Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

later12

Captain Darling wrote: »

The fox when it is chased out of the den is not cornered and shot usually, its usually killed by the hounds. Are you seriously suggesting that people use a shot gun in and around hoards of horses?

Members are not allowed to approach the end of the hunt. Foxes are shot, and sometimes they are killed by the hounds. In both cases, death is instant.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

Finding the foxes' den and shooting them there would work well.
I'm sure there are measures such as guard dogs, traps, poisons and more secure chicken coops that are much more efficient than a large group of people and dogs occasionally chasing one fox for a long time.

Again, you aren't being realistic.

Which is your average, time pressed farmer going to prefer in the event of hunting being abolished or unavailable.

-Shooting:messy and often cruel, but simple & effective

or

-A complex mixture of guard dogs, traps and poisons which all have their own dangers both for stock, yard animals and members of the public (as well as being of less certain effect)

Why do you think poison and a guard dog is a fair way to kill a dog, but not hounds or a shotgun out hunting?

Captain Darling

later10 wrote: »

Members are not allowed to approach the end of the hunt. Foxes are shot, and sometimes they are killed by the hounds. In both cases, death is instant.

Not with the Galway Blazers. You're sort of cancelling out your own argument as well. You'd swear they had a SWAT team there to shoot the fox. I couldnt tell you how many times i've seen fox break from cover after being dug out and getting away.

Farmers are sh1te shots, however the hunt employs marksmen to pick off the fox once it reappears????

You're pulling me fecking leg.

Zebra3

later10 wrote: »

Members are not allowed to approach the end of the hunt. Foxes are shot, and sometimes they are killed by the hounds. In both cases, death is instant.

Are these the master race of hounds or something? :rolleyes:

SisterAnn

John_Rambo wrote: »

Read my post again.

With your attitude on this thread you are only getting up peoples noses and turning people against the hunt.

If I knew you, and I was a huntsman I would call you and ask you to shut the fook up. You are making a balls of defending the hunt, you are a brutal representative.

John, between childish use of supersize fonts and the above effort at invalidating my right to argue here, I think it is safe to say I have somehow gotten under your skin here today. If you wish to talk about hunting fine, but getting personal is poor argument at best and downright off topic at worst.

Benny_Cake

SisterAnn wrote: »

Captain Darling wrote: »

I think the main problem is with the manner of the killing of the fox. Do you see where we are coming from here?

Not really. It is immaterial in the case of vermin. I don't care about how minks, foxes, rats, grey squirrels etc. are dispatched. They are not worthy of a lethal injection as such. I am just happy to see the fox killed. It is not a pet dog.

As far as I know foxes aren't classified as vermin under wildlife legislation. They also play a role in keeping rat and rabbit populations under control.

In any case, hunting them with horses and dogs is hardly an efficient method. Pointless cruelty.

Helix

Zebra3 wrote: »

"Some 25 hounds accompanied the spectacle but catching the fox is an exceptional outcome."

Descibing it as a spectacle is not being objective. And the hunters' propagandists fail to say what happened to the fox or what happens when the "exceptional outcome" does actually happen.

No facts are produced to back up the claim of the fox being ripped to shreads by hounds as "exceptional".

spec·ta·cle   [spek-tuh-kuhl]
noun
a public show or display, especially on a large scale: The coronation was a lavish spectacle.

ex·cep·tion·al   [ik-sep-shuh-nl]
forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.

still nothing that isn't objective, you just don't seem to grasp the context of the words used. if anything, it sounds like the writers of the piece had no interest at all in the whole thing and threw it together as quickly as possible, which is far from promoting or condoning anything about it. they simply reported it in very plain english

later12

Captain Darling wrote: »

Farmers are sh1te shots, however the hunt employs marksmen to pick off the fox once it reappears????

Yes, this happens. It is one of the two ways that foxes are killed at the end of a hunt - if a fox is captured at all.

It is far easier to shoot a fox from close range after he has been cornered and tries to escape than it is to shoot one on a regular day out with dogs.

ItsAWindUp

goose2005 wrote: »

How guilty, exactly, was your Christmas turkey? Or the pigs, cattle, sheep, chickens etc. you eat all year round?

I don't eat meat

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

Again, you aren't being realistic.

Which is your average, time pressed farmer going to prefer in the event of hunting being abolished or unavailable.

-Shooting:messy and often cruel, but simple & effective

or

-A complex mixture of guard dogs, traps and poisons which all have their own dangers both for stock, yard animals and members of the public (as well as being of less certain effect)

I don't suggest implementing all of those measures at once .

But I really don't see how hunts as they're carried out are the best option. Surely a few people in the area who are good with guns, operating on behalf of the community, and managing to track the foxes' dens would be able to more effectively kill a fair few foxes than a huge group of people and dogs chasing one fox which might escape for a few hours every now and then.

