Hare Coursing

fourleafclover

paddy the man wrote: »

Capture myopathy is a well documented syndrome following the restraint of wild animals. It can be diagnosed by post mortem lesions. The Irish Coursing Club does not dispute this.

The Coursing season attempts to limit the effect it has on the breeding Hares, but Irish Hares can breed in Jan/Feb.

Due to beneficial predator control numbers of Irish Hares are higher in Coursing areas. Also captured Hares are relocated to these areas (often fenced) which lead to higher population densities.

What surveys have shown that the banning of Coursing has led to a drop in numbers of Irish Hares in Northern Ireland? Since Irish Hares undergo yearly cyclical variation in population numbers it is not possible to determine whether a population has decreased in two years since the ban.

1) You will have to show me where the ICC recognise capture myopathy? As no independent study has been done on the irish hare in relation to capture myopathy and furthermore it is in relation to poor nutrition and diet, something that you do not get in hares held by coursing clubs.

2) The hare may possibly breed in january and february as you have said, however this is uncommon unless there is a mild winter and furthermore gestation is six weeks meaning that coursing is OVER come birth.

3) The preserves where the hare are released back into are NOT fenced and the hare is free to roam for 500 miles if it so wishes.

4) What you said is not true, hare numbers have declined in the UK and in the North since coursing was banned, i refer you to a Quercus study in 2010.


Apparently you do not know the full Pros and Cons of coursing and your scripted points although valued were inaccurate and misleading.

warehouse1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You mean you shoot them with a gun.

No he mean's hunt its not just a case of going out into the countryside and finding an animal and shooting it.

yubabill1

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Yes, I would. I would be extremely impressed to see a hunter go one on one trying to strangle a stag of a similar maturity/health.

Hunters who kill for fun? My cat has killed for fun because it doesn't know any better. So to me, a hunter is about as mentally proficient as my cat. Without the sophistication. Horrible people.

What a mixed-up opinion set.

First off, I have witnessed the first scenario, albeit the guy had a knife; and yes, very impressive. Jumped on the stag's back, one stick was all that was needed.

Second, your cat and the thousands of others let roam free in the countryside cause untold damage to songbirds, young rabbits and anything it can catch.

Cass

archer22 wrote: »

Well boys you have done yourselves no favours invading this thread and insulting people........

Pot = Kettle.

..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

Karma!!!!!! You think that makes sense. To finance such a group to "stick it to us"?

Fair enough i'll give you Karna. For every Euro you donate, i'll shoot a fox. How is that karma? Be sure to post up how much everyone donates or i'll simply round up. That makes as much sense as your ramblings.

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.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Talking about blind ignorance to what is going on. We take part, and you get all pissy as though we have no business posting here.

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

You are simply lashing out at being refused. You have not added anything to the topic of this bar your own self serving needs/issues.

archer22 wrote: »

............ I am a Gun owner and target shooter.

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

My cat has killed for fun because it doesn't know any better. .

Typical. "Oh, cats are free, and should be able to roam". Nothing about the destruction they cause to fauna. It's a case of lazy pet owners not taking responsibility for the actions of their pets. You shouldn't be allowed to own animals if you cannot control them.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Pot = Kettle.

You have not added anything to the topic of this bar your own self serving needs/issues. .

Kettle = Pot.

Jesus Christ but you hunting folks are blind to your own bullshít. You came in here en-masse from the hunting forum to load the poll and then turned the thread into a hunting debate because you dont allow any debate in your own forum.

Its just been the same hunting forum posters circle jerking and rounding on the stragglers since you guys turned the thread to shít. So you are not really in any position to be criticising anyone else contribution to the thread are ya ?

wexfordman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You mean you shoot them with a gun.

Seriously ? Thats all your able to comment on from my post ?

Looks like I was right

wexfordman wrote: »

There is literally no excuse for meat eaters to claim some for of ethical superiority to hunters, in fact it is quite the opposite, and it makes most look very foolish indeed, and literally stranded for any sensible or credible argument.

wexfordman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Kettle = Pot.

