Hare Coursing

Sparks

paddy the man wrote: »

Since the Quercus report is from 2010 it is impossible to know whether a decrease in population is due to Coursing being banned.

True; and you can't use the UK numbers either because no hare species there has any hunting season, and their system of agriculture has decimated hare populations (just look at the graphs of hare population over the period where modern monobloc agriculture took hold in the UK).

However, the studies in Ireland (eg Reid N., Magee C. and Montgomery W. I. 2010. Integrating field sports, hare
population management and conservation.) show that the density of hares in areas where coursing clubs operate is over ten times the density elsewhere (and in some areas, far, far more than ten times - some comparable ICC areas had nearly a hundred times the hare density than non-ICC areas). So either hares never migrate and hang round areas where they keep getting netted for coursing; or the species is thriving because of the conservation effects of coursing.

So if we ban coursing tomorrow, who's going to invest the time and money to maintain that positive effect on the species' numbers when the coursing clubs have to disband? There's no money in the public purse for it, and the NWPS don't have the manpower even if there was the money to pay them; and the animal rights extremists certainly have no interest in it either (nor the manpower to do anything about it either).

It would be bitter irony indeed if we listened to a bunch of extremists and banned coursing to save the hare, only to see it decline into extinction because we'd banned the one thing that was keeping it from being wiped out by the modern industrial food production industry.

Artful_Badger

Benny Cake wrote: »

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.

I'm not aware of any other polls being seen as such. I'm just discussing what I have seen here and its very clear that its more to do with a hunting agenda than coursing.

Best placed or not I have a right to an opinion. But its of no importance now anyway considering the original topic and reason for the poll is of so little relevance to the thread now.

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

But that's not how you phrased it, as we can all read above.
You said you wanted to start such a thread so that the problems with the extremists would go away. We knew that wouldn't work and would just cause more problems for the forum than it would solve.

Sparks thought I was a member of peta

No, I didn't - I just thought you were wrong because you hadn't seen the history of similar threads over the years on the forum (because why would you have?)

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

That wasn't how you represented the thread you wanted to start at all. If it was what you wanted to talk about, then there's been a major miscommunication because threads on conservation are and always have been welcome in Hunting.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not aware of any other polls being seen as such.

ICABS and other such groups never mention any other kind of poll, so it's something the hunting community has been hearing for years.
And those groups are very reticent (as in, they never ever answer) about details on how those polls were carried out, what methodology was used, even when the poll dates from or what question was asked.

wexfordman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not aware of any other polls being seen as such. I'm just discussing what I have seen here and its very clear that its more to do with a hunting agenda than coursing.

Well, if thats what you believe, then surely the results are significant. You cant say the results are meaningless because of the reasons people voted in one direction or another.

If the vote had goes towards yes, then what, should we discount it a number of people voting yes see it as a start to an overall ban on hunting, as part of an overal agenda on banning hunting ?


The question was simply, do you want coursining banned. The poll result says no, and there are a number of reasons for this. Some may say no, because the see no harm in it, some say no becasue the engage in it, others say no becasue the see it as thin edge of the wedge. Either way, the result is relevent, unless for some reason you intended to take a very simplistic view of a complex issue!

B

fourleafclover

paddy the man wrote: »

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?

1) I asked you to show me where the ICC accept Capture Myopathy and all you have produced is "I know several vets who work for the department". My ill informed friend believe it or not but so do I, what it has to do with capture myopathy though is beyond me? You brought another % into the equation also, you may care to read what you wrote again, you have just made a Pro coursing argument. Capture Myopathy has not been studied in relation to the Irish Hare, it is a phrase quite commonly used by anti organisations with very little research based fact to back it up.

2) Did I not say exactly that? Did you read where I also added that gestation is six weeks (gestation being the length of time from conception to birth). Therefore the coursing season is well over at this stage.

3) I can only presume I was correct on my assertions here or else you suffer from dyslexia.

4) Hare coursing waspermanently banned in 2010, however coursing was banned prior to this in the north, a little extra research on your part would afford you this knowledge.

