Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

Not to get drawn into a debate between city and country folk and just how entitled/evil someone who fox hunts is. But on the basis of that article there's really nothing to lead anyone to believe that the Indo (as much of a rag as it is) supports animal cruelty of fix hunting in general. OP do you read articles on apartheid and assume the newspaper supports it or is merely reporting on it.

later12

The King of Moo wrote: »

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.

Don't be absurd: you think you can legally oblige a horse producer to keep his 15 or maybe 30 hunting stock, and bankrupt himself and live out the rest of his days feeding oats to his stock as long as they live?

You expect that suggestion to be taken seriously?

I really don't see what's wrong with shooting.

No, you don't.

And I don't see how more clearly it can be explained.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

How? Shooting it? Trapping it? Poisoning it?

Shooting it. There's a lot of hunting clubs around with a lot of hunters not just capable of but actually keeping the fox population under control.

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.

Breeding horses and dogs for the sole purpose of torturing other animals is no excuse to allow the torturing of animals. And the cleanest way of keeping a population under control is not making a sport out of torturing them. Hunters keep the populations under control, the hunt is a past time for horse breeders which exploits the fact foxes are seen as pests to torment them for fun.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to get drawn into a debate between city and country folk and just how entitled/evil someone who fox hunts is. But on the basis of that article there's really nothing to lead anyone to believe that the Indo (as much of a rag as it is) supports animal cruelty of fix hunting in general. OP do you read articles on aperthide and assume the newspaper supports it or is merely reporting on it.

The article is written up describing hunters going out to try to corner an animal and have it ripped to shreads by a pack of hounds as some sort of grand day out.

If you fail to see that, you need help.

Also what is "aperthide"? Is that another pasttime for hunters?

The King of Moo

later10 wrote: »

Don't be absurd: you think you can legally oblige a horse producer to keep his 15 or maybe 30 hunting stock, and bankrupt himself and live out the rest of his days feeding oats to his stock as long as they live?

You expect that suggestion to be taken seriously?


No, you don't.

And I don't see how more clearly it can be explained.

If hunting were banned then maybe horse breeders might be given some small compensation for their troubles. And as I said, if the numbers were too large to reasonably be taken care of, then some or all of the animals could be put down.
But you can't justify hunting just because the horses and dogs have been bred for it.
It's an argument I hear a lot about bullfighting: "what about the bulls?"
But for me the cruelty of the act outweighs that, and the onus should be on the breeders to deal with the problem.

Surely breeders of hunting horses know there's always the possibility of a ban on hunting, so they'd be prepared for that.

Anyway, I don't see why the people who ride the horses in the hunt couldn't continue to buy and ride the horses for the enjoyment they'd get from riding the horses without a fox to chase. In that case there'd be no problem for the horse breeders at least.
I'm sure the riders would do so, because surely they can't get their enjoyment from killing the fox, surely.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the shooting.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

Shooting it. There's a lot of hunting clubs around with a lot of hunters not just capable of but actually keeping the fox population under control.

The burns inquiry in the UK, which agreed that hounds can jeopardize a fox's welfare, took the opinion that shooting did more serious damage from an animal welfare perspective. This problem well known among people who are familiar with hunting - both hunting to hounds and with dogs. By refusing to acknowledge it you are merely sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

ScumLord

MungBean wrote: »

Breeding horses and dogs for the sole purpose of torturing other animals is no excuse to allow the torturing of animals.

Dogs aren't breed to torture other animals, they are aggressive towards other animals anyway and we take advantage of that natural agression, most hunting and pest dogs where breed to kill quickly not torture.

And the cleanest way of keeping a population under control is not making a sport out of torturing them. Hunters keep the populations under control, the hunt is a past time for horse breeders which exploits the fact foxes are seen as pests to torment them for fun.

Foxes can be pests and kill livestock, if something was eating a chunk of your pay check every week I'd like to see what you'd do, especially when your own family's well being may be on the line. Foxes only have one predator to keep them in line and that's us. If you want to take up the cause of hunting foxes so others can't do it then off with you.

Adyx

later10 wrote: »

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.