Jesus Christ but you hunting folks are blind to your own bullshít. You came in here en-masse from the hunting forum to load the pol

This is an after hours forum is it not ? And the poll was an honest attempt at a poll was it not ? I'm confused about how a poll could be otherwise if you exclude anyone, I would imagine those that are against hare coursing, or actively engage in protest against it are welcome to add to the poll too, so why would people from hunting forum be banned ?

Artful_Badger wrote: »

l and then turned the thread into a hunting debate because you dont allow any debate in your own forum.

There is a reason for that, and it seems odd for on one hand for you to say we dont allow debate, and then criticise us for engaging in it ?

It seems very strange to me how you could wish to have any form of debate and exclude a significant portion of people fromtaking part in it.

What would you like, a 100% poll in favour of banning coursing, and all posters repeating the same anti coursing comments ?

Sorry the results didnt go your way (so far), but no point in crying over it. Perhaps the OP should have written the thread and poll was only for those in favour of a ban!

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Jesus Christ but you hunting folks are blind to your own bullshít. You came in here en-masse from the hunting forum to load the poll

I'm still waiting for anyone who can point out a rational reason that holds up to scrutiny as to why posters from the hunting forum should not be allowed vote on a poll that concerns fieldsports.

I've seen plenty of people saying "well, duh" or its equivalent, but that's not an argument, it's an appeal to a peer group to support a belief that has no data behind it. But an actual reason? Nothing yet. So I continue to conclude that there just are more people in favour of coursing than there are against it, and you don't like that.

Artful_Badger

wexfordman wrote: »

This is an after hours forum is it not ? And the poll was an honest attempt at a poll was it not ?

I'm confused about how a poll could be otherwise if you exclude anyone, I would imagine those that are against hare coursing, or actively engage in protest against it are welcome to add to the poll too, so why would people from hunting forum be banned ?

It was until there was an organised effort in the hunting forum to load it. Which is what happened. Hunting forum organised and skewed the poll and derailed the thread.

I'm not gonna spoon feed this to you as I had to do with the others. Everyone is welcome to their views but the organised effort to load the poll meant it was never gonna be a reflection of anything other than the fact it was skewed. There was only an organised effort on one side.

There is a reason for that, and it seems odd for on one hand for you to say we dont allow debate, and then criticise us for engaging in it ?

Problem being this isnt a thread for debating about hinting. IT was a thread about Hare Coursing with a poll to gauge public opinion. Didnt stay that way though, ended up with a skewed poll and a hunting debate courtesy of the fine fellows of the hunting forum.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

I'm still waiting for anyone who can point out a rational reason that holds up to scrutiny as to why posters from the hunting forum should not be allowed vote on a poll that concerns fieldsports.

Its actually getting rather pathetic that you are continuing to argue that considering its been explained to you so many times. Just finger sin the ear and invent an argument rather than facing the facts.

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Kettle = Pot.

Jesus Christ but you hunting folks are blind to your own bullshít. You came in here en-masse from the hunting forum to load the poll and then turned the thread into a hunting debate because you dont allow any debate in your own forum.

Its just been the same hunting forum posters circle jerking and rounding on the stragglers since you guys turned the thread to shít. So you are not really in any position to be criticising anyone else contribution to the thread are ya ?

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It was until there was an organised effort in the hunting forum to load it. Which is what happened. Hunting forum organised and skewed the poll and derailed the thread.

I'm not gonna spoon feed this to you as I had to do with the others. Everyone is welcome to their views but the organised effort to load the poll meant it was never gonna be a reflection of anything other than the fact it was skewed. There was only an organised effort on one side.



Problem being this isnt a thread for debating about hinting. IT was a thread about Hare Coursing with a poll to gauge public opinion. Didnt stay that way though, ended up with a skewed poll and a hunting debate courtesy of the fine fellows of the hunting forum.

All i'm hearing is whinging because it didn't go your way.

steddyeddy

Do you guys even listen to yourselves? You complain about the “antis” (which includes everyone from Dublin and anyone who doesn’t hunt) hijacking threads,yet you posted a thread in the hunting forum which instructed others to comealong (hijack) this thread. You give out about “antis” calling you names yetevery second word from your mouth is “uneducated Dubs” and “townies”.

