Irish Indo supporting animal cruelty

Johro

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

The truth, however, is that you are talking out of your hat, as usual. There is no evidence to suggest that fox hunting would have prevented these attacks.

I'd agree, and would also point out that your example of a child attacked by a fox, while a horrible experience no doubt, does in no way outstrip the amount of children being mauled by dogs every year.

Johro

Batsy wrote: »

If you want to see how aggressive a fox can be just leave a baby alone with it in a room and watch the fox take a bite out of it.

I wouldn't leave a baby alone in a room with any animal, never mind a wild creature. If we had to hunt and kill every animal that represented danger to humans, there wouldn't be very many left.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

So it isn't cruel that the "Hunt Sabs" have been seen damaging/injuring hounds in the past? Is it appropriate that same animal lovers terrorised my kid sister aged 8 on her pony out for the day as she was a local farmers child? She was TERRIFIED after the experience as were many of her friends....so protect the fox but terrorise small kids and label other people not conforming to your views as vermin?

Extremism in any form is not attractive, I can see views from both sides but the animal rights people quite frankly do themselves eff all favours by patronising and abusing those of us who wish not to be quite so extreme and are perhaps undecided. FWIW I grew up as a farmers daughter who hunted regularly as a child, I was NEVER blooded as it had been done away with by most progressive hunts, the dig was also abandoned by most hunts as were most of the other frankly unfair and cruel practices. Oh and I rarely saw foxes caught over the years I hunted for a number of reasons:

1. Hounds are dumb, cannot move as quickly and do not know the terrain in the area like the fox does.
2. Foxes are smart and if they are healthy they out run the hounds very quickly.
3. When caught the fox dies instantaneously, so quick that he/she is usually pretty much devoured by the time the hunt catches up.

I no longer hunt, no time, no money, no horse and not hugely interested anymore but it isn't up to me to berate, lecture and harangue someone for their beliefs. Isn't that how religious fanatics function?

Cool story, dont see what it has to do with me though. You may want to re-read my posts if you think I'm advocating extremism, calling people vermin or terrorising your little sister.

And I wouldnt be so quick to trot out the religious aspect when your the one blindly following outdated traditions because you were brought up doing so.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

Cool story, dont see what it has to do with me though. You may want to re-read my posts if you think I'm advocating extremism, calling people vermin or terrorising your little sister.

And I wouldnt be so quick to trot out the religious aspect when your the one blindly following outdated traditions because you were brought up doing so.

Mung Bean, read my post...I think you will find I don't hunt any more. Also you have been very abusive in the names you have labelled people who don't agree with you.

I think you are extreme, irrational and extremely patronising which fits quite well with the example of religious fanatics. You also make me want to get on a large hunt horse in my pink coat blowing my hunting horn with a large pack of hounds following and hunt all the poor ickle foxes I can find because of your attitude.

Johro

Batsy wrote: »

I'm obviously not one of those numpties who believe that foxes are cute, little, cuddy-wuddly, harmless, vegetarian animals which never attack and eat animals and which only like eating grass and lettuce.

I know it might not be what some people, for whatever bizarre reason, like to believe, but the truth is that foxes are aggressive predators who eat meat.

Neither am I, but let's face it, the fox is simply a wild animal doing it's best to survive. If you want to let your guinea pig or rabbit or whatever 'roam freely in your garden' as you say, I'd imagine you'd be there to keep an eye on it, especially if you knew of foxes in the area, but also because of the presence of cats or dogs.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

Mung Bean, read my post...I think you will find I don't hunt any more. Also you have been very abusive in the names you have labelled people who don't agree with you.

I think you are extreme, irrational and extremely patronising which fits quite well with the example of religious fanatics. You also make me want to get on a large hunt horse in my pink coat blowing my hunting horn with a large pack of hounds following and hunt all the poor ickle foxes I can find because of your attitude.

You want to kill foxes because you dont like my attitude ? And you call me extreme and irrational. Ok.

Johro

joela wrote: »

Mung Bean, read my post...I think you will find I don't hunt any more. Also you have been very abusive in the names you have labelled people who don't agree with you.

I think you are extreme, irrational and extremely patronising which fits quite well with the example of religious fanatics. You also make me want to get on a large hunt horse in my pink coat blowing my hunting horn with a large pack of hounds following and hunt all the poor ickle foxes I can find because of your attitude.

