Hare Coursing

archer22

Sparks wrote: »

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.

After what I have seen happen on this thread that is now my view..if you fellows think you can intimidate and harass people having a discussion well then to hell with you..your enemy is my friend.

steddyeddy

yubabill1 wrote: »

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.

Well that's the point my colleague does work with hunters the odd time but there is a larg group of people who call him an anti ect. I had the same experience over in the hunting forum.

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

if you fellows think you can intimidate and harass people having a discussion

... and you're proposing donating to ICABS?
I thought you had a problem with intimidation and harassment?
Why would you donate to a body that embraces them as standard procedure?

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

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.


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


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".

Cool I'll do that thanks.

Originally Posted by steddyeddy
Hey Sparks I thought I would send you an email seeking permission to start a thread on the Hunting forum. To give a breif summary of my "agenda, I lived in america where I knew many hunters and got on well with them. They didn't have the same level of anti hunter problems such as the hunters here. They put it down to the fact that Irish wildlife laws are tame in comparison to American laws and so there is a suspiscion aimed at irish hunters as a result.

I myself am a bit suspiscious of some irish hunting because the wildlife laws are lax. I am not anti hunting but I think that the irish hunting lobby would gain massive support for hunting if they said "look we do hunt but this is what we're against, poaching endangered species ect". Would it be ok to start a thread like that? As I said I'm not a hunter but I have no problem with anything that doesnt effect endangered animals ect.

Reply

Hm. Thanks Steddyeddy, but no - we have a forum rule that specifically says that we won't allow threads on whether or not hunting is "right", because, well, it is. And the philosophy behind that was that we kept getting animal rights nutters (and I don't mean people like the RSPCA here, who actually do work, I mean groups like the ALF and ARAN and ICABS, who are just... not so respectable. A thread like this would be jumped on by them, but more than that, we've been so vocal already in our decrying of poaching that the other mods and I don't see what yet another thread on the topic would do. It certainly won't help with hunting's public image in Ireland; that has altogether different roots (specifically the huge increase in urbanisation over the last two generations in Ireland).

Originally Posted by steddyeddy
Hey Sparks you missunderstand my point. I'm not trying to start a thread as to whether hunting is right or wrong. I think that the hunting lobby in Ireland should do more to distance themselves from the people who break wildlife laws in the rest of the country. They do that in America and also work closely with conservation. I think a similar aproach could work here. I'm not activley involved in hunting but I have made the point to friends who hunted and to some hunting clubs only to be stonewalled. If hunters aligned themselves closely with conservation the antis wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Reply

But they do; and the anti's don't; and it hasn't stopped them because "the poor widdle furry friends of the forest" argument the antis use is far more soundbite-friendly than any real conservationist approach.

Antis, antis antis. You guys are the author of your own missfourtune o be honest.

yubabill1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well that's the point my colleague does work with hunters the odd time but there is a larg group of people who call him an anti ect. I had the same experience over in the hunting forum.

Ok, I don't know the full backstory here.

However, you will have difficulty doing what you want to do if your colleague is perceived as anti-hunting.

Hunters do not condone the killing of endangered species. They have voluntary bans on species if their numbers are perceived to be low, one recent example being the curlew. I remember flocks of them around here.

steddyeddy

yubabill1 wrote: »

Ok, I don't know the full backstory here.

However, you will have difficulty doing what you want to do if your colleague is perceived as anti-hunting.

Hunters do not condone the killing of endangered species. They have voluntary bans on species if their numbers are perceived to be low, one recent example being the curlew. I remember flocks of them around here.

I dont work in conservation at the moment, im in the biochemistry department but he brings down things for us to test from time to time and fills me in. Im friendly with a lot of the zoologists and ecologists too.

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

Antis, antis antis. You guys are the author of your own missfourtune o be honest.

There's an old saying that it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you. Speaking as someone who was personally targeted by these people for publicly disagreeing with them, I don't think that we're authoring anything; I think hunting and shooting are (pardon the phrase) deliberately targeted by these people. Because that's what I've been seeing for the decade or so that I've been watching it.

At some point, you just have to accept observed data as being what's going on...

archer22

Sparks wrote: »

... and you're proposing donating to ICABS?
I thought you had a problem with intimidation and harassment?
Why would you donate to a body that embraces them as standard procedure?

I doubt that they do embrace it as standard procedure..they disagree with you and you cant handle disagreement can you.Michael D Higgins the president of Ireland is a former vice chairperson of that organisation.And you are saying that quiet polite individual embraces "intimidation and harassment" FFS :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

There's an old saying that it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you. Speaking as someone who was personally targeted by these people for publicly disagreeing with them, I don't think that we're authoring anything; I think hunting and shooting are (pardon the phrase) deliberately targeted by these people. Because that's what I've been seeing for the decade or so that I've been watching it.