I genuinely think that you guys are seriously turning people of hunting in general. You call anyone interested in conservation an anti, you sayyour into conservation but don’t want connection with conservation groups andyou act with hostility to anyone who might disagree with coursing.

As I said I generally have no problem with hunting. It’s notsomething I would do and I think there are some irresponsible hunters out therebut I can’t disagree with all hunting as some people shoot to kill.

I would love if conservation was an aspect of Irish huntingbut it’s not. Anyone talking about it on the hunting forum is apparently an “anti”or some other collective group that the hunting lobby blames for its troubles. Iwas suspicious of Irish hunting as I said as I think some people in the lobbythink along the lines of “dumb animals” and “Disney gave us anthropomorphism”as opposed to the scientific view and I have to say my suspicions arewarranted. You come across as a bunch of people with little respect forwildlife (a number don’t believe in wildlife laws for that matter) or little respect for the public in general.

I would also say you need to update your hunting charter tobe more specifically anti conservation.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

All i'm hearing is whinging because it didn't go your way.

All I'm seeing is a mod and cmod making tits of themselves and derailing a thread after allowing their forum to rig the poll.

steddyeddy

Cass wrote: »

Pot = Kettle.

Karma!!!!!! You think that makes sense. To finance such a group to "stick it to us"?

Fair enough i'll give you Karna. For every Euro you donate, i'll shoot a fox. How is that karma? Be sure to post up how much everyone donates or i'll simply round up. That makes as much sense as your ramblings.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Talking about blind ignorance to what is going on. We take part, and you get all pissy as though we have no business posting here.

You are simply lashing out at being refused. You have not added anything to the topic of this bar your own self serving needs/issues.


Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

Typical. "Oh, cats are free, and should be able to roam". Nothing about the destruction they cause to fauna. It's a case of lazy pet owners not taking responsibility for the actions of their pets. You shouldn't be allowed to own animals if you cannot control them.

Am I reading this tripe? He doesnt agree with coarsing so he cant own guns?

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

There was only an organised effort on one side.

If you believe that, then you are simply wrong.

This thread is a proxy.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

It was until there was an organised effort in the hunting forum to load it. Which is what happened.

No, it wasn't. What happened is that a link was posted in the Hunting forum. Oddly, you're not complaining when the exact same link was posted on the front page on http://www.boards.ie where the entire world could see it.

You wanted data; you got it. Not our fault it's not the data you wanted.

There's a word for what you've got, and to give you a hint, it's not "science".

Artful_Badger

yubabill1 wrote: »

If you believe that, then you are simply wrong.

This thread is a proxy.

Its clear to anyone with two eyes in their head that it happened. The voting changed completed as did the number of posters arguing against a ban as soon as a thread went up in the hunting forum calling for the forum to mobilise and back a no ban vote. Even the topic changed to suit the agenda of the hunting forum.

Cass

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its actually getting rather pathetic that you are continuing to argue that considering its been explained to you so many times.

That's right. You didn't want a fair poll just all anti field sports people voting.

Start another one, and see if it goes any better.

Steddyeddy wrote:

Am I reading this tripe? He doesnt agree with coarsing so he cant own guns?

Not worth replying to. You are annoyed at the shooting mods so nothing i say will work. You just want to vent about your "conservation" idea being rebuffed.

Artful_Badger wrote:

All I'm seeing is a mod and cmod making tits of themselves and derailing a thread after allowing their forum to rig the poll

Brilliant. No argument, so just call names. Go for gold.

Benny Cake

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its clear to anyone with two eyes in their head that it happened. The voting changed completed as did the number of posters arguing against a ban as soon as a thread went up in the hunting forum calling for the forum to mobilise and back a no ban vote. Even the topic changed to suit the agenda of the hunting forum.

Get over yourself. You don't like the answer the poll is giving you, simple as that. The hunting fraternity are every bit as entitled to express an opinion as you are....

paddy the man

fourleafclover wrote: »

1) You will have to show me where the ICC recognise capture myopathy? As no independent study has been done on the irish hare in relation to capture myopathy and furthermore it is in relation to poor nutrition and diet, something that you do not get in hares held by coursing clubs.

2) The hare may possibly breed in january and february as you have said, however this is uncommon unless there is a mild winter and furthermore gestation is six weeks meaning that coursing is OVER come birth.

