Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

Discodog

SisterAnn wrote: »

I demand the right to hunt foxes as a free person. I don't demand that you also enjoy it alongside me and give up your tennis, football, golf, or whatever your buzz is. That would be arrogant.

I demand the right to try & prevent blatant cruelty & unnecessary suffering. If your "buzz" is to cause cruelty then I actually feel sorry for you. Throughout history well minded people have had to fight to support the oppressed & they have often faced derision.

later12

Equal rights for foxes!

joela

The foxes are oppressed now? This gets better and better

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

I'll repeat.

Why does the hunt 'not cull foxes'?

I have attended proper culls. First you select the sex that you wish to cull - it is invariable the males as it reduces the risk of killing young by starvation. Then you decide on the age of males that you wish to remove. Next you survey the cull area to determine where those targeted males are likely to be. You use a qualified, expert & licensed marksman. You spend hours getting cold & wet. Often the marksman will get an animal in his sights & abort the kill because he is uncertain of the sex or age or because he isn't sure of a perfect shot.

Finally he gets a valid target in his sights & the animal is instantly killed. It didn't even know that the marksman was there. It wasn't hunted & chased to exhaustion before being torn apart.

So Foxhunting has absolutely nothing to do with Culling.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

Mung Bean I'd like to hear you answer this question and those I posed to ItsaWindUp earlier in the thread.

1. Do you understand that there is no such thing as a balance in nature and that nature is cruel in its methods when judged with human emotions.
2. Do you have a better idea for preventing overpopulation or would you prefer to watch nature being nature and cruelly starving the fox population or decimating it through disease? It makes no odds to me but it is still suffering and cruelty so how is one better than the other in terms of cruelty as humans understand it?
3. Banning hunting will inevitably result in more lamping, much greater in terms of cruelty imo, poisoning, shooting and maiming. So is this a better alternative to a really quick instantaneous death when caught by hounds?

Hounds, horses etc. may be domesticated but they are still nature as are human beings and we continuously project our own values and emotions onto animals which really isn't what nature intended.

1. I'm not sure what balance your referring to, but there most certainly is a balance that develops naturally between different species. Yes you could apply the cruel to aspects of nature.

2. Actual hunting would to me be a better option. Hunting is not based on cruelty as fox hunting is. The objective of actual hunting is tracking and killing an animal in a clean fashion. The objective of a fox hunt is chasing and killing a fox for entertainment. The fox doesnt have to be chased and killed by dogs when the option is available for a one shot clean kill from an actual hunter.

3. According to the burns enquiry which is bandied about by pro hunters here lamping and shooting is the most humane way of killing a fox. And people who shoot foxes will do so anyway. The maiming of animals should be addressed but its not an excuse to perpetuate this cruel tradition.

Horses and hounds are domesticated and bred for human purpose. Unnecessary cruelty to an animal for the purpose of entertainment should not be tolerated. There are other ways to entertain yourself without inflicting torment and pain on an animal. If an animal has to be killed to keep the populations down then the most humane way possible is what should be used and it shouldnt be done for the purpose of sport.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

I have attended proper culls. First you select the sex that you wish to cull - it is invariable the males as it reduces the risk of killing young by starvation. Then you decide on the age of males that you wish to remove. Next you survey the cull area to determine where those targeted males are likely to be. You use a qualified, expert & licensed marksman. You spend hours getting cold & wet. Often the marksman will get an animal in his sights & abort the kill because he is uncertain of the sex or age or because he isn't sure of a perfect shot.

And how does one sex and more curiously, age, the male fox?

Discodog

joela wrote: »

The foxes are oppressed now? This gets better and better

No need to be confused. I would say that any wild animal that is hunted purely for pleasure is pretty oppressed. A great Connemara man was once asked why he fought a duel on behalf of an Ox. His answer was that an Ox cannot hold a pistol. Foxes can't speak out in their defence.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

And how does one sex and more curiously, age, the male fox?

You can't which is why Fox Hunting is not culling. It is totally indiscriminate.

later10 wrote: »

Equal rights for foxes!

