Hare Coursing

HughF

What will we ban next?????? Fishing??? Ah no the public service....they maul lots of poor innocent people

Play To Kill

HughF wrote: »

What will we ban next?????? Fishing??? Ah no the public service....they maul lots of poor innocent people

Public opinion should be banned. This thread shows how much some people hate public opinion, start a poll and ban it now.

archer22

Goodbye from me as well ...keep going until you get the 99% boys and continue on codding yourselves.

Grizzly 45

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And get behind it they did. Partially general opinion, partially lobby group = skewed poll. All this trying to deny it is really quite sad.

You say being a partial lobby group islike somthing bad???:p
And all the anti groups are NOT partial/fulltime well funded lobby groups??:)

Anyways,skewed or not...I have to ask then IF there is an overwhelming support for a ban on fieldsports as has been claimed by the anti groups since...oh...1966 or thereabouts.
Even if we had added every member of the shooting boards to this poll,why were we not overwhelmed by the support of all the Irish general pouplation that supports this ban...By now it should be over 300 for a ban and counting.After all if you claim that 70% of Irish people support a ban that would make it appx ,3to1 ratio of antis posting here on boards at the moment??Think thats right...Was never very good at maths.:o

So where are they??? Or is it maybe just the fact that like all the people that claimed on the last census formin 2010[?] they could speak fluent Irish every day,but you never hear anyone speaking it in public in Ireland..There really isnt THAT much support for your cause out there as you like to think???

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote:

I didnt insult you. I simply said you were lying............

Yes you did. calling me a liar is insulting. Just incase you think that is skewed here is a reminder of the insults that still are posted.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Give over, you know damn well the poll is skewed.

Cass wrote: »

I know no such thing.

Perhaps for the first time you are not having it all your own way, and it's a shock.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

First time not having it all my own way ? I'm not active in poll fiddling so I'm not use to getting it all my own way. And stop lying, you know damn well that the polling is skewed.

Cass wrote: »

Retract that statement. I am not a liar, and resent the accusation.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I retract nothing.

Insulting, accusational, and implying i was central or responsible for orchestrating some sort of made up poll sabotage.

Cass

dr.bollocko wrote: »

There was a thread in the shooting forum used to point out the poll in an attempt to manipulate the numbers up.

So we orchestrated this poll manipulation, and it's a joke because of that, but.....................

If a similar thread was to be started on an anti-hunting interest group the numbers would again change.

....... having it on a private or anti hunting forum/site where the numbers would go your way would be a true reflection of the people's attitudes?

Really? You're standing by this as perfectly sensible logic?

While a poll on AH means very little, the original trending was distinctly manipulated by posting a link to a now 2 page thread in the hunting forum.

Again, and i've yet to get an answer just deflection, are hunters opinions as members of the public not valid? Only those opposed to hunting can/should vote?

If so why have a poll. you might as well just post a thread called " coursing is bad m'kay", and lock the thread. Should go your way then.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

AH being mixed views

If by mixed you mean divided between those who thought coursing was "only a pikey thing" or a "stone age bogger carry on" and those who thought it was "uncivilised" or even just regional (as in "Limerick, need we say more?").

Please don't tell me that here was a model of reasoned debate, not when I can actually read what you wrote.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

If by mixed you mean divided between those who thought coursing was "only a pikey thing" or a "stone age bogger carry on" and those who thought it was "uncivilised" or even just regional (as in "Limerick, need we say more?").

Please don't tell me that here was a model of reasoned debate, not when I can actually read what you wrote.

Just popped back to point you in the right direction. You seemed to be getting lost again. I'm only 1 person with 1 vote, a very small number of voters actually posted in the thread. Most of the posters were actually from the hunting forum (once the thread went up) which also reflects the poll.

I was talking about the voting though. The voting on the AH side was mixed as in public opinion, some for, some against. The voting on the hunting forum wasnt, as they all came in through the thread with the words "As a hunting group lets get behind a no ban vote".

Look at it like this, if you ask 100 people if they like the circus you'll get a good view of the percentage of people that like the circus. But if you ask 100 people and 100 clowns what they think of the circus, you wont get a good view because it will be skewed by the clowns who have an interest in the outcome of the poll.

If you're still having difficulty with it then I'm afraid I cant help ya. And this time I really am gone. Good night and good luck.

yubabill1

Just a note for AH regulars,
we are seeing regular patterns by anti-fieldsports campaigners hijacking forums, journalists, public figures and such: this is a spontaneous reaction by a group of people who are the types you never notice when going about your normal business.

As licensed firearm holders, we have had to pass some of the strictest background checks in the world and be absolutely, unimpeacheably devoid of illegal actions or intent.

PerrinV2

Don't know anything about hare coursing but why don't they use a mechanical hare as opposed to a live hare? if this is track racing that is
(maybe they do,I dunno)

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

Or to put it another way, someone pointed out that there was a poll here on a hunting topic and calling for votes on it.

