Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

ItsAWindUp

Samich wrote: »

^^^ stupid reasons.

Main reason is hunting is a good past time.

And yes, ye city people wouldn't understand.

I don't live in a city and I don't understand, where does that leave me?

later12

Bambi wrote: »

So lets just recap the reasons its okay to be out fox hunting:

Its necessary in order keep the fox/canine terrorist population in check. orly..seems pretty inefficient method of population control

Sure we barely kill any foxes anyway umm okay, why hunt them at all then? Also makes sh** of the first point but there ya go.

To keep our untaxed horsey industry alive..because those horses wont go charging across the countryside unless they know theres a fox out there of course

because yee city slickers don't understand the country, hmm lets just say we don't, so what? If we were going to invaldiate peoples opinion based on their understanding we'd probably have to take the vote off every second farmer in the country. Oh and while we're on the subject of the holy sacred countryside, consider this: the most beautiful parts of the countryside on this island are described as what? Unspoilt. Why are they unspoilt? Is it the lack of foxes? No. The lack of city slickers on day visits? No my country cousins..its the lack of yee lot that has them unspoilt.

And the last and funniest reason to fox hunt: its a glorious tradition. So what? So was badger baiting, bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting and duelling, we're getting along grand without them now though

I'd have more respect for the oul fox hunters if they just admitted that they enjoy chasing a small canine across the countryside with a pack of larger canines with the intention of tearing it apart. Honesty goes a long way.

I don't know where to begin with this post. It's like you haven't even read anything after the first page.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

That act, which has been variously repealed and consolidated in these islands, only applies to domesticated animals and wild animals in captivity.

Also, legislation does not get to decide whether hunting is intrinsically cruel or not.

Not true. The Act remains the cornerstone of cruelty legislation & will remain so until we eventually get an Animal Welfare Bill. All mammals share a similar central nervous system. There is no reason why a Fox should not experience fear in the same way as any other animal.

Actually legislation does decide as it has with the Stag Hunting ban & unregulated Coursing etc. Supporters of bloodsports think that they have a right to decide these matters but we live in a democracy.

Wurly

Captain Darling wrote: »

I dont want it totally banned. .

Why?

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

The two are not mutually exclusive.

To illustrate: if a pack goes out four days a week, and kills a fox every fortnight, that's still approximately 2 foxes a month. A relatively small number considering the pack has hunted for about 16 days, but enough to contribute to the local fox population not getting out of hand.

Two foxes a month in a territory the size of a typical hunt is nothing. Those territories will soon get repopulated.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

Two foxes a month in a territory the size of a typical hunt is nothing. Those territories will soon get repopulated.

Most areas have more than one hunt. In our own area at home, we have 3 local packs.

Nobody said this was enough to eradicate the fox population, nor do we want to eradicate them. The aim is, in concert with hunters on foot, to control the fox and hare population & keep it at a reasonable level.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

I don't know where to begin with this post. It's like you haven't even read anything after the first page.

On the contrary it sums up the argument rather well. The whole basis of the pro hunt lobby & RISE ( what happened to them ?) is that mere mortals are too ignorant to understand & shouldn't interfere.

No doubt the same arguments were put forward regarding Dog Fighting, Bear Baiting, Cock Fighting etc.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

Not true. The Act remains the cornerstone of cruelty legislation & will remain so until we eventually get an Animal Welfare Bill. All mammals share a similar central nervous system. There is no reason why a Fox should not experience fear in the same way as any other animal.

Oh sweet jesus...
the 1911 act defines what it means by 'animal' and 'domestic'

look it up for yourself.

It does not include wild foxes or hares (unless in captivity). You are quite simply wrong.

Captain Darling

Wurly wrote: »

Why?

I want the fox part of it taken out. Its totally unnecessary. There is the element of toffee nosed ass wipes who part take in this, but there are also a lot of ordinary people that do it as well.

I see nothing wrong with drag hunting as opposed to involving a poor fox who is going to be run ragged.

Banning it totally, particularly in rural areas in the West would be a right kick in the bollox to certain parts of society.

In my local town there is a farrier in his eighties who relies on people keeping horses solely for the purpose of this. There are grain stores and tack shops as well, i could go on, but i wont.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

I don't know where to begin with this post. It's like you haven't even read anything after the first page.

I think that it sums up the thread very well.

later10 wrote: »

There is no legitimate reason as to why the figure should not be proportional in Ireland, in which case it would indicate that hunts do assist in the eradication of foxes.

later10 wrote: »

Nobody said this was enough to eradicate the fox population, nor do we want to eradicate them.

Make your mind up.

ScumLord

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I don't live in a city and I don't understand, where does that leave me?

Mollycoddled just like any city slicker. Ireland is fairly unique in that there isn't as much of a urban rural divide, someone living in a town experiences mostly the same culture as those living in what would be loosely described as a city in any bigger country. Ireland has little to no proper relationship with our environment, we abuse it for our own end and don't seem to realise we're just as dependent on it as any other living thing.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

I think that it sums up the thread very well.

