Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

joela

Bambi wrote: »

Its funny how you're trying to do PR for hunts when you just show them up as dirtbags. Breed dogs to kill other animals then give the dog a barrel when they're no use to them. If it happened in an urban area the owner would be up on charges of course lol

My sister used to live in an area the clare hunt used, shower of ignorant pr**ks who acted like they owned the whole area.

Jesus, where did I say I was acting as PR for hunts?? I'm being truthful about this and it of course happens in urban areas. We breed animals to feed ourselves and kill them too when we need to. What is the difference?

Ah see the real reason seems to be to do with some sort of resentment towards a particular hunt which further muddies the water in relation to why some individuals are anti-hunting. Again I say careful with the generalisations, are all anti-hunt supporters crusties and hippies? I'm sure they are not same as all people who hunt are not ignorant pricks.

Ave Sodalis

Discodog wrote: »

The difference is that these dogs have been bred for a purpose & have served their owners. Livestock is killed for food, dog's arn't - well not here yet ! If a dog owner went to the Vet & said "my six year old dog isn't as quick as he was, can you kill him" the Vet would be horrified yet this is deemed acceptable for Foxhounds & Greyhounds.

It is yet another example of how the hunting fraternity see themselves as not needing to conform to the tenets of basic animal welfare that are accepted by the majority of people.

Great! Okay, so ban hunting! What do you think is going to happen to the hundreds of hounds that can't be used for anything else?

joela

Discodog wrote: »

The difference is that these dogs have been bred for a purpose & have served their owners. Livestock is killed for food, dog's arn't - well not here yet ! If a dog owner went to the Vet & said "my six year old dog isn't as quick as he was, can you kill him" the Vet would be horrified yet this is deemed acceptable for Foxhounds & Greyhounds.

It is yet another example of how the hunting fraternity see themselves as not needing to conform to the tenets of basic animal welfare that are accepted by the majority of people.

Livestock is not always killed for food, lots of animals end up as feedstuff for other animals, as by products etc. Basic animal welfare does not involve keeping an animal alive if it is not able to earn its way and you will not be able to afford to keep it otherwise. The vet would be horrified, are you sure he/she would in the case of a foxhound or greyhound who could no longer work? Basic animal welfare has nothing to do with an animal being put down, so the alternative is what? Stop doing everything that may result in any death?

Dyr

joela wrote: »

Jesus, where did I say I was acting as PR for hunts?? I'm being truthful about this and it of course happens in urban areas. We breed animals to feed ourselves and kill them too when we need to. What is the difference?

You eat dog then? Keep 'em as livestock?
If someone let a pack of savage dogs loose in dublin they would only do it the once, laws tend to enforced about that sorta thing up here.

Discodog

sup_dude wrote: »

Great! Okay, so ban hunting! What do you think is going to happen to the hundreds of hounds that can't be used for anything else?

Two choices. The hunts could own up to their responsibilities as animal owners & keep the animals in retirement. They could even pay an organisation to rehabilitate & rehome them.

Or they could be put down which though totally wrong, would ensure that future generations wouldn't suffer the same ongoing fate. It would save thousand of dogs in the long run.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

Livestock is not always killed for food, lots of animals end up as feedstuff for other animals, as by products etc. Basic animal welfare does not involve keeping an animal alive if it is not able to earn its way and you will not be able to afford to keep it otherwise. The vet would be horrified, are you sure he/she would in the case of a foxhound or greyhound who could no longer work? Basic animal welfare has nothing to do with an animal being put down, so the alternative is what? Stop doing everything that may result in any death?

Animal welfare is about only taking on an animal that you can afford to maintain. It is also about doing everything possible to ensure it's well being during it's lifetime. Dogs are classified as Companion Animals. They should never be treated as livestock or only for purpose. Yes a dog may work but it should earn the right for a decent retirement.

Basic animal welfare has everything to do with a dog not being put down. Needlessly killing a dog is not a substitute for long term care. Ireland is pretty much the dog breeding & dog killing centre of Europe. This attitude of disposable dogs is totally out of step with most civilised countries.