The last time I looked at the democratic process, the goal was to raise the turnout figures for such things, not to enforce selection bias.

If all you want is a poll where only one side is allowed vote, then why bother run the poll at all? Just make up the numbers, it'll be as honest and as accurate.

If coursing is hunting then mugging is a boxing match. Funny how the boards hunting lobby decided to rally out of their clubhouse on a completely unrelated thread though. A thread that would be deleted from the boards hunting forum club house and all.

yubabill1

Bambi wrote: »

If coursing is hunting then mugging is a boxing match. Funny how the boards hunting lobby decided to rally out of their clubhouse on a completely unrelated thread though. A thread that would be deleted from the boards hunting forum club house and all.

You are entitled to your view, but we feel all fieldsports are related.
We have had quite a few posts in the hunting forum from people with diverse views tonight.
It's good to talk.

Dyr

yubabill1 wrote: »

You are entitled to your view, but we feel all fieldsports are related.
We have had quite a few posts in the hunting forum from people with diverse views tonight.
It's good to talk.

Read your charter then, one view only permitted.


Anyhoo fieldsports might be your catch all euphemism for the assorted hobbies that involve killing stuff but chasing freddie the fox with a rifle aint a sport. Not by any measure. Actual sports tend to have parity of initiative and ability, that's why you don't see senior rugby teams tackling the local girl scouts ping pong champion or heavyweight boxers getting into the ring with fly weights.

I suppose the amount of stone age bogger types these activities attract might show some relationship between them

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

Read your charter then, one view only permitted

Re-read the charter for the actual reason would you? I spent long enough writing it up...

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

Re-read the charter for the actual reason would you? I spent long enough writing it up...

One view only permitted buddy, are you denying that?

steddyeddy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You don't understand evolution. Cancer is largely a disease of the elderly - as such it doesn't affect evolution. Diabetes is a product of modern lifestyle we specifically didn't evolve for.

Permanent psychological damage for prey? Wouldn't all wildlife be continuous nervous wrecks ?

By that logic people dont get nervouse disorders because they're not evolutionary benificial.

Witcher

Bambi wrote: »

I suppose the amount of stone age bogger types these activities attract might show some relationship between them

Always nice to keep these things civil:rolleyes:

Vizzy

Bambi wrote: »

I suppose the amount of stone age bogger types these activities attract might show some relationship between them

Oh deer,deer,deer !

yubabill1

Bambi wrote: »

Read your charter then, one view only permitted.


Anyhoo fieldsports might be your catch all euphemism for the assorted hobbies that involve killing stuff but chasing freddie the fox with a rifle aint a sport. Not by any measure. Actual sports tend to have parity of initiative and ability, that's why you don't see senior rugby teams tackling the local girl scouts ping pong champion or heavyweight boxers getting into the ring with fly weights.

I suppose the amount of stone age bogger types these activities attract might show some relationship between them

You've let yourself down, there.

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

One view only permitted buddy, are you denying that?

Am I denying what I wrote on a public forum?
/headdesk

For those who don't know what Bambi is talking about, here is the first rule on the forum-specific part of the hunting forum charter (there are also some general rules there):

Hunting is legal, ethical and morally sound. This is an accepted axiom of this forum and discussions about whether or not hunting itself is an ethical or legal activity are not permissible;
All such discussions will be deleted without exception. However, discussions on the ethics of specific hunting techniques or practices is permitted, but such discussions will be required to adhere to the rules more strictly than most other discussions.

What Bambi is also leaving out there is that for six years we didn't have that rule and we finally had to bring it in because we had so many animal rights extremists trolling the forum that it was making it impossible to run the place. When our choice is between letting someone with a criminal record defame and abuse law-abiding posters who actually work on conservation all year round; or not: well, we chose the fairer option.

Alien vs. Predator

Can't believe there is even a debate going on about something which should be (in this day and age) universally agreed upon. It becomes obvious why there's issues which shouldn't exist surrounding other major topics in the world (church not condoning the use of contraception, abortion where mother's life in danger, gay marriage, etc)

Mod edit.

Re-reg banned.

steddyeddy

yubabill1 wrote: »

Conservation is an integral part of what hunters everywhere do.

They do not go about raping and plundering the countryside, as some would have us believe, because they know how Nature works.

Irish hunters work at parish level to protect wildlife and these type of people are do-ers, rather than talkers, so you will not hear about it a lot.

The people I am talking about might be fine clearing weeds from a pond or feeding wildlife in cold winters or planting cover for birds when tracts of the country were getting covered in concrete: but many are modest types, who don't seek publicity in local papers etc and don't ask them to go on Twitter!

A coleague of mine asked to forge closer ties with hunting groups ( by closer ties I mean asking hunters to report data the odd time and stand up against the killing of endangered species) he was shot down. I even asked permission to start a thread on hunting advising closer ties between hunting and conservation groups ( by conservation groups I mean academics ect) and I was told It wasnt good idea to start a thread like that (implied I was anti hunting ). I have nothing against hunting but you guys are doing a great job of turning people against hunting yourselves.

