Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

MungBean

joela wrote: »

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.

You really dont get it do you ? Its not the fact that it dies its the fact that its dies to entertain someone with the chase. Did you chase your first pony through the woods and across the land with a pack of dogs terrified out of its wits ? Until you cornered it or it ran out of steam and the dogs killed it ? Get a good day out of it ? No ? Then it has fcuk all to do with what we are talking about.

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


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?

I have given you an alternative your just ignoring it so you can have a rant.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

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.

Ah but rats and rabbits are also hunted by birds of prey and there will be sufficient foxes remaining in the population to also contribute to the control. Some years rats and rabbit population will naturally exponentially expand and then nature will either increase the fox populations in response, the bird of prey numbers or it may well result in disease and/or starvation. Nature is great like that.

How do you know wolves will never be reintroduced? It is a serious contender believe me!

later12

Discodog wrote: »

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

Oh wait, so the only option is to live trap all the adult foxes?

Do you not think that causes serious even more serious welfare concerns (as laid out in the burns report),not only to foxes,but to other wild animals, and in far greater numbers?

And how is the fox then aged, Discodog.

This is fascinating.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

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.

The old "Mr Fox" would only starve if we didn't tear it to bits argument. Foxes self regulate litter sizes according to the resources that are available. They will only die of starvation if they are injured or there is a dramatic change in circumstances. There is this ridiculous assumption that man has to interfere.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

You really dont get it do you ? Its not the fact that it dies its the fact that its dies to entertain someone with the chase. Did you chase your first pony through the woods and across the land with a pack of dogs terrified out of its wits ? Until you cornered it or it ran out of steam and the dogs killed it ? Get a good day out of it ? No ? Then it has fcuk all to do with what we are talking about.



I have given you an alternative your just ignoring it so you can have a rant.

I am not ignoring it, I pointed out my pony was a pet and ponies have been bred as domesticated animals and even in France and other European countries as a meat source. So cornered fox, you think it is lying there with its life flashing before its eyes? Err no the minute the hounds catch up it is snapped up and dead. So yeah slightly different scenario and my comments had plenty to do with discussing nature, wild vs domestic and acceptance of cruelty in life.

You haven't given me an alternative and I fear you my dear are ranting

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Hi Discodog how does the marksman age the male fox? You said you saw it being done on culls.

I'm really curious.

Does he ask him for a copy of his passport?

Still struggling with the definition of culling are we ? lol never seen someone so stubborn as to refuse to accept the definition of a word because it doesnt fit with whats in their head.

later12

Oh Hi there Mungbean

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

later10 wrote: »

Oh wait, so the only option is to live trap all the adult foxes?
Do you not think that causes serious even more serious welfare concerns (as laid out in the burns report),not only to foxes,but to other wild animals, and in far greater numbers?
And how is the fox then aged, Discodog.
This is fascinating.

There is no satisfactory way to kill foxes & there is also no necessity to kill them - it is counter productive.

I said that the only way that it could be done is live trapping not that it should or needs to be done.

It's not fascinating - just common sense.

By the way you are posting on a message board, not conducting an interrogation.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

The old "Mr Fox" would only starve if we didn't tear it to bits argument. Foxes self regulate litter sizes according to the resources that are available. They will only die of starvation if they are injured or there is a dramatic change in circumstances. There is this ridiculous assumption that man has to interfere.

Seriously you think it is that simple? So all the ecological studies looking at how populations control themselves are incorrect? Sure in times of hunger the litter sizes are regulated but to get to the hunger the population has somehow expanded beyound the point of sustainable. Mange epidemics are one example of disease that often happens when the population has reached tipping point.

The whole Gaian theory about the balance of nature and the need for man to not interfere with nature has been discredited in ecological circles with most scientists accepting that human interference has resulted in some of our most revered and admired habitats. An example in Ireland is heathlands, cleared the trees etc. and managed the heather and now listed as an Annex I habitat.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

There is no satisfactory way to kill foxes & there is also no necessity to kill them - it is counter productive.

I said that the only way that it could be done is live trapping not that it should or needs to be done.

I'm having some difficulty with reconciling your post below with your new interpretation that ageing and sexing can only be done by live trapping.Read it again, and maybe you can explain how the fox is aged and sexed here:

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.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

The old "Mr Fox" would only starve if we didn't tear it to bits argument. Foxes self regulate litter sizes according to the resources that are available. They will only die of starvation if they are injured or there is a dramatic change in circumstances. There is this ridiculous assumption that man has to interfere.