Your heartless attitude towards animals seems appropriate for a supporter of hunting. No compassionate person is going to support the senseless & brutal killing of a wild animal just for, in your words, the "buzz".

Discodog

johngalway wrote: »

Sorry L10, but I have to disagree with you again.
Farmed lands, I'm a farmer, I also lamp foxes, I can tell you for sure there have been, are, and will continue to be foxes on all types of farmed lands that a fox has access to.
Habitated lands, uhm, urban foxes, foxes in towns and villages all across the country and as close as they like to rural houses too.

I agree & to be honest anyone who thinks that Foxes avoid habitated areas has no understanding of the species.

I could never understand or agree with John shooting foxes but I respect that the majority of shooters pride themselves on being able to kill instantly. I know that, when I was out with a marksman, the animal was killed in a split second. It is a world away from all the stress & trauma of hunting.

The hunting community like to use the "who next" argument to encourage shooters to join their cause but I see no likelihood of a campaign to ban shooting.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

joela wrote: »

Livestock is not always killed for food, lots of animals end up as feedstuff for other animals, as by products etc. Basic animal welfare does not involve keeping an animal alive if it is not able to earn its way and you will not be able to afford to keep it otherwise. The vet would be horrified, are you sure he/she would in the case of a foxhound or greyhound who could no longer work? Basic animal welfare has nothing to do with an animal being put down, so the alternative is what? Stop doing everything that may result in any death?

Animal welfare is about only taking on an animal that you can afford to maintain. It is also about doing everything possible to ensure it's well being during it's lifetime. Dogs are classified as Companion Animals. They should never be treated as livestock or only for purpose. Yes a dog may work but it should earn the right for a decent retirement.

Basic animal welfare has everything to do with a dog not being put down. Needlessly killing a dog is not a substitute for long term care. Ireland is pretty much the dog breeding & dog killing centre of Europe. This attitude of disposable dogs is totally out of step with most civilised countries.

Your heartless attitude towards animals seems appropriate for a supporter of hunting. No compassionate person is going to support the senseless & brutal killing of a wild animal just for, in your words, the "buzz".

I said killing animals was a buzz? Whe and where because I certainly never intended to convey that sort of message.

I also never said I support hunting, I have hunted in the past and I support my right and the right of others to choose to hunt if we so wish. I have however said I do not feel hunting is an animal welfare issue but I accept that you and others may view it as cruel.

Accusing people of lacking compassion amongst other things is simply incorrect just because we do not view hunting the same way as you do. You can love the natural world and be realistic about it as well.

So you never gave any further information on your area of expertise in terms of ecology. You mentioned peer reviewed papers, what was the subject of the papers and where were they published? I'm genuinely interested as it would be very unusual to work as an ecologist rescuing foxes.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

johngalway wrote: »

Sorry L10, but I have to disagree with you again.
Farmed lands, I'm a farmer, I also lamp foxes, I can tell you for sure there have been, are, and will continue to be foxes on all types of farmed lands that a fox has access to.
Habitated lands, uhm, urban foxes, foxes in towns and villages all across the country and as close as they like to rural houses too.

I agree & to be honest anyone who thinks that Foxes avoid habitated areas has no understanding of the species.

I could never understand or agree with John shooting foxes but I respect that the majority of shooters pride themselves on being able to kill instantly. I know that, when I was out with a marksman, the animal was killed in a split second. It is a world away from all the stress & trauma of hunting.

The hunting community like to use the "who next" argument to encourage shooters to join their cause but I see no likelihood of a campaign to ban shooting.

Did you notice the part where John said he supported trapping, snaring, using terriers and hunting with dogs?

ScumLord

Discodog wrote: »

The difference is that these dogs have been bred for a purpose & have served their owners. Livestock is killed for food, dog's arn't - well not here yet ! If a dog owner went to the Vet & said "my six year old dog isn't as quick as he was, can you kill him" the Vet would be horrified

No he wouldn't, when the average family goes out and gets a pet for no other reason than they want to keep an animal captive as it's the done thing and their neighbour bought themselves some deformed handbag sized dog because it's cute to look at, all those dogs end up dead once they're past the puppy phase. To be honest I think anyone living in a city should be banned from owning pets, I think keeping just about any animal detained as a pet in an improper environment is a life of cruelty for that animal.