In the unlikely event that foxhunts as they're performed are the best way to take care of the problem of foxes killing chickens, ought we not to try to find a better way of doing things?
That's what us humans are good at.

RichieC

It's a posh persuit the you peasants will never understand....

Is cock fighting illegal?

John_Rambo

SisterAnn wrote: »

John, between childish use of supersize fonts and the above effort at invalidating my right to argue here, I think it is safe to say I have somehow gotten under your skin here today. If you wish to talk about hunting fine, but getting personal is poor argument at best and downright off topic at worst.

Nope, you were the one getting personal, calling people names etc... I am simply shocked that you would log on to defend something in such a manner. I'd say you have swayed a lot of people that are on this thread, on the fence over to the anti fox hunt side. I never invalidated your right to argue, I simply pointed out that you are not very good at it. You feel you have to insult people and your use of inflammatory language doesn't help.

I'd say any huntsman or woman reading this is cursing you.

Aside from the Famers Against Hunting there is a very very small anti-hunt presence in Ireland, but when the likes of you log on and say things that you say online you just garner negative interest from people.

Captain Darling

RichieC wrote: »

Is cock fighting illegal?

Depends what you mean by that...

Captain Darling

later10 wrote: »

Yes, this happens. It is one of the two ways that foxes are killed at the end of a hunt - if a fox is captured at all.

It is far easier to shoot a fox from close range after he has been cornered and tries to escape than it is to shoot one on a regular day out with dogs.

It always mystifies me as to how areas without a hunt manage their 'vermin' problem. Your point is moot sir, moot i say!

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Ok then, give us your suggestion: how would you see foxes culled?

If hunting were banned here,and if that ban were successful, farmers would go out shooting foxes because that is the second most effective way of culling the fox.

If that happened, the degree of suffering of the countryside's foxes would rise to an unacceptable level. Have you ever tried to shoot a fox? Do you realise how difficult it is to shoot an animal like that? Do you realise what a painful death a fox can endure if a gunshot fails to kill him outright?

The hunt doesnt cull foxes I'm sick and tired of people trotting out the "The hunt keeps fox levels down" argument and then twenty seconds later pull out the old "Shur we rarely even get a fox" line to defend the cruely of the hounds killing it .

A hunt is not hunting and doesnt keep the numbers down, its entertainment only. Any farmer who would himself shoot a fox would be experienced with a gun and would be shooting at close range, they dont go out and shoot willy nilly. Most farmers I know that would have trouble with foxes contact the local hunters with the gear and experience for a one shot kill.

You claim that if the hunt was banned farmers would go off shooting and injuring foxes where they wouldnt have before is just plain ridiculous.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't suggest implementing all of those measures at once

But you still haven't answered my question.

Don't you think a fox having his neck broken by a guard dog is going to be as painful as it being broken by a hound?

Don't you think that poisoning a fox can be more slow, less certain, and more cruel than killing him outright out hunting?

Same with traps - surely this is more distressing to the fox (as well as other animals like badgers who are unnecessarily caught up in it) than a quick death from hounds.

Surely a few people in the area who are good with guns, operating on behalf of the community, and managing to track the foxes' dens would be able to more effectively

People go out shooting because they like to shoot, whether they are good shots or not.

If hunting stops, lots of the hunters will take to shooting instead. If the number of foxes increases, then the incidence of shooting will rise. This is not a better solution for reasons already outlined.

In the unlikely event that foxhunts as they're performed are the best way to take care of the problem of foxes killing chickens, ought we not to try to find a better way of doing things?

I don't see why, but I suppose we have a difference of opinion there.

Out of interest, what future do you see for hounds and horses bred for hunting should foxhunting be abolished?

Hunting is the backbone of Irish equestrianism and an important part of the rural economy. Without hunting, we could lose our point to points and our reputation as an island that breeds such magnificent eventing horses and indeed racehorses for the UK market. These are problems that the anti hunting crowd simply fail to engage with.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

A hunt is not hunting and doesnt keep the numbers down, its entertainment only.

If you're arguing that it doesn't cull foxes (and I disagree), then there's no problem. At worst they're only scaring the odd fox, by your interpretation of events.

No problem. Once the hunt has farmers' permission to ride, it's simply a canter across the country, by your reasoning.

Captain Darling

later10 wrote: »

Out of interest, what future do you see for hounds and horses bred for hunting should foxhunting be abolished?

Hunting is the backbone of Irish equestrianism and an important part of the rural economy. Without hunting, we could lose our point to points and our reputation as an island that breeds such magnificent eventing horses and indeed racehorses for the UK market. These are problems that the anti hunting crowd simply fail to engage with.