You are both uninformed and are grasping at straws, thank you for lowering the standards of your comments to incorporate sarcasm (lowest form of wit). You lose the argument so you resort to that, quite pathetic in my opinion.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

ICABS and other such groups never mention any other kind of poll, so it's something the hunting community has been hearing for years.
And those groups are very reticent (as in, they never ever answer) about details on how those polls were carried out, what methodology was used, even when the poll dates from or what question was asked.

And if the same thing had been done to a poll here by a group like ICABS ? Get 50% input from the Joe Soaps which would be mixed opinion and then organise a good number of ICABS members to make sure the poll was gonna come out the way they wanted it ? I'd imagine you would discount that poll immediately and call the whole thing a farce as I have done here.

I dont have an agenda past my own personal opinion on this matter. I dont go to rallys or protests to interfere with other people who are not breaking the law. But I do consider what they do as unnecessary and cruel to the animals so I would vote to stop it given an opportunity which is what I took this poll to be.

Artful_Badger

wexfordman wrote: »

Well, if thats what you believe, then surely the results are significant. You cant say the results are meaningless because of the reasons people voted in one direction or another.

If the vote had goes towards yes, then what, should we discount it a number of people voting yes see it as a start to an overall ban on hunting, as part of an overal agenda on banning hunting ?


The question was simply, do you want coursining banned. The poll result says no, and there are a number of reasons for this. Some may say no, because the see no harm in it, some say no becasue the engage in it, others say no becasue the see it as thin edge of the wedge. Either way, the result is relevent, unless for some reason you intended to take a very simplistic view of a complex issue!

B

I cant stop people voting, I cant discount their votes. Its their business why they vote a particular way. But if I see clearly that there is an organised effort to push one outcome over the other because of a wider agenda then I know the poll isnt going to be representative of peoples views.

This wasnt a "Rally your troops and lets see who wins" type of vote. This was only ever gonna turn out one way considering only one side was mobilised to push an agenda.

The point at which it gets confusing is when people try to ignore that and turn it into a censorship issue when you point out the fact that poll has been rendered pointless.

fourleafclover

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And if the same thing had been done to a poll here by a group like ICABS ? Get 50% input from the Joe Soaps which would be mixed opinion and then organise a good number of ICABS members to make sure the poll was gonna come out the way they wanted it ? I'd imagine you would discount that poll immediately and call the whole thing a farce as I have done here.

I dont have an agenda past my own personal opinion on this matter. I dont go to rallys or protests to interfere with other people who are not breaking the law. But I do consider what they do as unnecessary and cruel to the animals so I would vote to stop it given an opportunity which is what I took this poll to be.

Apparently JohnFitzgerald a prominent anti coursing campaigner was tweeting looking for people to vote yes to a ban on coursing on this poll, BOOM, there goes your argument.

wexfordman

fourleafclover wrote: »

Apparently JohnFitzgerald a prominent anti coursing campaigner was tweeting looking for people to vote yes to a ban on coursing on this poll, BOOM, there goes your argument.

:eek

Artful_Badger

fourleafclover wrote: »

Apparently JohnFitzgerald a prominent anti coursing campaigner was tweeting looking for people to vote yes to a ban on coursing on this poll, BOOM, there goes your argument.

Apparently a guy with 200 followers on twitter tweeted about it ? So you dont know if he did or not but are confident that this neuters my argument that a thread in the hunting forum with 1,400 views calling for people to back a no vote to support a wider hunting agenda skewed the poll ?

fourleafclover

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Apparently a guy with 200 followers on twitter tweeted about it ? So you dont know if he did or not but are confident that this neuters my argument that a thread in the hunting forum with 1,400 views calling for people to back a no vote to support a wider hunting agenda skewed the poll ?

Ok, so you follow him, that explains a lot.

wexfordman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Apparently a guy with 200 followers on twitter tweeted about it ? So you dont know if he did or not but are confident that this neuters my argument that a thread in the hunting forum with 1,400 views calling for people to back a no vote to support a wider hunting agenda skewed the poll ?

Ahh come on badger,dont be daft!! 1400 views, Ive prob viewed this thread myself about 20 times or more!! Your really grasping at straws now!!