Discodog

ScumLord wrote: »

all those dogs end up dead once they're past the puppy phase. To be honest I think anyone living in a city should be banned from owning pets, I think keeping just about any animal detained as a pet in an improper environment is a life of cruelty for that animal.

What a ridiculous statement. Ireland is bad but it isn't that bad.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement. Ireland is bad but it isn't that bad.

It isn't ridiculous really, whilst there are some excellent pet owners in the city many dogs do not have any freedom to roam, get insufficient exercise, are living in gardens that are too small and are alone for long periods of time in closed quarters while the owner is out or working. I don't agree entirely with the previous poster but the point he makes is one of the reasons why I will not get a dog no matter how much my children plead. I don't think people should not have dogs in city but I do think many people do not realise how their small suburban back garden can become a prison for bored animals.

Dog fouling is also something I abhor but as I say to my kids it isn't the fault of the dog rather his irresponsible owner but that is another thread entirely.

Ave Sodalis

Discodog wrote: »

Two choices. The hunts could own up to their responsibilities as animal owners & keep the animals in retirement. They could even pay an organisation to rehabilitate & rehome them.

Or they could be put down which though totally wrong, would ensure that future generations wouldn't suffer the same ongoing fate. It would save thousand of dogs in the long run.

Hunt dogs know very little else from a young age. That's all they are trained to do. Rehabilitating them would cost huge amounts of money which most people won't be able to afford. The truth of the matter is, it's the hunts that mainly provide the money to feed and keep the dogs and horses.
Putting them down is wrong but inevitable if hunting was banned. You can't say here ''oh they shouldn't have got the dogs if they were gonna put them down'' because they already have the dogs. Any person I know would not want to put their hunt dogs down but they would be left with little other choice unless they find the odd person who would be willing to take on the dogs to be re-trained.

Now don't get me wrong, I love animals. In fact, I'm one of those people who prefers the company of an animal over that of a person but that's the reality of the situation.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

So you never gave any further information on your area of expertise in terms of ecology. You mentioned peer reviewed papers, what was the subject of the papers and where were they published? I'm genuinely interested as it would be very unusual to work as an ecologist rescuing foxes.

I didn't work as an Ecologist rescuing foxes - you are making assumptions yet again. I was employed as an Ecologist - I volunteered with a wildlife rescue. I am hardly going to reveal my identity on a public message board. But in my thousands of posts I don't recall ever being accused of lying. I would add that if you have been talking to so called Ecologists who think that Wolves maybe introduced here then they must be on drugs

joela wrote: »

Did you notice the part where John said he supported trapping, snaring, using terriers and hunting with dogs?

John is perfectly aware of my views - this may be a new debate for some but not for John & I.

joela wrote: »

It isn't ridiculous really, whilst there are some excellent pet owners in the city many dogs do not have any freedom to roam, get insufficient exercise, are living in gardens that are too small and are alone for long periods of time in closed quarters while the owner is out or working. I don't agree entirely with the previous poster but the point he makes is one of the reasons why I will not get a dog no matter how much my children plead. I don't think people should not have dogs in city but I do think many people do not realise how their small suburban back garden can become a prison for bored animals.

Dog fouling is also something I abhor but as I say to my kids it isn't the fault of the dog rather his irresponsible owner but that is another thread entirely.

The idea that most people that buy a puppy have it put down or dump it is ridiculous. Dogs should never have the freedom to roam - it is even a criminal offence. The majority of dogs will lead happy contented lives provided that they have food, shelter, plenty of human interaction & two walks a day. All of that is perfectly possible whilst living in an apartment with no garden.

In my experience the "country" dogs suffer far more as they can be left to roam in traffic & worry livestock. There also the Irish thing of chaining the dog up rather than building a fence. The majority of urban dogs tend to be kept indoors rather than in the typical unheated kennel.