No. I don't agree with Animal Rights but I do agree with Animal Welfare - there is a difference.

Your method of posting does little to favour your argument.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

You can't which is why Fox Hunting is not culling. It is totally indiscriminate.

No but this marksman, from behind his gun: i want to know how he ages and sexes the foxes.

(btw foxhunting nor cubbing are indiscriminate, hunting to hounds will rid the population of its weaker members, the fittest will get away easily)

The King of Moo

rothai wrote: »

This is more bleeding heart bul****. People can't feed their children in this country, Suicide....There are real issues in this country that need debate.

So start a thread on those topics.

Just because an issue is not as serious or destructive as others, doesn't mean that it should be ignored. By your logic, discussing suicide and having difficulty getting enough to eat in Ireland is "bleeding heart bull****" as worldwide suicide and third world starvation are more important matters.

Just because one opposes animal cruelty doesn't mean one doesn't care about any other matter.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Ok fair enough.

Lets talk about Ireland.

Now, you said



(i) does the same maxim apply to ireland, why or why not?

Not when your using figures from the UK for the basis of your argument.

(ii) If it does, then you have no grounds to call the hunt invalid here.

It doesnt.

You didn't answer my second question, Mung, which is what you meant by the following

That wasnt what you asked though was it. You quoted me as saying it wasnt culling. Which I have explained before and you just made up your own meaning for the word. And in answer to the quote you've dug up now I'll ask for any proof you have to show that fox hunting in Ireland keeps the numbers down to any meaningful degree.

Why are you ignoring our questions?

Why?

I'm not ignoring the questions your ignoring the answers because your incapable of understand the words used in them. Your at the end of your argument it seems, down to ignoring the definition of words to try and keep it going. Bit embarrassing really.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

I have attended proper culls. First you select the sex that you wish to cull - it is invariable the males as it reduces the risk of killing young by starvation. Then you decide on the age of males that you wish to remove. Next you survey the cull area to determine where those targeted males are likely to be. You use a qualified, expert & licensed marksman. You spend hours getting cold & wet. Often the marksman will get an animal in his sights & abort the kill because he is uncertain of the sex or age or because he isn't sure of a perfect shot.

Finally he gets a valid target in his sights & the animal is instantly killed. It didn't even know that the marksman was there. It wasn't hunted & chased to exhaustion before being torn apart.

So Foxhunting has absolutely nothing to do with Culling.

So you think the hunts don't do at least some of that? The main hunting season is after the cubs have been weaned so that if the vixen is killed they at least have a chance of surviving on their own. A lot of work is put into preparing for the fox hunts with earths being identified by landowners and volunteers working on the hunts behalf. Being hunted and chased is part of the nature of the fox, if we still had large predators it would be putting it into action much more often. Sheesh why this humanised picture of the fox all the time? Actually foxes are amazing and have trotted through my horses legs quite calmly after running circles around the dopey hounds 3 fields away. Then he is off and gone and the hounds are still a long way off.

I understand people feeling it is cruel but do not understand the over emotive language and projection of human feelings. I also do not understand why the same people feel that they have the right to stop people hunting, fishing, eating meat, taking life-saving medicines trialled on animals etc. It is down to individual choice like your religious/spiritual beliefs, your politics, your morals etc.

Discodog

Edz87 wrote: »

Also in about 20 hunts I've seen about 3 foxes and killed one. Shooting them with a high powered rifle is better imo. I rear pheasants and those ginger bas­tards are the fu­cking bane of my existence as one can cost me thousands in damage.

More proof that hunting has nothing to do with controlling numbers. You choose to raise birds, presumably to shoot or eat so the Fox is merely acting as a predator just like you.

Paparazzo

Discodog wrote: »

I would agree depending on how you keep them. My dogs are kept well & have everything that a domesticated animal could need. When I kept hens they had a big run & were only locked in at night - when the roost in any case. But battery farming is inhumane & Foxhunting is killing for pleasure.

Well, we don't need to eat chicken. You can easily argue you're keeping chickens for eating pleasure. Which is inhumane. Doesn't matter if it's battery or not.