That's good enough reason for you? So you don't agree with the poster but that's just stupid talk.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

You want to kill foxes because you dont like my attitude ? And you call me extreme and irrational. Ok.

I want to kill foxes now because you are trying to tell me I have no right to chose to do so! I may become extreme and irrational is you keep trying to tell me how I am wrong and you are right, maybe I'll consider a drag hunt with you acting as quarry

FWIW read my first post where I may have mentioned how I don't hunt anymore but I still don't see why I shouldn't just because YOU say so because really I think there are much more worrying things happening in the world on a daily basis.

joela

Johro wrote: »

That's good enough reason for you? So you don't agree with the poster but that's just stupid talk.

No I didn't say that, what I am trying to convey is that it is my right to choose and the poster makes me want to go out hunting to assert my right to do so. Perhaps it might be better to not dismiss my "story" and that of others who hunt and meet somewhere in the middle?? Telling people is not the same as having a discussion and inevitably telling someone that they are barbaric, vermin, low intelligence etc. is only going to make them more entrenched in their views both on hunting and people who tend to be anti-hunting.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

I want to kill foxes now because you are trying to tell me I have no right to chose to do so! I may become extreme and irrational is you keep trying to tell me how I am wrong and you are right, maybe I'll consider a drag hunt with you acting as quarry .

I havent told you anything. You jumped on my post and started pointing fingers and mouthin off. And now your saying you want to kill foxes because people say you shouldnt. I'm not sure your well.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

I havent told you anything. You jumped on my post and started pointing fingers and mouthin off. And now your saying you want to kill foxes because people say you shouldnt. I'm not sure your well.

Right so you weren't jumping on previous posters about their personal beliefs?

I'm perfectly well thanks for your concern, how about you?:pac:

MungBean

joela wrote: »

Right so you weren't jumping on previous posters about their personal beliefs?

I'm perfectly well thanks for your concern, how about you?:pac:

I'm grand thanks, little confused though.

I was commenting on the topic of fox hunting and saying why I think it shouldnt be allowed. Its not a case of personal beliefs its a case of animal cruelty. Just because one person sees fox hunting as ok doesnt mean they should have the right to do it when it involves animal cruelty.

I dont think I have been abusive at all in this thread btw. Certainly not of a degree to warrant a reaction like yours.

Johro

later10 wrote: »

We had a similar experience with a protestor and a claxon which ended up in the local district court. It's a little hypocritical that these people can show such little regard, particularly for children & horses, as to deliberately frighten them before setting off or worse, during a chase.

There will always be stupid people on both sides of an argument, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid, or that their argument is not valid.

later12

Johro wrote: »

There will always be stupid people on both sides of an argument, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid, or that their argument is not valid.

Nobody said that.

I was just agreeing with another poster on the hypocrisy of hunt saboteurs who frighten animals or children. It was a point quite separate from the rights or wrongs of hunting, and I never made any attempt to compare them.

Johro

joela wrote: »

No I didn't say that, what I am trying to convey is that it is my right to choose and the poster makes me want to go out hunting to assert my right to do so. Perhaps it might be better to not dismiss my "story" and that of others who hunt and meet somewhere in the middle?? Telling people is not the same as having a discussion and inevitably telling someone that they are barbaric, vermin, low intelligence etc. is only going to make them more entrenched in their views both on hunting and people who tend to be anti-hunting.

That would make you either a weak person or a spiteful person. Or you're just winding the poster up.
Oh wait...

'I want to kill foxes now because you are trying to tell me I have no right to chose to do so! I may become extreme and irrational is you keep trying to tell me how I am wrong and you are right, maybe I'll consider a drag hunt with you acting as quarry '

Yeah, okay, it's a windup.

joela

MungBean wrote: »

I'm grand thanks, little confused though.

I was commenting on the topic of fox hunting and saying why I think it shouldnt be allowed. Its not a case of personal beliefs its a case of animal cruelty. Just because one person sees fox hunting as ok doesnt mean they should have the right to do it when it involves animal cruelty.

I dont think I have been abusive at all in this thread btw. Certainly not of a degree to warrant a reaction like yours.