Artful_Badger

fourleafclover wrote: »

Ok, so you follow him, that explains a lot.

I dont follow him.

Artful_Badger

wexfordman wrote: »

Ahh come on badger,dont be daft!! 1400 views, Ive prob viewed this thread myself about 20 times or more!! Your really grasping at straws now!!

How is that grasping at straws, the view number is a good indication as to how popular a thread is. That thread has more posts in it than any other thread on the first page of the forum. And it has 1,400 views since 2.30 yesterday. Another thread with a similar amount of views and posts has been up a week. I think its safe to say it wasnt ignored.

Play To Kill

Artful_Badger wrote: »

How is that grasping at straws, the view number is a good indication as to how popular a thread is. That thread has more posts in it than any other thread on the first page of the forum. And it has 1,400 views since 2.30 yesterday. I think its safe to say it wasnt ignored.

I'm sure the thread was visited by many who were curious about it's contents after reading this thread, I know thats why I looked at it anyway.

Artful_Badger

Play To Kill wrote: »

I'm sure the thread was visited by many who were curious about it's contents after reading this thread, I know thats why I looked at it anyway.

I doubt that many people would have read enough of this thread to be sent looking for the one over there. Handful that were active on this thread perhaps.

Regardless it was a very active thread. Its the biggest in terms of posts, pages and views on the first page of the forum over there. And it only went up at 2.30 yesterday.

Grizzly 45

archer22 wrote: »

"all of a sudden" nothing all of a sudden bud..look at my user name ARCHER one who shoots Bows.22 guess what 22 as in the calibre .22,now do you get it..and as for your telling ICAB I am a gun owner,no prob..once again you are making up lies as there is nothing on that site that says gun owners not welcome

First off I'm not your" Bud" .Dont be so common to refer to me as such thank you!
And mine is Grizzly 45.Do you immediately ASSume I'm a Grizzly bear????
"Archer" means nothing to me and anyone else.You can call yourself ungunga bungunga on the'Net it is a meaningless handle..
Bows and .22 are two different things here and don't even think you could lecture to me about anything shooting related as I've proably forgotton more than you and your type will ever know..
I wont teell ICABS you are a gun owner,you can do that as I said in my previous posts,but seeing that basic comprehension is a bit difficult or you, you have had FOUR posts from the then Public Relations Official [thats PRO] John Tierney pushing for gun bans in Ireland.WHEN he wrote two of those he was the PRO of ICABS!! That is no lie,but then again everything is a lie if you dont want to accept a certain facet..You can ignore it like any 8 year old would by blocking their ears and yelling loudly Lalalalala! and hope the unpleasent ness will go away,or you could actually go challange yourself and your belifs and research this and discover if it is factual or not???

Funny you never stated at the start of the thread you were a gun owner which I seriously doubt BTW.As anyone sane would have said off first they were one but didnt agree with coursing,and not come up with it half way thru the debate.

yubabill1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I doubt that many people would have read enough of this thread to be sent looking for the one over there. Handful that were active on this thread perhaps.

Regardless it was a very active thread. Its the biggest in terms of posts, pages and views on the first page of the forum over there. And it only went up at 2.30 yesterday.

Just on a point of balance and nothing personal;

The coursing poll has had 9700 views and 450 or so votes.

The hunting post has had 1400 views.

Just shows the number of views doesn't tell a lot wrt whether the poll is skewed or not.

Samuel Johnson "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics"

steddyeddy

yubabill1 wrote: »

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

That wasnt a response to you.

Grizzly 45

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Top of the food chain humans with high powered rifles and/or packs of dogs shoots at an animal from hundreds of feet away and/or watches it being torn to shreds by a pack of dogs and they like to think of themselves as 'hunters'.