I see no problem with drag hunting. It would give the same element of chase without running a fox literally into the ground.

later12

Captain Darling wrote: »

I see no problem with drag hunting. It would give the same element of chase without running a fox literally into the ground.

I generally agree. But most people don't.

Some rural hunts will run drag days. Go along some time and see how many subscribers turn up. By and large, the regulars just don't feel the same way toward it. Hunts would collapse if they started hunting drag, because subscribers would go elsewhere.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

If you're arguing that it doesn't cull foxes (and I disagree), then there's no problem. At worst they're only scaring the odd fox, by your interpretation of events.

No problem. Once the hunt has farmers' permission to ride, it's simply a canter across the country, by your reasoning.

No they are torturing an animal for entertainment, if they catch it as sometimes happens then they torture it further and kill it by setting the hounds on it or shooting it. When the simple fact is one man with a gun could have done that without torturing the animal. Its not about numbers, its not about protecting livestock its about people getting entertainment out of cruelly tormenting and killing animals.

Give me an actual reason that fox hunting is acceptable other than "I want to do it" and I'll listen to ya. Rolling out bullshít arguments to hide behind is just avoiding the fact you support animal cruelty.

Captain Darling

later10 wrote: »

I generally agree. But most people don't.

Some rural hunts will run drag days. Go along some time and see how many subscribers turn up. By and large, the regulars just don't feel the same way toward it. Hunts would collapse if they started hunting drag, because subscribers would go elsewhere.

Well therein lies the problem. I dont want it totally banned. There has to be some middle ground between the two.

I dont think an argument can be made for pest control. Its far, far too outdated to be that.

Da Shins Kelly

I don't know how anyone could find any enjoyment in inflicting severe distress and brutality on an animal like that. It's utterly barbaric, and if that's the kind of outdated 'tradition' people want to uphold, then they really need to check themselves.

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

But you still haven't answered my question.

Don't you think a fox having his neck broken by a guard dog is going to be as painful as it being broken by a hound?

Don't you think that poisoning a fox can be more slow, less certain, and more cruel than killing him outright out hunting?

Same with traps - surely this is more distressing to the fox (as well as other animals like badgers who are unnecessarily caught up in it) than a quick death from hounds.


People go out shooting because they like to shoot, whether they are good shots or not.

If hunting stops, lots of the hunters will take to shooting instead. If the number of foxes increases, then the incidence of shooting will rise. This is not a better solution for reasons already outlined.

kill a fair few foxes than a huge group of people and dogs chasing one fox which might escape for a few hours every now and then.


I don't see why, but I suppose we have a difference of opinion there.

Out of interest, what future do you see for hounds and horses bred for hunting should foxhunting be abolished?

Hunting is the backbone of Irish equestrianism and an important part of the rural economy. Without hunting, we could lose our point to points and our reputation as an island that breeds such magnificent eventing horses and indeed racehorses for the UK market. These are problems that the anti hunting crowd simply fail to engage with.

No matter what method is used to control fox populations, some of them will suffer, I accept that. What I object to about hunting is the chase and the inefficiency of it. Small numbers of people and dogs operating more frequently would do a much better job.

I don't see what the problem with just shooting would be. Even if people weren't great shots, the onus would be on them to improve through training and experience. And they would hardly have to go trawling all over the countryside. The foxes will be living in the area and with a little time and the help of dogs their dens could be tracked.

If hunting were banned, people breeding dogs and horses for hunting should be to forced to look after them as pets, excluding any animals that could be sheltered or put to use elsewhere.
Like the way I think people who breed bulls for bullfighting should be forced to dedicate themselves to looking after them if bullfighting were banned. You can't say the practice should be continued just because the animals are being bred and trained for it.
The best thing would be not to breed them for it in the first place.

As for those who would suffer economically, tough ****.
Even if banning fox hunting affected me, I'd still support it.
I don't buy the argument that cruelty should be justified or reluctantly accepted just because there's a side-benefit to it.
Similarly, I couldn't care less what would happen to unemployed matadors or bullfighting arena box-office staff.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

No they are torturing an animal for entertainment, if they catch it as sometimes happens then they torture it further and kill it by setting the hounds on it or shooting it.

Well make up your mind.

You're guilty of the same flawed argument you accused others of peddling.

On the one hand you suggest that the hunt "doesn't cull foxes" (your exact words) and now they're all guilty of torture.

Its not about numbers, its not about protecting livestock its about people getting entertainment out of cruelly tormenting and killing animals.

This is the problem.
What people like you hate the most isn't that foxes are killed - because that happens even more cruelly in other ways at man's hand - it's the hunt itself. You hate that people enjoy riding to hounds. That's something to you have to sort out for yourself. We can't help you.