At some point, you just have to accept observed data as being what's going on...

Well I'm not out to get anyone and I stated here that I dont have problem with hunting. I do find this hare coursing a bit distastful but that doesnt mean Im going to egg your house over disagreement on one issue!

fathersymes

Zombienosh wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/animal-rights-group-urges-racecourse-to-stop-hosting-hare-coursing-586297.html

The Irish Council Against Blood Sports has urged Limerick Racecourse to stop hosting hare coursing.



WARNING: The article includes footage of hares being mauled.

So what do we think, cruel and should be banned? or acceptable?

Remember this is the origin of all this. Please understand that the mention of ICABS will make the blood boil of anyone involved in lawful countryside pursuits and Olympic Shooting Sports, yes they want to ban all guns also.

ICABS and their affiliated organisations are very shady people, Animal Welfare organisations do very good work, ICABS etc. are obtaining donations which would be better in the hands of reputable welfare charities.

Take a look here, balaclavas!

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Ireland/BitebackReports2008.htm

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

I doubt that they do embrace it as standard procedure.

I don't, not after watching their methods for a while.

And you are saying that quiet polite individual embraces "intimidation and harassment" FFS :rolleyes:

If you can show me the bit where he applied or lobbied to get that role, you will have a point.
The technique of having high-profile people be honorary presidents is a very old one.

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm not out to get anyone and I stated here that I dont have problem with hunting. I do find this hare coursing a bit distastful but that doesnt mean Im going to egg your house over disagreement on one issue!

And there wasn't any objection to you posting in Hunting either; just to that one thread because (a) we didn't think it would work and (b) we knew it would be subverted and turned into a trollfest. It's not actually a new idea either, as Grizzly mentioned, it was tried in the UK before and it just earned its proposer a headache.

ejmaztec

Sparks wrote: »

Hunting is legal, ethical and morally sound

It may be legal but the rest is a all a bit Neanderthal in my opinion, but I'm aware that enthusiasts repeating "ethically and morally sound" in their minds over and over again will carry on believing that is true, and that any criticism won't make a blind bit of difference.

A real life "Hunger Games" might change some hunters' way of thinking though.:P

yubabill1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm not out to get anyone and I stated here that I dont have problem with hunting. I do find this hare coursing a bit distastful but that doesnt mean Im going to egg your house over disagreement on one issue!

I am on shaky ground now and I know it.

However, steadyeddie, I know the regulations in the US are strict and strictly enforced. But it is fairly easy to access hunting - guns are fairly easy to obtain.

Over here, there is strict regulation on both sides - it's quite difficult to get a firearms licence- background checks, doctors details, permissions, references,proof of competency and so on are mandatory and the enforcement has become much more of a priority in the last couple of years. So, it's not all that different over here now. A lot of very high tech stuff is being employed to protect our wildlife as we speak.

Maybe it doesn't come across in the media, but hunters, more than anyone, disavow the killing of protected and endangered species, as it gives us all a bad name.
And for what? We have nothing to gain from this behaviour.

Sparks

ejmaztec wrote: »

It may be legal but the rest is a all a bit Neanderthal in my opinion, but I'm aware that enthusiasts repeating "ethically and morally sound" in their minds over and over again will carry on believing that is true, and that any criticism won't make a blind bit of difference.

You realise that that's a fairly closed-minded approach?

As to the ethics and the morality, consider:

• the life of a game animal in a managed herd, where feed is left out when food is short, where the herd numbers are never allowed grow beyond the ability of the area to sustain them in the long term and where the end of its life is quick and humane as opposed to being long and drawn out from starvation or an injury which doesn't heal;
• the life of that game animal compared to the life of a food animal in an industrial battery farm;
• the conservation of entire species (and the reintroduction of once-extinct species) carried out by hunters;
• the ethos of hunting which emphasises not wasting anything that it cost an animals life to obtain, not causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily and being aware of and in touch with the ecosystem we live in.

Perhaps you feel differently but we think those things make hunting ethically and morally sound.

A real life "Hunger Games" might change some hunters' way of thinking though.:P

Hunting with bows is illegal in Ireland. Not quick or humane enough for our wildlife and terrain.

Plus, we figure if you're going to rip off Japanese films, at least keep the neck bombs.

Dyr

ManMade wrote: »

Stone Age boggers. Nice, civil, not insulting.