Well we could also use crossbows or bows and arrows to hunt but then top of the food chain sanctimonious holier than thous start bawling on how "Crewell that is to the poor innocent little animal" as well..Ergo anything to do with "hunting" is anethema to certain groups of humanity.:rolleyes:

archer22

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

First off I'm not your" Bud" .Dont be so common to refer to me as such thank you!
And mine is Grizzly 45.Do you immediately ASSume I'm a Grizzly bear????
"Archer" means nothing to me and anyone else.You can call yourself ungunga bungunga on the'Net it is a meaningless handle..
Bows and .22 are two different things here and don't even think you could lecture to me about anything shooting related as I've proably forgotton more than you and your type will ever know..
I wont teell ICABS you are a gun owner,you can do that as I said in my previous posts,but seeing that basic comprehension is a bit difficult or you, you have had FOUR posts from the then Public Relations Official [thats PRO] John Tierney pushing for gun bans in Ireland.WHEN he wrote two of those he was the PRO of ICABS!! That is no lie,but then again everything is a lie if you dont want to accept a certain facet..You can ignore it like any 8 year old would by blocking their ears and yelling loudly Lalalalala! and hope the unpleasent ness will go away,or you could actually go challange yourself and your belifs and research this and discover if it is factual or not???

Funny you never stated at the start of the thread you were a gun owner which I seriously doubt BTW.As anyone sane would have said off first they were one but didnt agree with coursing,and not come up with it half way thru the debate.

Look you know FCUK all about me so dont go all Bogger and pretend you do..it just makes you look Stupid..and I dont give a flying fcuk how much you know or have forgotten about Bows and Guns..I am not going to get into a ridiculous game of who has the biggest mickey with you.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Please stop with the flaming, this includes saying things like, anyone who follows x sport is a moron etc. It is more of a reflection on you then who you are saying it about.

Lets clear up another thing, It's a public vote anyone with a boards account is free to vote. If it was a vote on mustard, I would have no objection to the mustard forum getting regulars in so they could have there voice heard. I do however think it would be bad taste for any forum to be ridiculed in a thread where a link to that forum exists.

I for one have found this thread to be interesting. Thing are not always black and white and sometimes it is a good thing to listen, actually listen, to other peoples views and opinions no matter how different they are to your own.

Respect each other, listen to each others opinions even if you completely disagree with it. What's the worst that could happen.

Micky Dolenz

archer22 wrote: »

Look you know FCUK all about me so dont go all Bogger and pretend you do..it just makes you look Stupid..and I dont give a flying fcuk how much you know or have forgotten about Bows and Guns..I am not going to get into a ridiculous game of who has the biggest mickey with you.

Mod
Please don't post on this thread any more.

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

But that's not how you phrased it, as we can all read above.
You said you wanted to start such a thread so that the problems with the extremists would go away. We knew that wouldn't work and would just cause more problems for the forum than it would solve.

I said this and you thought I was anti hunting or seeking to start a thread on whether hunting was wrong.

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.
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).
__________________

No, I didn't - I just thought you were wrong because you hadn't seen the
history of similar threads over the years on the forum (because why would you
have?)

I was asking the difference between the Irish and american attitudes to hunting which are evident. Not whether hunting is bad or not

That wasn't how you represented the thread you wanted to start at all.
If it was what you wanted to talk about, then there's been a major
miscommunication because threads on conservation are and always have been
welcome in Hunting

I wanted to start a thread on hunting in ireland and Its relationship with conservation bodies. I think that there is a difference in co-operation between groups here and groups in america.

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wanted to start a thread on hunting in ireland and Its relationship with conservation bodies. I think that there is a difference in co-operation between groups here and groups in america.

Okay, I think we misread each other's PMs in that case. I'd have no problems with a thread on that topic in Hunting.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Artful_Badger;83461508]And if the same thing had been done to a poll here by a group like ICABS ? Get 50% input from the Joe Soaps which would be mixed opinion and then organise a good number of ICABS members to make sure the poll was gonna come out the way they wanted it ? I'd imagine you would discount that poll immediately and call the whole thing a farce as I have done here.

Actually,the only offical poll that ICABS ever conducted here was somtime in the 1970s or early 80s. Of which 70 % of Irish people were in favour of a coursing ban! We cant find out who did this survey for them or where or by what methodology.. however we in the pro fieldsports accept it as a factual poll done by whatever means back then.We dont go around throwing our teddies out of our prams complaining it was rigged or whatever ...
Just saying it is somwhat dated by now and almost like some crowd saying people in Ireland still want Magdalene Laundries because a poll in 1900 said they did.