Make your mind up.

Fair enough, I should have said control instead of eradicate.

It would be a pretty absurd wish for someone like me who is in favour of foxhunting to wish for foxes to be eradicated. If foxes were eradicated, hunting would quickly follow.

ItsAWindUp

ScumLord wrote: »

Mollycoddled just like any city slicker. Ireland is fairly unique in that there isn't as much of a urban rural divide, someone living in a town experiences mostly the same culture as those living in what would be loosely described as a city in any bigger country. Ireland has little to no proper relationship with our environment, we abuse it for our own end and don't seem to realise we're just as dependent on it as any other living thing.

Explain that please.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

It does not include wild foxes or hares (unless in captivity). You are quite simply wrong.

I didn't say that it did - I know the Act inside out & have assisted with many prosecutions under it.

You cannot argue that the ability to feel pain or suffering is any different in a wild fox or hare than it is in a domestic animal. An English Parliament were hardly likely to declare Foxhunting cruel in 1911 - we are supposed to have moved on a bit since then.

By the way the UK Labour Party & the Liberal Democrats both oppose hunting so how do you think Mr Cameron's free vote would end up - that's why he isn't having one.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

I didn't say that it did - I know the Act inside out & have assisted with many prosecutions under it.

Hmmm.

You're using some bizarre kettle logic here. On the one hand you say..

Discodog wrote: »

The 1911 Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence of cruelty to subject any animal to unnecessary suffering or to terrify or infuriate an animal. So how can anyone argue that hunting is not cruel ?

and argue that legislation does get to decide what is intrinsically cruel.

Actually legislation does decide [what is intrinsically cruel]

On the other hand, you now agree that the 1911 act is irrelevant to fox hunting. So, if you knew that, why are you bringing it up? And can you not now see what I mean when I say that legislation does not get to decide what is intrinsically cruel.

meoklmrk91

It should be done away with it is cruel and barbaric, also anyone I have ever met doing the hunt are complete and utter assholes who gp where they like when they like, trespassing on other peoples properties doesn't really apply to them because they have been following said route for so many years.

I know of a lad who had his dog attacked by hunt dogs, one of the hunt men rode into his yard called the dogs and rode off, no apology, no nothing.

I also heard of woman in Co. Limerick who runs a private rescue for cats, the local hunters have been riding through her property without permission, letting the dogs tear her poor cats to pieces in front of her and generally intimidating her, the Gardai would do nothing about it. Last I heard there were people volunteering to go and stand around her property on the day of the hunt to let the hunters know that this woman was not on her own.

Sick individuals all of them, the animals including those used in the hunt are all victims of their sick persuasions.

later12

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

anyone I have ever met doing the hunt are complete and utter assholes who gp where they like when they like, trespassing on other peoples properties doesn't really apply to them because they have been following said route for so many years.

Leaving aside the ad hominem, the trespassing issue is a complete red herring.

(i) It is common procedure for hunt workers to establish what lands are off limit and what lands can be ridden through
(ii) All registered hunts operate a compensation scheme for farmers whose lands have been ridden over; this generally includes repairing fencing and hedgerows where appropriate.
(iii) where are all the trespass suits brought against the hunts in the local courts?

I know of a lad who had his dog attacked by hunt dogs...

I also heard of woman in Co. Limerick who runs a private rescue for cats...

Ah shure I know a Nigerian fella gets free haircuts from the government...

Paparazzo

later10 wrote: »

Leaving aside the ad hominem, the trespassing issue is a complete red herring.

(i) It is common procedure for hunt workers to establish what lands are off limit and what lands can be ridden through
(ii) All registered hunts operate a compensation scheme for farmers whose lands have been ridden over; this generally includes repairing fencing and hedgerows where appropriate.
(iii) where are all the trespass suits brought against the hunts in the local courts?


Ah shure I know a Nigerian fella gets free haircuts from the government...

This doesn't happen in the real world. I worked in an orchard in ashbourne and the ward union hunt went through it lots of times, landowner always contacted them beforehand and told them to stay out cos they wreck trees.
Saying that, I'm not against the hunt if its done properly

suicide_circus

Yara Young Rock wrote: »

I'd love to go and support a hunt.

I believe they're great craic.

Yeah so i've heard, great craic, just like dog fighting. You have a dog, don't you Yara Young Rock? You should enter in a dog fight. You could get a chance to see half her face bitten off or ever her throat being ripped out. Great craic so it is. It wont be great fun for the dog but sure you and the other humans should get a buzz out of the sight of your dog or her competitor bleeding out, right?
Great craic.

SisterAnn

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah so i've heard, great craic, just like dog fighting. You have a dog, don't you Makikomi? You should enter in a dog fight. You could get a chance to see half her face bitten off or ever her throat being ripped out. Great craic so it is. It wont be great fun for the dog but sure you and the other humans should get a buzz out of the sight of your dog or her competitor bleeding out, right?
Great craic.

other dogs aren't vermin. Are they?

suicide_circus

SisterAnn wrote: »

other dogs aren't vermin. Are they?