The King of Moo

joela wrote: »

So you think the hunts don't do at least some of that? The main hunting season is after the cubs have been weaned so that if the vixen is killed they at least have a chance of surviving on their own. A lot of work is put into preparing for the fox hunts with earths being identified by landowners and volunteers working on the hunts behalf. Being hunted and chased is part of the nature of the fox, if we still had large predators it would be putting it into action much more often. Sheesh why this humanised picture of the fox all the time? Actually foxes are amazing and have trotted through my horses legs quite calmly after running circles around the dopey hounds 3 fields away. Then he is off and gone and the hounds are still a long way off.

I understand people feeling it is cruel but do not understand the over emotive language and projection of human feelings. I also do not understand why the same people feel that they have the right to stop people hunting, fishing, eating meat, taking life-saving medicines trialled on animals etc. It is down to individual choice like your religious/spiritual beliefs, your politics, your morals etc.

People keep mentioning this, but I don't recall any examples of it in the thread.

I don't need to humanise foxes to dislike cruelty to them.
I know they're far far away from us in terms of intelligence and emotional development, but that doesn't justify cruelty. Their similarity or lack of similarity to us is irrelevant.

Rocket19

later10 wrote: »

I realise this upsets people, but do you think the fox cares whether he's shot for fun or in po-faced gravity

Whatever method of curtailing the fox population - daylight shoots, lamping & shooting, or hunting to hounds, the hunters are always going to be at least partially motivated because they find it fun.

What I would like to know is why people are rounding on hunting to hounds, when it has been established that this is less cruel than daylight shooting with guns, for example, where morbidity is a serious welfare issue.

I understand that it doesn't matter to the fox whether he's being killed for "fun" or not, but killing an animal for a 'reason' other than purely for sport is preferable in my opinon. I know people will challenge this, but whatever.

Obviously in a hunt, there's no human involvement in the actual killing of the fox, so surely it makes no difference to the 'hunters' if a fox is killed or not. The majority of people who take part in hunts just want to ride cross-country and get some air; killing a fox isn't part of this enjoyment. The only reason the killing exists is because it represents the end of the "chase", the chase essentially being the purpose of the hunt. There's no reason for it other than tradition, it's just something that's always happened. I can't say a majority of riders would get kicks out of seeing an animal rippped to pieces.

I refuse to ever take part in 'traditional' fox hunts, only ever drag. A lot of riders feel the same way; they're animal lovers, and really, what's the point in killing a fox for no reason?? I do know a lot of horsey-people who still support live hunts, so i'm not surprised it's still legal, even if I disagree with it. I find that a lot of older people still support it.

I really have no clue to what extend fox hunting plays a role in controlling the fox population, so i'm not going to bull**** about it, but even if it is the case that hunting plays a crucial and positive role (doubtful I reckon), it still doesn't sit right with me how it is carried out. People have mentioned that shooting, maiming, etc is more traumatic, but I imagine being chased by a bunch of hounds and riders, and eventually being ripped to shreds is pretty traumatic too. If given the choice between this and a bullet, I know which I'd choose. Maybe i'm being simplistic and anthropomrphic here, but I'm sure the foxes feel fear too. If your argument is that hunting helps control the population, I would say there are better ways.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

Not when your using figures from the UK for the basis of your argument.

Why?

You brought up the following reasoning:

If your not questioning the illegality of the hunt then you have absolutely no grounds to call it valid.

I'm just wondering why this maxim is limited by the boundary between Ireland and the UK.

Is it because it suits your argument to base the invalidity of hunting in the UK on the law, but that this fails when you propose it in an Irish context,since hunting is legal (therefore valid, according to your reasoning) in the Republic

And in answer to the quote you've dug up now I'll ask for any proof you have to show that fox hunting in Ireland keeps the numbers down to any meaningful degree.

Oh but I never said it does. I said that given that we operate so many hunts, and operate the same system of foxhunting as was imported from the UK, and have a very rideable countryside which is hunted from Cork up to Antrim, from Galway to South Dublin, it seems reasonable that our hunts would kill a similar number of foxes as the British hunts pre-ban. That seems reasonable, but it might not be true.