Discodog

sup_dude wrote: »

Putting them down is wrong but inevitable if hunting was banned. You can't say here ''oh they shouldn't have got the dogs if they were gonna put them down'' because they already have the dogs. Any person I know would not want to put their hunt dogs down but they would be left with little other choice unless they find the odd person who would be willing to take on the dogs to be re-trained.

But the hounds are going to be killed anyway as soon as they can no longer hunt. At least more wouldn't have to die every year. Surely as supposed animal lovers the hunt can raise the money to ensure the hound's welfare.

Or is it that they prefer to have the looming spectre of hundreds of dead hounds so that they could say "look what you forced us to do" ?

Ave Sodalis

Discodog wrote: »

But the hounds are going to be killed anyway as soon as they can no longer hunt. At least more wouldn't have to die every year. Surely as supposed animal lovers the hunt can raise the money to ensure the hound's welfare.

Or is it that they prefer to have the looming spectre of hundreds of dead hounds so that they could say "look what you forced us to do" ?

Which isn't until they are quite old, generally unless a dog is badly injured in the mean time.
They could try but knowing and even being involved in some animal charities, with the recession, people just simply aren't giving the money to them. They prefer giving it to human charities or animal charities with abused animals, not 'retrain the hunt dogs' or even established sanctuaries.
That last sentence is ridiculous. As I said in my last post, hunts would not want to put their dogs down, why would they ''prefer'' to do that?

joela

Discodog wrote: »

I didn't work as an Ecologist rescuing foxes - you are making assumptions yet again. I was employed as an Ecologist - I volunteered with a wildlife rescue. I am hardly going to reveal my identity on a public message board. But in my thousands of posts I don't recall ever being accused of lying. I would add that if you have been talking to so called Ecologists who think that Wolves maybe introduced here then they must be on drugs

John is perfectly aware of my views - this may be a new debate for some but not for John & I.

The idea that most people that buy a puppy have it put down or dump it is ridiculous. Dogs should never have the freedom to roam - it is even a criminal offence. The majority of dogs will lead happy contented lives provided that they have food, shelter, plenty of human interaction & two walks a day. All of that is perfectly possible whilst living in an apartment with no garden.

In my experience the "country" dogs suffer far more as they can be left to roam in traffic & worry livestock. There also the Irish thing of chaining the dog up rather than building a fence. The majority of urban dogs tend to be kept indoors rather than in the typical unheated kennel.

Not asking you to reveal your identity but am curious as to your claim that you were employed as an ecologist? Again I would like to know what peer reviewed journals, no need to give your name by letting me know the subject of the paper and the journals. I also did not accuse you of lying, I expressed disbelief at your claim to have been working as an ecologist due to some of your comments regarding population ecology. As I said before I am merely interested in what work you have said you have produced which is peer reviewed etc.

I'm sure you and John have discussed this before but you choose to ignore a large portion of his post to make your point which seems a bit silly since you have been arguing about cruelty to animals. Fox hunting is cruel but snaring, trapping etc. is not?

As for the wolf, it is an ongoing discussion and not one I am particularly in favour of. The Irish Wildlife Trust were recently discussing it on their Facebook page as a matter of fact. Just because something is being discussed does not mean the people discussing it are "on drugs", anyway that is not my particular area so I will let it at that.

Edit to add link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=238216 Discussion on wolf on boards recently.

Finally, some urban dogs may be inside when their owner is home but some of them do spend a lot of time alone and enclosed in small spaces. This is often the reason that people have problems with barking dogs in urban areas.

joela

sup_dude wrote: »

Which isn't until they are quite old, generally unless a dog is badly injured in the mean time.
They could try but knowing and even being involved in some animal charities, with the recession, people just simply aren't giving the money to them. They prefer giving it to human charities or animal charities with abused animals, not 'retrain the hunt dogs' or even established sanctuaries.
That last sentence is ridiculous. As I said in my last post, hunts would not want to put their dogs down, why would they ''prefer'' to do that?