Actually I think you have been abusive which is why I bothered to reply and then you dismiss my post as a "cool story" which is patronising in the extreme. You see what you are not getting is that some people do not see it as animal cruelty. Most people see starving dogs, throwing animals out of cars etc. as animal cruelty but will not see fox hunting as animal cruelty for various reasons as outlined over the thread. I personally think that some of the practices previously associated with fox hunting were cruel, absolutely no question but the horses, hounds and fox thing no not at all. See that is my opinion and I really don't like certain elements of society purporting to know better than I and to imply I am somehow a lesser human being for disagreeing with them. Aside from that I see BOTH sides of the arguement and feel that it would be better for the extremists on both sides to try to meet somewhere in the middle. There is always a middle to be found.

Johro

later10 wrote: »

Nobody said that.

I was just agreeing with another poster on the hypocrisy of hunt saboteurs who frighten animals or children. It was a point quite separate from the rights or wrongs of hunting, and I never made any attempt to compare them.

That's fair enough, I wasn't really arguing with you, just making a point, though I did use your post to make it.

joela

Johro wrote: »

That would make you either a weak person or a spiteful person. Or you're just winding the poster up.
Oh wait...

'I want to kill foxes now because you are trying to tell me I have no right to chose to do so! I may become extreme and irrational is you keep trying to tell me how I am wrong and you are right, maybe I'll consider a drag hunt with you acting as quarry '

Yeah, okay, it's a windup.

weak or spiteful ffs what is with you people and the name calling!

No I meant what I said, being told I can't/shouldn't hunt because it makes me some sort of a villian makes me want to defend my right to do hunt because I personally don't have a problem with it. My point being antagonising the pro-hunt followers is not the way to get your concerns across. Anyway no middle ground with certin elements of society.

Johro

joela wrote: »

Aside from that I see BOTH sides of the arguement and feel that it would be better for the extremists on both sides to try to meet somewhere in the middle. There is always a middle to be found.

No argument there. The middle they found across the water is drag hunting.

MungBean

joela wrote: »

Actually I think you have been abusive which is why I bothered to reply and then you dismiss my post as a "cool story" which is patronising in the extreme.

I dismissed it because you were arguing several points which I never made. I never defended hunt saboteurs, I never called people who disagreed with me vermin.

You see what you are not getting is that some people do not see it as animal cruelty. Most people see starving dogs, throwing animals out of cars etc. as animal cruelty but will not see fox hunting as animal cruelty for various reasons as outlined over the thread.

Nobody bar you have dismissed the cruelty of it. All other posters which I responded to seemed to accept that it was cruel to a point but that there were reasons that the cruelty was justified. To me those reasons were not valid.

I personally think that some of the practices previously associated with fox hunting were cruel, absolutely no question but the horses, hounds and fox thing no not at all. See that is my opinion and I really don't like certain elements of society purporting to know better than I and to imply I am somehow a lesser human being for disagreeing with them. Aside from that I see BOTH sides of the arguement and feel that it would be better for the extremists on both sides to try to meet somewhere in the middle. There is always a middle to be found.

None of us like being told that we are wrong but when it comes to someone thinking they have a right to inflict suffering on another creature for a bit of entertainment I will tell them they are wrong and try to explain why. Just as others have told me I am wrong.

Johro

joela wrote: »

weak or spiteful ffs what is with you people and the name calling!

No I meant what I said, being told I can't/shouldn't hunt because it makes me some sort of a villian makes me want to defend my right to do hunt because I personally don't have a problem with it. My point being antagonising the pro-hunt followers is not the way to get your concerns across. Anyway no middle ground with certin elements of society.

I'm not arguing with your point of view at all, rather your post which pretty much said 'I'll hunt because it annoys you'. I know you're saying you were just defending your right to hunt, but honestly, a poster's opinion would hardly stop you. Your post could've been called 'baiting', funnily enough.:p
Never mind, it's getting old now.
For the record, I didn't actually mean you were weak or spiteful, I meant your post was.

Irish Guitarist

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Grey Squirrels

They're not even native to Ireland.

Are grey squirrels native to Ireland?
Grey squirrels are not native to Ireland, but originally came from the forests of eastern North America. The Irish population originated from a single introduction in 1911, at Castle Forbes in Co. Longford; apparently they were introduced at a wedding party. Since then, grey squirrels have colonised 20 counties in Ireland, and the spread is continuing.

http://www.wicklowmountainsnationalpark.ie/GreySquirrel.html

This is typical human behaviour, introducing an animal to a country they were never meant to inhabit and then blaming that animal when things go wrong.