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

I don't mind most forms of actual hunting as an activity, animals are tasty. But coursing is strictly neanderthal stuff in my book, if you're happy to birds-of-a-feather with coursing that's your look out

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

And there wasn't any objection to you posting in Hunting either; just to that one thread because (a) we didn't think it would work and (b) we knew it would be subverted and turned into a trollfest. It's not actually a new idea either, as Grizzly mentioned, it was tried in the UK before and it just earned its proposer a headache.

You didn't think a thread suggesting improved conservation would work? That's why ill always have my doubts about Irish hunting and their claims conservation aims .
You have no problem allowing a thread commenting on uneducated dub all the same.

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

You didn't think a thread suggesting improved conservation would work?

That wasn't what the thread you were suggesting was about; you were suggesting that if we had tighter links to conservation bodies, then extremist groups like ICABS would leave us alone.

The objection wasn't to tighter links to conservationists - because the hunting community already has links like that and has had for some time.

The objection was to this idea that (a) ICABS and their ilk should be appeased; and (b) that they ever could be appeased.

These extremist groups are the kind of people who not only claim credit for violent and destructive acts on the web, but who actually have to have seperate icons to denote arson, vandalism, sabotage and what they call "liberation" (which usually entails loosing thousands of pretty vicious non-native predators into an ecosystem that they then destroy). Why on earth would we ever want to encourage that kind of group by making them think we would want to seek some sort of compromise with them? They should be charged, convicted and imprisoned, not negotiated with as though they were legitimate protestors.

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

You are LYING I saw nothing on the ICAB site about banning all Guns and Olympic Shooting Sports...You are making it up..thats one of the reasons I have grown to detest you people...you are malicious liars.

ICABS et al, not ICABS alone; and note that while there are a lot of different groups (ICABS, CACS, AHSI, AFAR, ARAN, etc, etc, etc) they're all the same people and have all been members of each others groups at one point or another. The People's Front of Judea sketch comes to mind...

And as to the idea that they have no problem with target shooting...





Letter from John Tierney to The Southern Star:

Virginia shooting
SIR—While the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech University is upsetting, the reality is that there are thousands of people in this country of the same ilk who carry out the same homicidal tendencies but instead of a human target direct their lethal firepower towards wild animals and birds.

One shudders to speculate what would happen if Irish live target shooters were prevented from dishing out fear and death to animals and birds.

A debate needs to take place into the need for the existence of any activity that involves the hunting down and killing of wild animals and birds. Such activities cloak a sickness and an evil virus that lead to tragic events like the Virginia Tech University massacre.

Can it only be a matter of time before such an event happens on Irish soil?

John Tierney (Hunt Sabs) writes on the letters to the editors pages of the Irish Times and Irish Examiner stating that Irish firearms ownership should not be permitted on the basis of the mass shooting at a screening of the latest Batman movie in Denver:

Irish Times wrote:

In light of the Denver cinema shooting, Irish society should not be lulled into thinking that these incidents happen only in faraway countries. While our firearm- owning community is small in size, the potential for a member within its ranks to run amok within a public setting exists. The fact the firearms owners are allowed to blast away at the non-humans of society acts like a safety insulation blanket. We can all relax as the pent-up aggression and physiological issues of firearms-owners are projected on to non-human targets. Despite strict firearms laws, firearms both legal and illegal flow like water through the veins of Irish society. Held by people who need the weight of a firearm to feel alive and are a gun-cock away from proving their macho credentials.

Irish Examiner wrote:

In light of the Denver cinema shooting Irish society should not be lulled into thinking that these incidents only happen in faraway countries. While our firearm-owning community is small in size, the potential for a member within its ranks to run amok within a public setting exists. The fact the firearms owners are allowed to blast away at the non-humans of society acts like a safety insulation blanket. We can all relax as the pent-up aggression and physiological issues of firearms owners are projected onto non-human targets. Firearm ownership draws in the flotsam of society, people searching for an identity and a way of expressing their view of how society should operate. Within their cordite-soaked minds they see themselves as defenders of a free society. For them, the solution to any problem they encounter can be found within a bullet casing.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

THE tragic event in Wicklow involving the deaths of three people in a domestic situation calls into question the need for having firearms in the family home. Is the presence of firearms a tipping point for a person who gets involved in a domestic dispute and, instead of storming out, heads for the gun cabinet to end the dispute once and for all? No need exists for having a firearm.
...
So why do people own and use firearms? Can the reason be that is gives them a sense of self-importance in a world where they just exist? That having a firearm sets them apart from the crowd? Those who channel their killing thoughts via the barrel of a gun on an animal are just a step away from moving the target to human beings.

Thursday July 26 2007

No need to own a gun

So why do people own and use firearms? Can the reason be that it gives them a sense of self-importance in a world where they just exist? Having a firearm sets them apart from the crowd. Kitchen table murders are become common in our society. Is this an indication that for some firearm owners the thrill of shooting animals and birds has become stale, more excitement is needed?