You say you help conservation but you dont speak out against the killing of endangered species in Ireland (which would win you large public support). All you seem to do is complain on a forum (which non hunters are not welcome on) about antis and talk about the great conservation work you do withouth engaging with the public. Then everynow and again there's a thread like this here and you ask each other to show support (in the worst possible way).

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

Am I denying what I wrote on a public forum?
/headdesk

For those who don't know what Bambi is talking about, here is the first rule on the forum-specific part of the hunting forum charter (there are also some general rules there):

What Bambi is also leaving out there is that for six years we didn't have that rule and we finally had to bring it in because we had so many animal rights extremists trolling the forum that it was making it impossible to run the place. When our choice is between letting someone with a criminal record defame and abuse law-abiding posters who actually work on conservation all year round; or not: well, we chose the fairer option.

What you are leaving out is that you dont welcome non hunters and particularly those involved in conservation (even though they're not anti hunting).

ManMade

Bambi wrote: »

Read your charter then, one view only permitted.


Anyhoo fieldsports might be your catch all euphemism for the assorted hobbies that involve killing stuff but chasing freddie the fox with a rifle aint a sport. Not by any measure. Actual sports tend to have parity of initiative and ability, that's why you don't see senior rugby teams tackling the local girl scouts ping pong champion or heavyweight boxers getting into the ring with fly weights.

I suppose the amount of stone age bogger types these activities attract might show some relationship between them

Stone Age boggers. Nice, civil, not insulting.

Freddie the fox is a lovely euphemism for an unwanted farm pest.

steddyeddy

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont see how any "civilised person " can be so PIG ignorant to run down a city or place by sweeping general comments!! Ever been there??Lived there??Know anyone from there??If not STFU!!

A bit like the people on that linked thread in the hunting forum who omplained about duneducated dubs!

yubabill1

steddyeddy wrote: »

A coleague of mine asked to forge closer ties with hunting groups ( by closer ties I mean asking hunters to report data the odd time and stand up against the killing of endangered species) he was shot down. I even asked permission to start a thread on hunting advising closer ties between hunting and conservation groups ( by conservation groups I mean academics ect) and I was told It wasnt good idea to start a thread like that (implied I was anti hunting ). I have nothing against hunting but you guys are doing a great job of turning people against hunting yourselves.

You say you help conservation but you dont speak out against the killing of endangered species in Ireland (which would win you large public support). All you seem to do is complain on a forum (which non hunters are not welcome on) about antis and talk about the great conservation work you do withouth engaging with the public. Then everynow and again there's a thread like this here and you ask each other to show support (in the worst possible way).

I can't believe no hunters would want to work with you. I have worked with a several academics in an informal way, as I'm sure others have.
Academics have been working with hunters for as long as I can think back.

archer22

Well boys you have done yourselves no favours invading this thread and insulting people..my personal response has been to check out that ICABS site you are so obsessed about and will donate to them tomorrow and would ask everybody else you have been sneering at here to do the same.Its Karma time

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

I even asked permission to start a thread on hunting advising closer ties between hunting and conservation groups ( by conservation groups I mean academics ect) and I was told It wasnt good idea to start a thread like that (implied I was anti hunting ). I have nothing against hunting but you guys are doing a great job of turning people against hunting yourselves.

As the guy who gave you that advice, I'd like to point out that I don't think you've correctly summarised our discussion at all. It was by PM, but if you want to reproduce it here in full, consider this my assent to that.

You say you help conservation but you dont speak out against the killing of endangered species in Ireland (which would win you large public support).

Actually, there's a lot of that on the hunting forum, you just haven't been reading it long enough.

All you seem to do is complain on a forum (which non hunters are not welcome on)

Incorrect.
I'm a non-hunter and I mod the forum for pete's sake.
What's not welcome is people coming in and calling us murderers (that's the usual opening line) and proceeding to defame and troll everyone in sight.
Frankly, though, if I behaved in here like I see the animal rights extremists behaving in Hunting, I'd expect to be sitebanned, not just forum-banned, and pretty sharply as well.
It's not exactly a subtle form of trolling they engage in, after all; it's more like the kind of thing that would have Frankie Boyle saying "steady on there lad, that's a bit much".

yubabill1

archer22 wrote: »

Well boys you have done yourselves no favours invading this thread and insulting people..my personal response has been to check out that ICABS site you are so obsessed about and will donate to them tomorrow and would ask everybody else you have been sneering at here to do the same.Its Karma time

Didn't you say that earlier?

You are entitled to your view.

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

Its Karma time

And so you contribute to ICABS instead of people who actually work with animals like the ISPCA. And that's why you and I would have different opinions on this and I wouldn't hold much stock in yours.