Where did I say he would starve if he wasn't killed by hounds? I said the other ways of population control are also cruel, longer more lingering deaths often, my point being nature and death are cruel.

Eggs you say, hmmmm there are some who would disagree with eggs also?

MungBean

joela wrote: »

I am not ignoring it, I pointed out my pony was a pet and ponies have been bred as domesticated animals and even in France and other European countries as a meat source. So cornered fox, you think it is lying there with its life flashing before its eyes? Err no the minute the hounds catch up it is snapped up and dead. So yeah slightly different scenario and my comments had plenty to do with discussing nature, wild vs domestic and acceptance of cruelty in life.

Yeah we are all animals, nature is cruel. Anything to avoid the responsibility of your actions. You live in a society where you cannot act like an animal. So this "nature is cruel" thing doesnt apply to humans. Unless your justifying rape, murder, torture and everything else morally despicable for conscious beings to engage in. If you are then perhaps society aint for you and if your not then explain to me why a person should have the right to inflict suffering on another creature simply because they want to do so.

You haven't given me an alternative and I fear you my dear are ranting

I have. Lamping and shooting which is according to the great burns enquiry the most humane way of killing a fox.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Oh Hi there Mungbean

Hello.

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

Nope. Try again.

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

Because its not illegal here.

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

I think you need to start reading them before replying.

Are those figures false?

I have no idea.

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.

This is proof of Irish figures ? 12 year old figures from the UK where fox hunting is now banned ?

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

I did not assert it I challenged your assertion and you have yet to provide anything in the way of facts or figures. Burden of proof is on you old chap, provide it or concede the point.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

I'm having some difficulty with reconciling your post below with your new interpretation that ageing and sexing can only be done by live trapping.Read it again, and maybe you can explain how the fox is aged and sexed here:

You have this problem of making assumptions instead of reading the words on a post. I did not say that I attended a Fox cull because there is no such thing. I used the example to illustrate how a cull is conducted & to show the differences between hunting & culling.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

Where did I say he would starve if he wasn't killed by hounds? I said the other ways of population control are also cruel, longer more lingering deaths often, my point being nature and death are cruel.

Eggs you say, hmmmm there are some who would disagree with eggs also?

But you miss the point that we do not need to interfere & control the population. Nature has been controlling Fox numbers & will continue to do so.

Some might disapprove of eating eggs - I don't provided the hens are reared properly.

later12

I'm here all day Mung Bean

MungBean wrote: »

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

So why does this maxim not apply to Ireland?

If you're not questioning the legality of the hunt here, then how can you deny its validity?

Is this about the law or not?

This is proof of Irish figures ?

Nope. It's nothing more than an indication of Irish figures. In the absence of evidence, it seems reasonable to assume that Irish hunts kill a similar proportion of foxes. We have no hard evidence, but you seem to have hard evidence:

MungBean wrote: »

A hunt is not hunting and doesnt keep the numbers down

This is a clear assertion, as though provable.

Evidence ,please.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

Yeah we are all animals, nature is cruel. Anything to avoid the responsibility of your actions. You live in a society where you cannot act like an animal. So this "nature is cruel" thing doesnt apply to humans. Unless your justifying rape, murder, torture and everything else morally despicable for conscious beings to engage in. If you are then perhaps society aint for you and if your not then explain to me why a person should have the right to inflict suffering on another creature simply because they want to do so.



I have. Lamping and shooting which is according to the great burns enquiry the most humane way of killing a fox.

I never said that nature being cruel justified human actions Why doesn't nature being cruel apply to humans, people die from cancer, starvation, abuse and a multitude of other things all the time but ultimately it is just cruel nature. I guess you are vegan then or perhaps a frutarian? Otherwise you are indirectly inflicting suffering on a another creature. How about where your clothing, shoes, household items etc. are sourced? Can you be sure there will be no one or nothing indirectly suffering as a result of your purchasing them? Life is not always nice and some of us can have a conscience and yet see nothing wrong with a fox hunt and the death of a fox. We just have different views on this.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

But you miss the point that we do not need to interfere & control the population. Nature has been controlling Fox numbers & will continue to do so.

Some might disapprove of eating eggs - I don't provided the hens are reared properly.

Nature if left unattended will control population numbers in some form after the population has gone beyond control and in the case of foxes they do not have any large predators. I assure you I do not miss the point, I know the science behind population ecology but thanks.