Give me an actual reason that fox hunting is acceptable other than "I want to do it"

The Irish horse sport economy needs it. Irish point to pointing needs it, and sport horse producers which give this country such a wonderful name as a source of quality horses for foreign markets need it.

Adyx

SisterAnn wrote: »

Dear right-on, vegetarian, liberal lefty Citydwellers,

If we country folk ever become absolutely clueless and need to resort to someone else to tell us what to do and how to live our lives, we promise to to give you first option. Until then, we'll thank you to leave us be.

Kind regards,
Your country cousins.

More patronising bullshit. There's plenty of "citydwellers" that go to these hunts. Probably more than country people. I grew up in the country and not one person I knew ever went hunting. In fact my uncle stopped hunters from trespassing on his farm because of the damage they did to his fields and hedges, as did quite a few other farmers in the area.

Please don't pretend to speak for "country folk" in the future when you clearly have no remit to.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

If hunting were banned, people breeding dogs and horses for hunting should be to forced to look after them as pets, excluding any animals that could be sheltered or put to use elsewhere..

How on Earth do you force someone to keep a pet?

Sorry, your arguments make no sense whatsoever. You side with shooting for no apparent reason, simply believing that 'their shots will improve'. You can't seriously believe that shooting foxes is a better way of culling.

later12

Adyx wrote: »

More patronising bullshit. There's plenty of "citydwellers" that go to these hunts. Probably more than country people. I grew up in the country and not one person I knew ever went hunting. In fact my uncle stopped hunters from trespassing on his farm because of the damage they did to his fields and hedges, as did quite a few other farmers in the area.

Please don't pretend to speak for "country folk" in the future when you clearly have no remit to.

I live in the countryside and i don't know anyone in the Irish Countrywoman's Association. That doesn't mean it's full of city dwellers, it just means I don't associate with members of the ICA.

You're simply wrong in suggesting that more city dwellers hunt than country people. How about you actually make enquiries at your local hunt and ask them. Make an effort to find out. Unless you live on the fringes of a large city, you'll find that the active masters, the hunt servants and its subscribers are predominantly locals.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Well make up your mind.

You're guilty of the same flawed argument you accused others of peddling.

On the one hand you suggest that the hunt "doesn't cull foxes" (your exact words) and now they're all guilty of torture.

Torturing a few animals is not culling the population. Its a past time. Sometimes they just torment the animal by running into the ground and other times they catch it and kill it. None of which is necessary and all of which is for the express purpose of entertainment for those involved.

This is the problem.
What people like you hate the most isn't that foxes are killed - because that happens even more cruelly in other ways at man's hand - it's the hunt itself. You hate that people enjoy riding to hounds. That's something to you have to sort out for yourself. We can't help you.

What I hate most is that an animal in unnecessarily tormented. If the animal is hassling livestock then a farmer or hunter will kill it pretty quickly. I think what your confusing is that I dont hate it because people enjoy it I dont think people enjoying it is a good enough reason to do it.

The Irish horse sport economy needs it. Irish point to pointing needs it, and sport horse producers which give this country such a wonderful name as a source of quality horses for foreign markets need it.

If it was banned tomorrow the Irish horse industry would not fall apart. Its not needed its wanted and its wanted for entertainment.

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

How on Earth do you force someone to keep a pet?

Sorry, your arguments make no sense whatsoever. You side with shooting for no apparent reason, simply believing that 'their shots will improve'. You can't seriously believe that shooting foxes is a better way of culling.

You legally oblige them to look after the animal they've bred or have it looked after if they can't have it used for hunting.
If, for example, such large numbers of hunting animals were bred that they couldn't be properly taken of, then some of them should be humanely killed in a worst-case scenario.
But I'd never argue that hunting should continue just because the animals have been bred for it and there's an economy around it.

I really don't see what's wrong with shooting.
Surely if you replaced every person riding behind the hounds with an experienced hunter with a gun you'd have a more efficient way of killing foxes.
I don't see how that's worse than a huge group of mostly unnecessary people and dogs chasing one fox for hours.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

If the animal is hassling livestock then a farmer or hunter will kill it pretty quickly.

How? Shooting it? Trapping it? Poisoning it?

If it was banned tomorrow the Irish horse industry would not fall apart. Its not needed its wanted and its wanted for entertainment.

It wouldn't fall apart, it would be much worse off: hunt servants would lose their jobs, dogs would be culled, horses would be culled or sold and point to points - the bedrock of Irish NH racing - would undoubtedly be cancelled or lose support, which itself would damage the racing industry. People would lose their livelihoods simply because people like you get upset at the cleanest way of culling foxes.

By clean, I mean the fox getting clean away or dying immediately, not lingering on for days and dying a slow and painful death of wounds)