3) The preserves where the hare are released back into are NOT fenced and the hare is free to roam for 500 miles if it so wishes.

4) What you said is not true, hare numbers have declined in the UK and in the North since coursing was banned, i refer you to a Quercus study in 2010.


Apparently you do not know the full Pros and Cons of coursing and your scripted points although valued were inaccurate and misleading.

1) I know several Vets who work for the Department who inspect the Hares. Capture Myopathy is a fact. What do you think the cause of the 4% fatality rate since death due to trauma from coursing are rare/uncommon since muzzling? To say that Hares don't get Capture Myopathy is foolish.

2) Hare can breed in Jan/Feb although uncommon, but it does happen.

4) Coursing has been banned in the North since mid 2010. As I previously said since Irish Hares undergo yearly cyclical variation in population numbers it is not possible to determine whether a population has decreased in two years since the ban. Since the Quercus report is from 2010 it is impossible to know whether a decrease in population is due to Coursing being banned. Do you not understand what cyclical variations in Hare population is?

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its clear to anyone with two eyes in their head that it happened. The voting changed completed as did the number of posters arguing against a ban as soon as a thread went up in the hunting forum calling for the forum to mobilise and back a no ban vote. Even the topic changed to suit the agenda of the hunting forum.

Yes, we were made aware of the poll. That is beyond dispute and we have been very open about it.

You may not be aware of the several recent online campaigns by anti-hunting organisations, who are putting out broadcasts and swarming over threads like this;
in fact I would be very interested to know the affiliations of the op.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

No, it wasn't. What happened is that a link was posted in the Hunting forum. Oddly, you're not complaining when the exact same link was posted on the front page on http://www.boards.ie where the entire world could see it.

You wanted data; you got it. Not our fault it's not the data you wanted.

There's a word for what you've got, and to give you a hint, it's not "science".

I'm not sure if you're just incapable of admitting the facts of what happened or if you actually think this "data" is worth something. The poll may as well have been in the hunting forum devoid entirely of an opposing view.

Its not relevant of anything other than hunters have an agenda. Nothing we didnt already know. But the thing you dont seem to realise is I ddint want any particular turn out here, you did. I couldnt have cared less if it was a vote against the ban. I'd have been surprised but thats about it. But we didnt get the opportunity to be surprised because the hunting forum took over and made the whole thing a hunting debate including the voting. The call in the hunting forum wasnt to rally for coursing, it was to rally for the wider hunting agenda. Thats why its pointless, not because it didnt turn out the way I wanted.

wexfordman

steddyeddy wrote: »

I genuinely think that you guys are seriously turning peopleof hunting in general.

I dont think that a forum on boards is going to sway people one way or the other tbh, you think to highly of us

steddyeddy wrote: »

You call anyone interested in conservation an anti,

Can you elaborate on that, I genuinely dont understand what you mean, perhaps point to the post in particular ?

steddyeddy wrote: »

you sayyour into conservation but don’t want connection with conservation groups andyou act with hostility to anyone who might disagree with coursing.

Dont think there has been much hostility, and I think perhaps you need to be a bit more thick skinned to be honest, any debate around field sports is always going to be "heated" and the heat is not simply one sided, people are passionate on both sides of the fence!

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would love if conservation was an aspect of Irish huntingbut it’s not.

Now, this is what gets people heated!! How can you say that, unless your approaching it from a position of complete ignorance. Hunting is ALL ABOUT conservation! It cant survive unless it is. Everything I do has an element of conservation built into it, from predator control, to rearing and release, provsion of game crop to compensate for loss of habitat.I;m heading out to a meeting later this evening of our gun club, and the main topic will be funding for next years activities, which are likely to include planting of game crop and restoration of an old pond.

Gun clubs and the NARGC actively work on and fund conservation projects etc.

Everything about your statement above is just simply wrong, its out and out false.

I would really suggest you do some research into it before making statements like that, its not difficult, google is your friend, and it will prevent you from embarrassing yourself further!

Artful_Badger

Benny Cake wrote: »

Get over yourself. You don't like the answer the poll is giving you, simple as that. The hunting fraternity are every bit as entitled to express an opinion as you are....