Discodog

sup_dude wrote: »

Haven't read every post but read a huge majority of them and there seems to be a common occurrence... those against the hunt know nothing the nature of horses and the horse industry.

Yet another patronising myth. It joins the townies know nothing about cruelty & don't understand us myth. Or the hunting controls foxes myth & even the the fox enjoys it myth.

If you own a horse for hunting & hunting is banned, it is still your horse & you are responsible for it's welfare. Animals are living sentient beings that are not put here purely to serve our purpose.

It amazes me how a child can love her pony or horse yet be happy to partake in the brutal killing of another animal.

later10 wrote: »

We don't have any reliable figures for Ireland, but in the UK the figure was about 20,000 foxes per year (since the hunting ban, this may need to be revised even further upwards).

There is no legitimate reason as to why the figure should not be proportional in Ireland, in which case it would indicate that hunts do assist in the eradication of foxes.

Hunting or shooting can never eradicate because by killing a local fox you simply free up another territory for a neighbouring fox to move into. You may create a localised reduction but it won't affect overall numbers. Nature will always fill a vacuum.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

1. Hounds are dumb, cannot move as quickly and do not know the terrain in the area like the fox does.
2. Foxes are smart and if they are healthy they out run the hounds very quickly.
3. When caught the fox dies instantaneously, so quick that he/she is usually pretty much devoured by the time the hunt catches up.

So you say the Hunt rarely kills foxes & the Hunts say that they are essential to control fox numbers :rolleyes:

By the way there are plenty of examples of hunt members & supporters being violent towards protesters. It isn't a one way street.

Samich

get off it would ye. Hunting is good. Oh look at me, won't hurt a fox. Ye kill alot more indirectly.

Discodog

joela wrote: »

You see what you are not getting is that some people do not see it as animal cruelty. Most people see starving dogs, throwing animals out of cars etc. as animal cruelty but will not see fox hunting as animal cruelty for various reasons as outlined over the thread. I personally think that some of the practices previously associated with fox hunting were cruel, absolutely no question but the horses, hounds and fox thing no not at all.

The 1911 Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence of cruelty to subject any animal to unnecessary suffering or to terrify or infuriate an animal. So how can anyone argue that hunting is not cruel ?

later12

Discodog wrote: »

The 1911 Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence of cruelty to subject any animal to unnecessary suffering or to terrify or infuriate an animal. So how can anyone argue that hunting is not cruel ?

That act, which has been variously repealed and consolidated in these islands, only applies to domesticated animals and wild animals in captivity.

Also, legislation does not get to decide whether hunting is intrinsically cruel or not.

later12

Discodog wrote: »

[/LIST]
So you say the Hunt rarely kills foxes & the Hunts say that they are essential to control fox numbers :rolleyes:

The two are not mutually exclusive.

To illustrate: if a pack goes out four days a week, and kills a fox every fortnight, that's still approximately 2 foxes a month. A relatively small number considering the pack has hunted for about 16 days, but enough to contribute to the local fox population not getting out of hand.

Dyr

So lets just recap the reasons its okay to be out fox hunting:

Its necessary in order keep the fox/canine terrorist population in check. orly..seems pretty inefficient method of population control

Sure we barely kill any foxes anyway umm okay, why hunt them at all then? Also makes sh** of the first point but there ya go.

To keep our untaxed horsey industry alive..because those horses wont go charging across the countryside unless they know theres a fox out there of course

because yee city slickers don't understand the country, hmm lets just say we don't, so what? If we were going to invaldiate peoples opinion based on their understanding we'd probably have to take the vote off every second farmer in the country. Oh and while we're on the subject of the holy sacred countryside, consider this: the most beautiful parts of the countryside on this island are described as what? Unspoilt. Why are they unspoilt? Is it the lack of foxes? No. The lack of city slickers on day visits? No my country cousins..its the lack of yee lot that has them unspoilt.

And the last and funniest reason to fox hunt: its a glorious tradition. So what? So was badger baiting, bear baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting and duelling, we're getting along grand without them now though

I'd have more respect for the oul fox hunters if they just admitted that they enjoy chasing a small canine across the countryside with a pack of larger canines with the intention of tearing it apart. Honesty goes a long way.

Samich

^^^ stupid reasons.

Main reason is hunting is a good past time.

And yes, ye city people wouldn't understand.