I guess what I don't understand with this one is what people think happens to animals at the end of their working lives etc. If you really want to stop animals being put down then you need to completely stop all breeding and force people to rehabilitate and look after older animals. That is not going to happen so surely it is much less cruel to humanely end the life of an animal that doesn't die in service first. Harsh as it is we all all provide food for other organisms so we never stop being useful, was watching them feeding horse meat to the wolves at Dublin zoo on TV the other night and thought I'd much rather that than incinerate or bury. Makes much more sense and is far more natural.

ScumLord

Discodog wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement. Ireland is bad but it isn't that bad.

Discodog wrote: »

The idea that most people that buy a puppy have it put down or dump it is ridiculous.

They don't buy the puppy with the intention of putting it down, they buy it because it's cute and when it stops being cute they get rid of it. It happens a lot.

Dogs should never have the freedom to roam - it is even a criminal offence.

Dogs should have and always did have the freedom to roam, that only changed because of more people and more dogs in less space and then bad people treating dogs badly leading to vicious dogs. Our dog was always allowed to roam free, it used to visit neighbours play with the other dogs and never bothered any of the animals in the field beside us. Of course our dog was in a long term relationship with the sheepdog that worked the animals in that field so he'd keep those animals safe and our dog pregnant until she had the snip.

The majority of dogs will lead happy contented lives provided that they have food, shelter, plenty of human interaction & two walks a day. All of that is perfectly possible whilst living in an apartment with no garden.

Sounds more like instructions for taking care of a plant. Of course it can be done but it's in no way the ideal environment.

ScumLord

Discodog wrote: »

But the hounds are going to be killed anyway as soon as they can no longer hunt. At least more wouldn't have to die every year.

A little genocide now will be better for everyone in the long run? I think the rights of the living outweigh the rights of the possible maybes of the future.

ItsAWindUp

k.p.h wrote: »

Do you know that when a fox gets into a hen house it kills all the hens, but will only eat one...?

That's unnecessary suffering also, why is the fox so vicious.

I think people completely misunderstand the situation, foxes have been a hindrance to any type of fowl keeping for hundreds of years, they are vicious and kill unnecessarily. The also pick of small live stock such as lambs at will..

That's just nature's way, while it is unpleasant, it happens. However, human beings shouldn't have the right to interfere in nature.

ScumLord

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

That's just nature's way, while it is unpleasant, it happens. However, human beings shouldn't have the right to interfere in nature.

Human beings are animals as well, we are nature it's impossible to separate us from it and stop us interfering. It has nothing to do with rights, rights don't exist outside our own heads we can do whatever we like we just have to live with the consequences. It's not our fault we're so good at being living things nature made us this way.

ItsAWindUp

ScumLord wrote: »

Human beings are animals as well, we are nature it's impossible to separate us from it and stop us interfering. It has nothing to do with rights, rights don't exist outside our own heads we can do whatever we like we just have to live with the consequences. It's not our fault we're so good at being living things nature made us this way.

I guess if you don't get it now, you never will

byhookorbycrook

Retiring an older, once active animal,whatever kind, is very often not too humane. I had an old horse that I wanted to keep as a pet, he seized up due to not being in work and would go chronically lame, round of painkillers, sound for a few weeks, chronically lame again. Who would I have been keeping him alive for?Him or me?

Likewise, I had a younger horse with tendon problems,despite time and treatment,he was never going to come right. A guy offered me reasonable money for him, that I could have taken, but again,I did the decent thing and had him destroyed. People told me I was a fool not to take the money, but I wouldn't do it to an animal that deserved more.

Previous to the two cases above, I would have been all for "retiring" horses.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

later10 wrote: »

In general, yes,a fox doesn't want to stray onto farmed and habitated lands unless it needs to, or is very hungry.

Absolute codswallop ! A fox will go for the easiest low risk meal & who can blame him.

Can you explain how exactly these two statements are contradictory?

Straying onto a farmstead, where chickens are kept, is usually not low risk. A fox will much prefer take off wild game or rabbits or rats than a chicken in a farmyard where there may be dogs or people around; I don't even see where you're disagreeing, since you refer yourself to 'low risk' meals.

You're losing sight of the argument at this stage, digging a trench, and disagreeing for the sake of wanting to be seen to be right. Even though to most rational people, the above statements are perfectly compatible.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

Basic animal welfare has everything to do with a dog not being put down.