No, but they are animals and therefore serve only to amuse and satisfy humans through their violent death.

ScumLord

suicide_circus wrote: »

No, but they are animals and therefore serve only to amuse and satisfy humans through their violent death.

Your also an animal why don't we put you in a fight to the death seeing as your comparing apples and oranges why not include grapes.

SisterAnn

suicide_circus wrote: »

No, but they are animals and therefore serve only to amuse and satisfy humans through their violent death.

Rats are animals too - should we not trap them when they enter your house? A trap is a violent death for a rat. Should we not spray locusts. They are animals and should be left to eat the crops.

The anti-hunt lobby never seem to be able to digest the simple concept of vermin on the land. Largely because they see all creatures in the countryside as fluffy Disney characters. When your dealings with animals is solely through household pets and watching Disney movies, then you are a little bit constrained in your ability to understand country ways. It is easy to feel that by opposing hunts that you are some kind of righteous champion for all animals. It is also possible for such detachment to lead to a total failure to understand nature - the nature of the fox to kill fowl and the nature of the hounds to chase the fox. You arrive at the perverse conclusion that fox hunting is going against nature somehow.

suicide_circus

Well we generally separate humans from other other animals. All the rest are fair game imo.

dark crystal

SisterAnn wrote: »

Rats are animals too - should we not trap them when they enter your house? A trap is a violent death for a rat. Should we not spray locusts. They are animals and should be left to eat the crops.

The anti-hunt lobby never seem to be able to digest the simple concept of vermin on the land. Largely because they see all creatures in the countryside as fluffy Disney characters. When your dealings with animals is solely through household pets and watching Disney movies, then you are a little bit constrained in your ability to understand country ways. It is easy to feel that by opposing hunts that you are some kind of righteous champion for all animals. It is also possible for such detachment to lead to a total failure to understand nature - the nature of the fox to kill fowl and the nature of the hounds to chase the fox. You arrive at the perverse conclusion that fox hunting is going against nature somehow.

Do you actually believe these people are hunting to eradicate vermin/protect their livestock?

Or do you think they see it as sport and an all round great day out?

SisterAnn

I would say chiefly as a great sporting day out across the fields in fresh air at a sleepy time of the year.

If fox numbers are also managed as a byproduct - happy enough with that bonus.

Discodog

SisterAnn wrote: »

The anti-hunt lobby never seem to be able to digest the simple concept of vermin on the land. Largely because they see all creatures in the countryside as fluffy Disney characters. When your dealings with animals is solely through household pets and watching Disney movies, then you are a little bit constrained in your ability to understand country ways. It is easy to feel that by opposing hunts that you are some kind of righteous champion for all animals. It is also possible for such detachment to lead to a total failure to understand nature - the nature of the fox to kill fowl and the nature of the hounds to chase the fox. You arrive at the perverse conclusion that fox hunting is going against nature somehow.

I wondered when the "V" word would appear :rolleyes:

Yet more arrogant belittling of anyone who disagrees with hunting. I have lived in the Countryside all my life & worked on farms. The nature of the Fox is to feed itself. The nature of man is to leave tempting food that is easily accessible. I have kept Ducks, Geese & Chickens & I have never lost one to a Fox.

Fox Hunting is going against nature. The Fox has no natural predator so man has decided to become an animal & predate on Foxes. But unlike in nature we are killing for pleasure & not out of a necessity for food.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

Hmmm.
You're using some bizarre kettle logic here. On the one hand you say..
and argue that legislation does get to decide what is intrinsically cruel.
On the other hand, you now agree that the 1911 act is irrelevant to fox hunting. So, if you knew that, why are you bringing it up? And can you not now see what I mean when I say that legislation does not get to decide what is intrinsically cruel.

This really is very simple. In 1911 it was decided that terrifying or infuriating any domestic animal was cruelty. A wild animal has the same ability to feel pain so if it is cruel to a dog then it is also cruel to a Fox. So the Act does not apply to Foxes but it is not "irrelevant".

Discodog

SisterAnn wrote: »

I would say chiefly as a great sporting day out across the fields in fresh air at a sleepy time of the year.

If fox numbers are also managed as a byproduct - happy enough with that bonus.

So you could enjoy a drag hunt just as much !

I have this bizarre image of a Nun riding with the Hunt !

John_Rambo

SisterAnn wrote: »

When your dealings with animals is solely through household pets and watching Disney movies, then you are a little bit constrained in your ability to understand country ways

So Farmers Against Fox hunting learn about animals from Disney films?


Are you that confident in your low opinions of other people that simply don't agree with you that you know how they learnt about animals? You can say for definite that everyone here that disagrees with you gained all their knowledge through watching Disney movies?

Or, are you just using emotive language to get a rise out of people?