Sunday June 06 2010

Getting tough on gun control

n the wake of the tragic mass murders in Cumbria, I suggest we need to address our own growing gun culture in Ireland, where over 220,000 firearms are legally held by citizens. True, our Government has endeavoured to clamp down on gangland gun ownership and illegal possession of firearms.

The problem, however, is that the vast majority of guns used in non-gangland murders, in suicides, in attempts to kill or injure a spouse or partner in domestic disputes, or in killings legally defined as manslaughter cases in Ireland, are legally held ones.

Friday June 04 2010

We need better control of guns

In the wake of the tragic mass murders in Cumbria, I suggest we need to address our own growing gun culture in Ireland, where in excess of 220,000 firearms are legally held by citizens.

The problem, however, is that the vast majority of guns used in non-gangland murders, in suicides, in attempts to kill or injure a spouse or partner in domestic disputes, or in killings legally defined as manslaughter cases in Ireland, are legally held.

And on, and on. Those are just from the three main broadsheets, but they've been protesting to every TD and regional paper and anyone they could bully for the last few decades.

Grizzly 45

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Maybe more like arrogant ,smug scantimonious ,know it alls who wanted a free service for their academic pals???:rolleyes:
Honestly...you are being VERY selective in your critiques and commentary..
But nothing unusual there from urban antis.:rolleyes:

archer22

What the hell are you on about..who is "ICABS et al".There is NOTHING on the ICABS site about banning Guns or Shooting.As for people calling for Gun Bans after shooting tragedies..well here's news for you half the bloody world does after those events...we expect it now and its got nothing to do with hare coursing or ICABS.You are just trying to get Gun owners to support you and they are fools if they do and BTW I am a Gun owner and target shooter.

Grizzly 45

archer22 wrote: »

After what I have seen happen on this thread that is now my view..if you fellows think you can intimidate and harass people having a discussion well then to hell with you..your enemy is my friend.

Well you will be in good company then with ICABS and all the rest of the letter scribblers"Asking" people to bow down to their wills ...Or else! intimidation tactics.:rolleyes:

i57dwun4yb1pt8

only human vermin take part in these so called 'sports'

Sparks

archer22 wrote: »

You are just trying to get Gun owners to support you and they are fools if they do and BTW I am a Gun owner and target shooter.

Really?
You mean you're not a landowner who hates hunters and thinks that they're all inbred?

tin79

Ava_e wrote: »

@ Matt Tracker, I have see hare coursing where the animals are not muzzled.

They could have been some scumbag group with their own agenda ?. But the Hares when caught were torn to shreds.

Yes we have all seen Snatch.

Grizzly 45

archer22 wrote: »

What the hell are you on about..who is "ICABS et al".There is NOTHING on the ICABS site about banning Guns or Shooting.As for people calling for Gun Bans after shooting tragedies..well here's news for you half the bloody world does after those events...we expect it now and its got nothing to do with hare coursing or ICABS.You are just trying to get Gun owners to support you and they are fools if they do and BTW I am a Gun owner and target shooter.

All of a sudden????:rolleyes::rolleyes:
As the old rascist quip goes.."Ive nothing against black people some of my best friends are black..But...
You have just had four examples of the EX PRO of ICABS writing to the national press about gun bans in recent times..But if that isnt good enough for you I suggest you go and research the group you are about to join and sponsor around the early.mid oughties when Tierney was the PRO and you will find plenty of his anti gun/shooting bile there.
If you cant accept that,well I suggest you go and say to Aideen Yourell when you sign up that you are a gun owner and proud of it and see what reaction you will get or whether your membership will be accepted.:p

DEFTLEFTHAND

Bambi wrote: »

I don't mind most forms of actual hunting as an activity, animals are tasty. But coursing is strictly neanderthal stuff in my book, if you're happy to birds-of-a-feather with coursing that's your look out

I agree it's much more classy when people dress up in red coats and chase foxes through the countryside on horseback with a pack of beagles.

archer22

Sparks wrote: »

Really?
You mean you're not a landowner who hates hunters and thinks that they're all inbred?

I am that as well and to clarify your statement its Hunters with Dogs and for the same reason that majority of landowners hate them..There is not a single post anywhere from me that was ever anti Gun or anti shooting.

Dyr

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I agree it's much more classy when people dress up in red coats and chase foxes through the countryside on horseback with a pack of beagles.

Equally retarded, should join badger baiting and the rest into the dustbin of civilistation

reprazant

I like how, suddenly, if you do not agree with coursing you are in league with fanatical animal rights groups.