I don't really care to be honest. I don't agree with hunting for sport so why would I care where they are from? i certainly don't want to talk to these people. If they are predominantly locals, fine. That doesn't make it ok, and it doesn't stop the damage they cause.

Dyr

ScumLord wrote: »

most hunting and pest dogs where breed to kill quickly not torture.

ORLY? Name the breeds buddy, we'll se what we can figure out here

mariano rivera

TROLL HEAVEN THIS THREAD IS

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to get drawn into a debate between city and country folk and just how entitled/evil someone who fox hunts is. But on the basis of that article there's really nothing to lead anyone to believe that the Indo (as much of a rag as it is) supports animal cruelty of fix hunting in general. OP do you read articles on aperthide and assume the newspaper supports it or is merely reporting on it.

The article is written up describing hunters going out to try to corner an animal and have it ripped to shreads by a pack of hounds as some sort of grand day out.

If you fail to see that, you need help.

Also what is "aperthide"? Is that another pasttime for hunters?

Obviously I was referring to apartheid, sorry for the typo but im using my phone to post.

The article reports on an event at which numerous people were involved and evidently had a good time. As with every event that the paper covers This does not mean that the paper actively encourages or supports such activities. We're they to publish an editorial on how evil it was I imagine that this thread's opening post would be entirely different. but as you don't agree with the activity being described in the article you instantly assume that it is in fact an endorsement.

MungBean

ScumLord wrote: »

Dogs aren't breed to torture other animals, they are aggressive towards other animals anyway and we take advantage of that natural agression, most hunting and pest dogs where breed to kill quickly not torture.

I was referring to the hounds bred for the hunt. Seeing as the hunt is effectively torturing an animal for entertainment I'd consider their breeding as arising from the need for entertainment. I dont think the fact that those dogs exist as reason to keep the entertainment going.

Foxes can be pests and kill livestock, if something was eating a chunk of your pay check every week I'd like to see what you'd do, especially when your own family's well being may be on the line. Foxes only have one predator to keep them in line and that's us. If you want to take up the cause of hunting foxes so others can't do it then off with you.

I keep fowl and have done for years, my father did so for many years before me. If a fox was heard outside someone would go out and if caught at close range it would be shot. Never was one shot that wasnt within range of a very fast kill shot. If we didnt catch the fox on the night we would inform local hunters and they would make a point of hunting in the area and usually got them.

I'm not saying shooting them is 100% clean but its necessary when a fox is killing livestock. What I nor anyone else I know that has had fox troubling livestock has felt the need to do is contact the hunt to have 30 people on horseback plus a dozen dogs wreck the place and chase the fox for half a day until the dogs catch it. Not one farmer I know that doesnt keep horses themselves has any time for the hunt. Its a past time for horse breeders and horse enthusiasts and is not nor has it ever been anything other than that.

Discodog

The Indo are reflecting the majority view in Ireland. In respect of animal welfare we are pretty much the worst example in Europe & one of the worst in the World. For example most Countries in Europe signed & ratified the Convention on Pet Animals over 20 years ago - we haven't. So we will probably be the last bastion for cruel "sports" like Foxhunting. We already have Coursing & Hunting tourism with UK residents coming here to kill.

I have worked in Wildlife rescue & studied wildlife including foxes. The only thing that controls Fox number is the food supply. For every Fox you shoot or hunt you just free up a territory for another Fox to move in. So the only reason to hunt or shoot foxes is for pleasure.

Our cruelty laws allow shooting on the basis that the animal does not suffer - not always the case. But Fox hunting is clearly in breach of our law that makes it an offence to "terrify or infuriate any animal".

The Irish electorate have never made animal welfare or cruelty an election issue. Blair included a hunting ban because he knew that the majority would support it. We have the worst record because we don't care enough to make it an issue.

Batsy

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

We should follow Englands lead and ban fox hunting with hounds. It's really quite a barbaric 'sport'.

Thankfully, the British Government is about to repeal the ban on foxhunting.

Yet again it is another sensible, commonsense policy from this Tory government.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

Thankfully, the British Government is about to repeal the ban on foxhunting.