Jesus christ read the thread, we've been though that. Its a dumb argument to avoid the fact the whole thing was skewed for a hunting agenda and has little or nothing to do with coursing, the actual topic of the thread and reason for the poll.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're just incapable of admitting the facts of what happened or if you actually think this "data" is worth something. The poll may as well have been in the hunting forum devoid entirely of an opposing view.

Its not relevant of anything other than hunters have an agenda. Nothing we didnt already know. But the thing you dont seem to realise is I ddint want any particular turn out here, you did. I couldnt have cared less if it was a vote against the ban. I'd have been surprised but thats about it. But we didnt get the opportunity to be surprised because the hunting forum took over and made the whole thing a hunting debate including the voting. The call in the hunting forum wasnt to rally for coursing, it was to rally for the wider hunting agenda. Thats why its pointless, not because it didnt turn out the way I wanted.

Our point is the poll was suspect from the start.

I still am very interested in the op's motivations.

steddyeddy

Cass wrote: »

That's right. You didn't want a fair poll just all anti field sports people voting.

Start another one, and see if it goes any better.


Not worth replying to. You are annoyed at the shooting mods so nothing i say will work. You just want to vent about your "conservation" idea being rebuffed.

Brilliant. No argument, so just call names. Go for gold.

It means you can’t reply to me. Annoyed at the shootingmods? Not at all I don’t work in Irish conservation I’m a biochemist. I wasjust seeking to start a thread seeking opinions from Irish hunters about conservationand hunting, having seen the difference in the Irish hunting groups and the Americanhunting groups. Sparks thought I was a member of peta or something and didn’t likethe idea of the thread. I wanted tostart a thread asking for opinions about conservation and I got my answer so I’mhappy.
Ps I notice you criticise Archer for having no argument yet cant give an argument in response to me.

Benny Cake

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Jesus christ read the thread, we've been though that. Its a dumb argument to avoid the fact the whole thing was skewed for a hunting agenda and has little or nothing to do with coursing, the actual topic of the thread and reason for the poll.

Cheers badge, I'm perfectly capable of reading the thread. Its just interesting to me that any time there is a poll suggesting people want hunting/coursing/fishing banned its deemed to be an indication of the will of the people. A poll suggesting the contrary is immediately poo-pooed, and deemed to be the result of fixing/rigging.

In any case badge, you don't appear best placed to judge of the merits of coursing as I doubt you've ever bothered to attend a meeting.

yubabill1

steddyeddy wrote: »

It means you can’t reply to me. Annoyed at the shootingmods? Not at all I don’t work in Irish conservation I’m a biochemist. I wasjust seeking to start a thread seeking opinions from Irish hunters about conservationand hunting, having seen the difference in the Irish hunting groups and the Americanhunting groups. Sparks thought I was a member of peta or something and didn’t likethe idea of the thread. I wanted tostart a thread asking for opinions about conservation and I got my answer so I’mhappy.
Ps I notice you criticise Archer for having no argument yet cant give an argument in response to me.

I'm a research chemist and I gave you a reasoned response yesterday, to which you didn't reply.

Artful_Badger

Cass wrote: »

Brilliant. No argument, so just call names. Go for gold.

I'll apologise for saying that, wasnt my intent to insult anyone just to highlight the manner in which you both have gone about trying to deflect the facts of what has been done to the poll and this thread.

Cass

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sparks thought I was a member of peta or something .......

Really. He said that? Well let me talk to him, and review the conversation to see where it was said you cannot post because you are a member of an animal rights group. I'll get back to you on that one.

............ and didn’t likethe idea of the thread.

Wait. This sounds a bit more familiar. I'll still check it out though.

I wanted tostart a thread asking for opinions about conservation and I got my answer so I’mhappy.

I'd argue that point. You've done nothing but complain about it, and only it, since posting here. Seem fairly unhappy to me.

............... yet cant give an argument in response to me

An argument to what? You asked for something, were told no, and that's it. You were given reasons for it. I see no need to argue about something that is done.

yubabill1 wrote:

I'm a research chemist and I gave you a reasoned response yesterday, to which you didn't reply.

Oh, seems i'm not the only one to not respond.