However,

what you are doing is making an active assertion that fox hunts to not keep numbers down.

I'd like to see your evidence for that.

later12

Rocket19 wrote: »

The only reason the killing exists is because it represents the end of the "chase", the chase essentially being the purpose of the hunt.

You're wrong here. You have the cart before the horse.

The reason the hunt invite subscribers and guests to join the hunt is because they recognize that horses and riders love the thrills and spills of chasing across open country. So the hunt can use the sub & cap money of guests and members to support the serious work of the hunt.

However, the hunt servants and the committee have a job to do. They are not only there for the fun, they are there to fulfil the hunt's basic objective (to control the fox or hare population)

joela

MungBean wrote: »

1. I'm not sure what balance your referring to, but there most certainly is a balance that develops naturally between different species. Yes you could apply the cruel to aspects of nature.

2. Actual hunting would to me be a better option. Hunting is not based on cruelty as fox hunting is. The objective of actual hunting is tracking and killing an animal in a clean fashion. The objective of a fox hunt is chasing and killing a fox for entertainment. The fox doesnt have to be chased and killed by dogs when the option is available for a one shot clean kill from an actual hunter.

3. According to the burns enquiry which is bandied about by pro hunters here lamping and shooting is the most humane way of killing a fox. And people who shoot foxes will do so anyway. The maiming of animals should be addressed but its not an excuse to perpetuate this cruel tradition.

Horses and hounds are domesticated and bred for human purpose. Unnecessary cruelty to an animal for the purpose of entertainment should not be tolerated. There are other ways to entertain yourself without inflicting torment and pain on an animal. If an animal has to be killed to keep the populations down then the most humane way possible is what should be used and it shouldnt be done for the purpose of sport.

There is no balance between species, not in nature....they co-exist or one chases and eats the other. There is no nice even keel at any time, nature is constantly in flux.

What do you mean hunting is not based on cruelty as fox hunting is? The rest of your comment is also tosh re tracking etc. Really showing your lack of knowledge on how the fox hunt works. Killing the fox is the end result, the entertainment is the jumping, the galloping and the chase with the hounds getting the fox is also part of that yes and it means that it is contributing to population control if caught. It doesn't bother me because I have seen how quick it is, I have also seen calves born dead or die at a few days old. I lost my first pony, our old horse and various dogs over the years, all were sad instances in some sense but mainly it was just life or nature. Obviously the domesticated pets are the ones we mourn the most but death will come to us all in some manner.

Well as I said IMO I find lamping crueller but I guess it depends how and who goes lamping.


You go on about horses and hounds being domesticated and unecessary cruelty to animals etc. you have made that point many times now please offer me an alternative which will be viable alternative to current methods of population control. I believe the re-introduction of wolves is being looked at for the future would that help?

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

More proof that hunting has nothing to do with controlling numbers. You choose to raise birds, presumably to shoot or eat so the Fox is merely acting as a predator just like you.

Never said it is about controlling numbers, I do it because I enjoy it and Pheasant casserole tastes amazing.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

Being hunted and chased is part of the nature of the fox, if we still had large predators it would be putting it into action much more often.

But those predators were hunted to extinction & they would of been hunting the fox in order to survive, not for fun. Whether something is supposedly part of nature it doesn't excuse causing suffering. Presumably you would of applied the same argument to Bull Baiting or Cock Fighting.

joela wrote: »

I also do not understand why the same people feel that they have the right to stop people hunting, fishing, eating meat, taking life-saving medicines trialled on animals etc. It is down to individual choice like your religious/spiritual beliefs, your politics, your morals etc.

We are discussing Fox hunting & trying to offset the argument by adding in other activities is irrelevant. The issue is whether we should allow the Fox to be subjected to cruelty purely for entertainment. It can never be down to the individual because there will always be those who don't care about animal cruelty which is why we have to resort to law.

later12

Discodog how does the marksman age the male fox?

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Why?

You brought up the following reasoning:
I'm just wondering why this maxim is limited by the boundary between Ireland and the UK.