Yet again it is another sensible, commonsense policy from this Tory government.

Really? First I've heard of this

later12

MungBean wrote: »

Not one farmer I know that doesnt keep horses themselves has any time for the hunt.

That's funny, are you saying the local hunts only pass over the lands of the subscribers then? You expect us to swallow that?

Discodog

Batsy wrote: »

Thankfully, the British Government is about to repeal the ban on foxhunting.

Yet again it is another sensible, commonsense policy from this Tory government.

Wrong. The Tories have "shelved" any plans for a repeal. Also Boris proposed a cull of foxes in London following the alleged "attack" on a child. He received thousands of complaints & this has also been shelved. The vast majority in the UK support foxes - thousands even feed them.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

Wrong. The Tories have "shelved" any plans for a repeal.

Maybe that's because it's so pointless. I opened my facebook St Stephen's night to see my newsfeed littered with pictures of British men women and children out following hounds.

Batsy

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Really? First I've heard of this

Well, I've heard that Cameron wants it repealed and there have been rumours that there might be a free vote in the Commons on whether to bring it back.

Although, I suppose it makes no difference anyway. The hunts still go ahead as normal despite the law. But I know the Tories are getting rid of many of Labour's silly, useless laws, so it makes sense to get rid of the useless foxhunting law, too.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

The burns inquiry in the UK, which agreed that hounds can jeopardize a fox's welfare, took the opinion that shooting did more serious damage from an animal welfare perspective. This problem well known among people who are familiar with hunting - both hunting to hounds and with dogs. By refusing to acknowledge it you are merely sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

I am not refusing to acknowledge that shooting is not 100% clean. I am refusing to acknowledge the need for a sport based around the chasing and killing of an animal for entertainment. And entertainment is all it is.

This was also found in the Burns report.

None of the legal methods of fox killing were "without difficulty" but lamping, the use of torches and rifles at night, "has fewer adverse welfare implications".

Nothing is perfect but the hunt is not the best option nor does it account for the control of the population. So to me it really has no basis to be kept other than entertainment.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

That's funny, are you saying the local hunts only pass over the lands of the subscribers then? You expect us to swallow that?

The facts are that, even in Ireland, lots of farmers do not like or support hunting. My neighbour has sheep & we also have a Vixen who had 4 cubs last year. No one near me would kill a fox.

Discodog

later10 wrote: »

Maybe that's because it's so pointless. I opened my facebook St Stephen's night to see my newsfeed littered with pictures of British men women and children out following hounds.

Open a few others & you will see protesters at every hunt !

Discodog

Batsy wrote: »

Well, I've heard that Cameron wants it repealed and there have been rumours that there might be a free vote in the Commons on whether to bring it back.

Although, I suppose it makes no difference anyway. The hunts still go ahead as normal despite the law. But I know the Tories are getting rid of many of Labour's silly, useless laws, so it makes sense to get rid of the useless foxhunting law, too.

Any politician would be insane to vote for a repeal when the last poll showed huge support for the ban. The last poll I saw put it at 68%

Discodog

MungBean wrote: »

I am not refusing to acknowledge that shooting is not 100% clean. I am refusing to acknowledge the need for a sport based around the chasing and killing of an animal for entertainment. And entertainment is all it is.

Whenever the topic is discussed it is interesting that many shooters do not support hunting with hounds.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

I am not refusing to acknowledge that shooting is not 100% clean. I am refusing to acknowledge the need for a sport based around the chasing and killing of an animal for entertainment. And entertainment is all it is.

Again, your problem is with the fact that people find hunting fun. You try to talk out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand arguing that animals are not killed,on the other hand arguing that the torture must stop

Nothing is perfect but the hunt is not the best option nor does it account for the control of the population. So to me it really has no basis to be kept other than entertainment.

So you accept the findings of the Burns report?

You accept the finding that shooting leads to greater animal welfare issues than hunting to hounds?

Surely you should be arguing for lamping & shooting to replace hunting. Why are you arguing for shooting if the Burns report finds it to be a crueller pursuit than hunting to hounds?

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

That's funny, are you saying the local hunts only pass over the lands of the subscribers then? You expect us to swallow that?