That's not a welfare issue; an animal can be put down humanely.

That's an ethics issue.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

As for the wolf, it is an ongoing discussion and not one I am particularly in favour of. The Irish Wildlife Trust were recently discussing it on their Facebook page as a matter of fact. Just because something is being discussed does not mean the people discussing it are "on drugs", anyway that is not my particular area so I will let it at that.

Finally, some urban dogs may be inside when their owner is home but some of them do spend a lot of time alone and enclosed in small spaces. This is often the reason that people have problems with barking dogs in urban areas.

I was involved in a wide range of projects because I worked with a group who all had individual specialisations & we all helped each other. So the topics ranged from the effects of direct drilling on microarthropods right up to UK mammal & bird studies. My only regret is that despite many very early mornings, spent with an Ornithologist, my birdsong identification is useless.

But it is pretty much accepted here that people are judged by their posts & I will leave it to others reading this to decide whether I am spouting rubbish.

Knowing the IWT I would seriously doubt if they could find enough uninhabited land for one pack let alone enough for a viable population. A typical territory can be anything from 100 to 1000 square miles !

I would agree with your dog remarks given that "some" can mean any value however the argument posed was that no one in a town should have a dog.

sup_dude wrote: »

As I said in my last post, hunts would not want to put their dogs down, why would they ''prefer'' to do that?

Personal experience has shown me that Hunts hardly value a Hound. I know a Vet that covered an area including a pack & he was never asked to treat a Hound - they are disposable.

Discodog

ScumLord wrote: »

Dogs should have and always did have the freedom to roam, that only changed because of more people and more dogs in less space and then bad people treating dogs badly leading to vicious dogs.

Sounds more like instructions for taking care of a plant. Of course it can be done but it's in no way the ideal environment.

The 1986 Control of Dogs Act came about because of the huge numbers of dogs roaming & out of control. There are numerous reasons why a dog should never be allowed to roam. When such dogs are killed on roads, as a neighbour's was last month, people think that it won't happen to their dog.

With respect I think that you & many other people misunderstand dogs. I won't attempt to go into detail here but there are plenty of threads in the Animals & Pets section.

johngalway

ScumLord wrote: »

Dogs should have and always did have the freedom to roam.

Tell that to my neighbour who had four ewes ripped by dogs just a few weeks ago, and promptly died thereafter.

Your dog would have the freedom to get itself shot around here for your attitude.

joela

Discodog wrote: »

I was involved in a wide range of projects because I worked with a group who all had individual specialisations & we all helped each other. So the topics ranged from the effects of direct drilling on microarthropods right up to UK mammal & bird studies. My only regret is that despite many very early mornings, spent with an Ornithologist, my birdsong identification is useless.

But it is pretty much accepted here that people are judged by their posts & I will leave it to others reading this to decide whether I am spouting rubbish.

Knowing the IWT I would seriously doubt if they could find enough uninhabited land for one pack let alone enough for a viable population. A typical territory can be anything from 100 to 1000 square miles !

I would agree with your dog remarks given that "some" can mean any value however the argument posed was that no one in a town should have a dog.



Personal experience has shown me that Hunts hardly value a Hound. I know a Vet that covered an area including a pack & he was never asked to treat a Hound - they are disposable.

So your particular specialism is? Directional drilling and microarthropods, was this estuarine or terrestrial work? Was it academic research or practical hands on applied ecology? Did you carry out ecological assessments for either conservation or development projects? I ask this because academia can often be so specialised as to not end up with an ecologist with good field skills. Do you have the titles of the journals as requested?

I don't think it is "just" IWT but a wide ranging discussion amongst various groups and scientists. Why so disdainful of IWT, they do a lot of positive work to encourage an interest in natural history in Ireland with very little funding and support. Surely as a wildlife lover you can see that small steps in the right direction are very important, they have done much to highlight the turf cutting issues for example. I think they have made wildlife much more accessible to people and revitalised an interest in the natural environment. No affiliation with them other than suscribing for their magazine and liking their enthusiasm.