Is it because it suits your argument to base the invalidity of hunting in the UK on the law, but that this fails when you propose it in an Irish context,since hunting is legal (therefore valid, according to your reasoning) in the Republic

I brought that up in relation to your claim that regardless of the law it was a valid method. It obviously cannot be a valid method if it is illegal. Everything else you say there is just padding to confuse the fact that you were wrong and didnt understand the meaning of the word valid.

Oh but I never said it does. I said that given that we operate so many hunts, and operate the same system of foxhunting as was imported from the UK, and have a very rideable countryside which is hunted from Cork up to Antrim, from Galway to South Dublin, it seems reasonable that our hunts would kill a similar number of foxes as the British hunts pre-ban. That seems reasonable, but it might not be true.

However,

what you are doing is making an active assertion that fox hunts to not keep numbers down.

I'd like to see your evidence for that.

Another lame attempt to shift the argument. Anything I have said about hunting not keeping the numbers down has been in direct reply to you or someone else claiming (without any evidence) that it did, usually followed with an argument that its not cruel because not many foxes are caught. You claimed that it kept numbers down, you tried to back it up with figures from the UK from 12 years ago and it fell flat on its face. Now your doing everything you can to back peddle and divert the argument.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

I believe the re-introduction of wolves is being looked at for the future would that help?

Yes it is but they will never be reintroduced here. We don't have the space & if the Eagles are anything to go by, there would be plenty of people just waiting to kill them.

But by killing foxes you increase the rabbit & rat populations.

Discodog

Edz87 wrote: »

Never said it is about controlling numbers, I do it because I enjoy it and Pheasant casserole tastes amazing.

You haven't but plenty have. At your kill rate hunting clearly serves no purpose other than entertainment.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

But those predators were hunted to extinction & they would of been hunting the fox in order to survive, not for fun. Whether something is supposedly part of nature it doesn't excuse causing suffering. Presumably you would of applied the same argument to Bull Baiting or Cock Fighting.



We are discussing Fox hunting & trying to offset the argument by adding in other activities is irrelevant. The issue is whether we should allow the Fox to be subjected to cruelty purely for entertainment. It can never be down to the individual because there will always be those who don't care about animal cruelty which is why we have to resort to law.

But you yourself have brought in other aspects outside of fox hunting so one rule for you and all that??

Because the fox has no large predator means it needs population control or else tipping point is reached and disease/starvation follows. How does it matter then if it is a large wild predator or a hound that chases and kills it? You don't know what the fox is thinking or feeling so how likely is he thinking 'oh I wish the wolves were after me, at least they were wild and didn't have any humans on horses chasing me', er no I think it is more likely the fox has gone into survival mode.

MagicSean

KTRIC wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they aren't or are classed as. Being chased and torn apart by a bunch of angry blood hounds is not a fitting end for any animal.

Sure we kill cows and pigs etc but in a humane manner and the animal is dead before it knows it. Put yourself in the foxes position and ask would you like it ??

My understanding is that fowl are killed by being dipped in electrocuted water and cattle get a retractable nail gun to the head. Is this what you mean by humane?

later12

MungBean wrote: »

I brought that up in relation to your claim that regardless of the law it was a valid method.

Right, and your argument was that if the law says no, it's an invalid method.

All I'm asking is why this maxim does not apply to Ireland, then?

I think you need to plan your statements in your head before you write down the first thing you think of.

You claimed that it kept numbers down, you tried to back it up with figures from the UK from 12 years ago and fell flat on its face.

Are those figures false?

If you have evidence that those figures should not apply reasonably proportionately to Ireland, which operates on the British system as it was prior to the ban, and is very extensively hunted to hounds, then I'd love to see it.

I'm waiting for the evidence here "Mung Bean" Why did you assert that the hunt does not keep numbers down?

Discodog

Paparazzo wrote: »

Well, we don't need to eat chicken. You can easily argue you're keeping chickens for eating pleasure. Which is inhumane. Doesn't matter if it's battery or not.

I used to keep them for eggs :rolleyes:

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

Discodog how does the marksman age the male fox?

He doesn't which is why you can't cull Foxes except by live trapping.