Anytime they came over land anywhere near here they did so without permission. Its regarded as tradition and only a small amount of people would make a formal complaint. I'd imagine most farmers when asked would give permission anyway to people they know well who would be asking on behalf of the hunt.

What I meant was that as a method of controlling foxes or protecting livestock farmers here dont have time for it. Its not valid to people here. If a fox is hassling livestock you call a hunter, people dont allow the hunt on their land for any other reason than to be polite or friendly. Thats when they bother asking permission at all.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

The facts are that, even in Ireland, lots of farmers do not like or support hunting

So what? Lots of people don't like fishing either.

Lots of people do like hunting and lots of people do not.

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

Again, your problem is with the fact that people find hunting fun. You try to talk out of both sides of your mouth, on the one hand arguing that animals are not killed,on the other hand arguing that the torture must stop

Where did I say that ? Your just resorting to lies now because you have no actual way of justifying it. Its not necessary and as such entertainment is not enough to make it acceptable.

Surely you should be arguing for lamping & shooting to replace hunting. Why are you arguing for shooting if the Burns report finds it to be a crueller pursuit than hunting to hounds?

I think you have confused yourself again. Lamping and shooting is hunting believe it or not. When I say "A hunter should kill them" this is how they would kill them.

later12

MungBean wrote: »

Where did I say that ? Your just resorting to lies now because you have no actual way of justifying it.

You said it right here. Keep up.

MungBean wrote: »

The hunt doesnt cull foxes I'm sick and tired of people trotting out the "The hunt keeps fox levels down" argument

I think you have confused yourself again. Lamping and shooting is hunting believe it or not. When I say "A hunter should kill them" this is how they would kill them.

Show me the first post in which you mentioned lamping before I brought up the burns report.

Batsy

Discodog wrote: »

Wrong. The Tories have "shelved" any plans for a repeal. Also Boris proposed a cull of foxes in London following the alleged "attack" on a child. He received thousands of complaints & this has also been shelved. The vast majority in the UK support foxes - thousands even feed them.

I take no notice of polls which show that the majority of people in Britain are against foxhunting. This is because the vast majority of British people live in urban areas, with only a tiny percentage living in the countryside. And urban dwellers have a mythical view of the fox. They see them as cute and cuddly. This was reflected in Labour’s ban on fox-hunting, which caused an eagerness to fantasise about the fox. This fantasy manifested itself when Labour MP Mike Foster (who was then the MP for Hastings and Rye before he lost his seat to Tory Amber Rudd last year) held up a furry toy fox outside Parliament to celebrate the passing of the legislation.

The truth, however, is that foxes are aggressive and nasty creatures.

The fox attack on baby twins Lola and Isabella Koupparis in Hackney last year was not "alleged." It actually happened.

And it was not the first time a fox has attacked children.

In July 2002, a fox entered the sitting room of Peter and Sue Day in Dartford, Kent, and tried to grab their 14-week-old baby son Louis in his cot.

The boy was left with severe bite marks on his head and arms.

‘We are now afraid to leave him alone,’ the Days said.

Fox expert Bruce Lindsay-Smith, an experienced marksman and trapper who disposes of about 70 urban foxes a week, said: 'Anybody who thinks they’re cuddly creatures is living in cloud cuckoo land.'

‘I’ve had clients who have lost dogs, cats, gerbils, chinchillas and even a £1,500 koi carp to foxes. I know two people who have been bitten in their beds.’

And the fox population in Britain's towns and cities is actually growing, making such attacks more likely.

Also, Britain's 11 million cats, and other pets, are at risk from foxes. This is because cat is a favourite food of the fox.

In one case in Edinburgh, the heads of three pet cats and two rabbits were found in the garden of a suburban property where 11 foxes had taken over a summer house.

Yet we let the urban fox flourish - and this flourishing is partly due to the ban on foxhunting. There are estimated to be 30,000 foxes in London alone – 28 per square mile - and the fox population is expected to hit a record high.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284836/Hackney-twins-fox-attack-Fantastic-No-Mr-Fox-vicious-pest.html#ixzz1hrCVKLed