't start before 11am (the normal times for starting is somewhere between 11.30am and 13.30) so there's definitely no way that what you've stated above can be accurate.

I am sure a lot has changed since my experiences but it really put me off hunting. I would be interested to see how much it has changed now.

Then why don't you arrange with your local hunt to go out on foot or mounted and see how things have changed? That way you'd be able to see things for yourself rather than relying upon second hand information.

eilo1

I think id rather have a chance at survival and out running the hounds than be shot from afar.
Also the shot are not always perfect and the animal will sometimes wander off to die slowly from a gun shot.
Also the shooter is not more likely only shoot the elderly or weak ones, he will take out anything he can see.

Whispered

convert wrote: »

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry .......

That makes sense. We do the same with our dog.

One thing I have to say is that when we do pass the hunt, most of the horses are magnificent, dying to go, loads of energy etc. The dogs are the same. I wouldn't accuse the hunt of being cruel to their own animals. I think it's good for animals to do what they are supposed to do, whether they are horses, dogs etc.

eilo1 wrote: »

Also the shooter is not more likely only shoot the elderly or weak ones, he will take out anything he can see.

This is the only good thing I can see with a hunt. The younger, fitter foxes are likely to be the ones who survive. I just still think the whole parctise is outdated and unnecessary.

ppink

convert wrote: »

I've never heard of races in order to get the brush. Traditionally (and I'm going back years here, way more than twenty years - back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) the brush used to be presented to the lady who was riding closest to the front of the hunt.



Leaving tack on the horse in a box for a short while isn't all that unusual as the saddle can help keep the horse's back warm, especially if one only has a warm rug with them (putting a warm rug on a warm horse will only result in the horse getting too hot and they can get a chill from it). If it's a short trip home (less than 20 minutes), I'd often loosen the girth, but leave the saddle on the horse under a cooling rug so that the horse's back doesn't get cold. If it's longer journey home, I'd often leave the saddle on for a while with the cooling rug and then stop on the way home to take off the saddle and put on a warmer rug when the horse has cooled off.

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry (unless you can wash it off with a hose and then you need to have the facilities to dry the horse's legs relatively quickly). The horse's legs will dry on the journey home, so when they get home the owner/rider can simply brush off the mud without rubbing it into the horse's coat.



With all due respect, I really doubt that a hunt could have gone on for 9 hours. Besides the fact that neither horses nor humans would be able to stay out for 9 hours, the fact that the hunting season runs from October to March would mean that there isn't enought daylight to stay out for 9 hours, even if the hunt starts at 7.30am. Hunts don't start before 11am (the normal times for starting is somewhere between 11.30am and 13.30) so there's definitely no way that what you've stated above can be accurate.



Then why don't you arrange with your local hunt to go out on foot or mounted and see how things have changed? That way you'd be able to see things for yourself rather than relying upon second hand information.

I am not relaying on any second hand information for anything in my post. I saw the tail cut off and raced for as I was on my horse wondering why we were all lining up across a massive field and racing to get the tail.

Tack was left on the horses for hours not minutes, agian something I witnessed as the pub they were all outside was close to home for me.


The 9 hour day was referrign to from the time that pony was prepared for the hunt to the time late afternoon when we were faced with that wall.

Graces7

None of your words have anything to do with the issues I raised. But of course you know that.

doctor evil wrote: »

If Ireland still all her native animals foxes would be chased by the likes of wolves. It is in their nature to run, it is how they are evolved. They don't stand there and try to reason it out with the hound/wolf/Golden Eagle. They run and try to get to underground. They don't do this blindly, foxes are smart they will double back and go through water to disrupt their scent. The quarry is caught/killed swiftly and then the body is torn apart, not the living animal. People get this mixed up.



The older/weaker foxes are often the ones that will go after the easy meal, new born lamb/chickens etc



How is it one thing? It still involves the death of an animal.

Discodog

johngalway wrote: »

The thin edge of the wedge argument is perfectly sound. Do you honestly think that if the WH is banned, people protesting will stop there - specifically in regards to hunting. They will move on to attack another aspect of hunting, and so on.

Some folks would want to take a look at the people doing the protesting. You may well not wish to be associated with them.

Would I be better associating with people that kill animals purely for pleasure ?. I have met many hunt saboteurs as I lived in the middle of a hunting area in the UK for several years. Most were students & many were very well informed regarding wildlife. My local "chief" saboteur was a fairly well known zoologist !. I used to invite them in for tea & as a result I had to put up with the Hunt & the police trying to film in my garden.

Yes people that hate animal abuse will oppose hunting & some will campaign to abolish fox hunting. We live in a democracy & that is their right. But the idea of opposing any law because it could be the thin edge of a wedge is not viable.

doctor evil

Did you report it to the master ppink?

doctor evil

With fox hunting they do not chase the same fox for hours on end, the fox is either caught, goes to ground (sometimes dug out, sometimes not often at discretion of the landowner) or it escapes. Then the hunt goes to another likely covert to catch the scent.

Can I ask what do folks think of foot packs?

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare.

Animal welfare and animal rights may have been inextricably linked long ago but not now. Animal welfare is taking care of the animal and following correct care/animal husbandry, pet owners, breeders, zoos, welfare organisations strive to do this. Preventing cruelty to animals and prosecuting perpetrators who commit this deliberately is part of animal welfare. Animal rights is the likes of PETA and ALF, I won't go into the activities these organisations or members of have been involved in. I am very careful who I donate to and there are bogus charities about, and with these 'charities' you can never be sure what the money is used for. From what I can find on the ISPCA they are animal welfare minded. We donated our cat from the DSPCA.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance.

Is that such a bad thing?

The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

It's about standing up for activities/issues in your area and not letting that activity/issue be decided upon by someone else/other group of people in a completely different place.

RISE is not about one issue.