I dont have an agenda past my own personal opinion on this matter. I dont go to rallys or protests to interfere with other people who are not breaking the law.

Glad to hear.:) However ,can you say that for all the others?? Its called negative collective grouping..Happens to us gun owners alot,when somone lets their dog off the leash and shoots a group of people,We are all potential timebombs waiting to kill a schoolyard of kids. Ergo,you will find yourself in the group collective of the nutjobs doing your talking for you.:(

But I do consider what they do as unnecessary and cruel to the animals so I would vote to stop it given an opportunity which is what I took this poll to be

.

Do you belive in democracy???As the whole ideas of votes and majority rule is the whole process.Democracy doesnt consist of asking just one group to cast their votes,or allowing them the privilige of voting,then you have an Oligarchy or Tyranny.
Go ahead lobby your TDs and Govt to change the law and ban coursing.If you and the others can get a mandate to do so and legislation passed to such it is a democratic mandate.However,you will have to ask ALL the people of Ireland on this not a select group of antis or eliteists.

steddyeddy

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, I think we misread each other's PMs in that case. I'd have no problems with a thread on that topic in Hunting.

Thanks and no hard feelings but I have no energy left tonight. I'm working the late shift every night and haven't got the mental energy at the moment.

Micky Dolenz

Mod

I've deleted you post Grizzly 45. The poster can not respond and you are clearly just looking for a rise. I.E flaming/trolling.

There will be no more warnings for anyone.

Artful_Badger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Actually,the only offical poll that ICABS ever conducted here was somtime in the 1970s or early 80s. Of which 70 % of Irish people were in favour of a coursing ban! We cant find out who did this survey for them or where or by what methodology.. however we in the pro fieldsports accept it as a factual poll done by whatever means back then.We dont go around throwing our teddies out of our prams complaining it was rigged or whatever ...
Just saying it is somwhat dated by now and almost like some crowd saying people in Ireland still want Magdalene Laundries because a poll in 1900 said they did.

Thats your lookout if you want to accept the results of polls done by nobody knows 40/50 years ago put out by a group you all clearly despise, it has no bearing on how I will view the results of polls that I know were skewed. And its not throwing your teddies out of the pram to not take something which clearly has no credibility as credible.

Glad to hear.:) However ,can you say that for all the others?? Its called negative collective grouping..Happens to us gun owners alot,when somone lets their dog off the leash and shoots a group of people,We are all potential timebombs waiting to kill a schoolyard of kids. Ergo,you will find yourself in the group collective of the nutjobs doing your talking for you.:(

I dont follow. I have my own option and no agenda in terms of the outcome of public polls. I dont see all gun owners as timebombs, I just disagree with the things they do. Sure sometimes that will be boiled down to "Stop killing things and take up bowling as a hobby" but that doesnt mean I think they are despicable human beings. Now its slightly different for bloodsports, and I know they have changed over time but I still see them as sport and pleasure out of the needless distress to an animal. I'd have less time for people who enjoyed such.

Do you belive in democracy???As the whole ideas of votes and majority rule is the whole process.Democracy doesnt consist of asking just one group to cast their votes,or allowing them the privilige of voting,then you have an Oligarchy or Tyranny.
Go ahead lobby your TDs and Govt to change the law and ban coursing.If you and the others can get a mandate to do so and legislation passed to such it is a democratic mandate.However,you will have to ask ALL the people of Ireland on this not a select group of antis or eliteists.

That isnt and never was the point I was making. I have no issue with people having their say and lobbying for a change they want. My issue is with people voting for something because of another agenda, I know thats inherent in everything but when its only one side rallying because it was never an actual issue to be contended just an attempt to gauge general AH opinion then the result as far as I seen it is more akin to sabotage to hide the general opinion rather than simply having your say.

Particularly as it was mentioned in the hunting forum thread about the type of people in AH and how the poll would go considering most peoples views on such things. They set out to upset that based on their pro hunting agenda to stick it to the townies for not seeing things their way rather than because they were pro coursing as far as I can make out.