Well Some disapprove of fox hunted but I don't because I know that a good hunt behaves appropriately and the fox dies quickly.

DublinWriter

joela wrote: »

the fox dies quickly.

Just how quickly? Bolt to the head quickly?

joela

DublinWriter wrote: »

Just how quickly? Bolt to the head quickly?

As quick if not quicker.

DublinWriter

joela wrote: »

As quick if not quicker.

Quicker than a bolt to the head? Really?

later12

DublinWriter wrote: »

Quicker than a bolt to the head? Really?

Yes, because a captive bolt doesn't typically kill an animal.

But really, in a few seconds, certainly, the animal would be dead. The throat is snapped.

joela

DublinWriter wrote: »

Quicker than a bolt to the head? Really?

Yeah I'd say it is, think of large canine teeth and jaws designed for the job and how quick they have to be to ensure keeping their prey.

I haven't timed it as you can imagine but the end is quick.

MungBean

DublinWriter wrote: »

Just how quickly? Bolt to the head quickly?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-862586154091165213

As long as possible to get a few kicks out of it. First dog is never guaranteed to get the kill and it certainly isnt instant. Anyone who tells you different is a liar.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

I'm here all day Mung Bean

Much to the dismay of the rest of us. Theres no point in trying to explain anything to ya. Just go away and bother someone else or kick a dog to death or whatever ya do in your spare time.

Rational discussion doesnt suit ya.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

Nature if left unattended will control population numbers in some form after the population has gone beyond control and in the case of foxes they do not have any large predators. I assure you I do not miss the point, I know the science behind population ecology but thanks.

Well Some disapprove of fox hunted but I don't because I know that a good hunt behaves appropriately and the fox dies quickly.

Do you know the science ?. Nature rarely lets a population get out of control. It is a continual ongoing process. An undernourished female will produce less offspring. So by reducing the numbers by hunting you free up more space & food resulting in more foxes. It is self defeating.

The fox may die quickly but only after it has been chased to the point of exhaustion.

Discodog

DublinWriter wrote: »

Quicker than a bolt to the head? Really?

But nothing like as quick as a well aimed, correctly specified, bullet.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

Much to the dismay of the rest of us. Theres no point in trying to explain anything to ya. Just go away and bother someone else or kick a dog to death or whatever ya do in your spare time.

Rational discussion doesnt suit ya.

I think that is very unfair, Later10 has been very calm and rational and I felt he/she was trying to be very factual.

Anyway that aside, sensationalist videos are always accurate portrayals aren't they? Have you actually been on a hunt or seen a kill?

Discodog

joela wrote: »

I think that is very unfair, Later10 has been very calm and rational and I felt he/she was trying to be very factual.

Anyway that aside, sensationalist videos are always accurate portrayals aren't they? Have you actually been on a hunt or seen a kill?

Calm & factual - the constant repeating of questions & demanding answers & the use of intelligent phrases like "Sigh". :rolleyes:

Oh & I have been on Hunts, seen the kills & video'd them. The last part was a bit tricky when surrounded by a load of heavies trying to block the camera !. Hence the video usually has to be shot from a distance.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

Do you know the science ?. Nature rarely lets a population get out of control. It is a continual ongoing process. An undernourished female will produce less offspring. So by reducing the numbers by hunting you free up more space & food resulting in more foxes. It is self defeating.

The fox may die quickly but only after it has been chased to the point of exhaustion.

Are you seriously questioning my knowledge of population ecology? Listen nature is the predator-prey interaction or in this case the hunt-prey interaction, a flucuation occurs in one it affects the other either positively or negatively. Nature often lets populations get out of control which is why you have epidemics or starvation events etc. The undernourished female will produce less offspring but she first has to become undernourish which may occur for a number of reasons. Hunting does not "free up more space" lol, it will reduce the numbers of the population which will allow the remaining numbers to have sufficient food. If the following year there is oversupply the various factors will then regulate the population again or it may occur in 5 year cycles or 10 year cycles but population ecology is definitely not the wonderful mother nature ideal you are trying to put forth. Have you a background in ecology, I mean actual ecology not your wishy washy pseudo science stuff?

Just to add: Over hunting will result in the scenario you describe which is why the hunting grounds are carefully hunted and only hunted a number of times a year. If an area is over hunted it may take some time for it to recover to previous levels but recover it will unless a catastrophic event occurs. Certain species cannot however recover as easily for various reasons which is why over hunting is a rather more serious problem for them.