Hare Coursing

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce farmer coursing, would benefit the irish countryside no end that.

...because animal rights extremists, who number a few dozen at most, can do more for the Irish countryside than 270,000+ farmers?

I'm skeptical of this assertion.

Conmaicne Mara

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce farmer coursing, would benefit the irish countryside no end that.

Maybe we should introduce a policy where people who don't agree with farming don't get fed. I'd be all for that.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

...because animal rights extremists, who number a few dozen at most, can do more for the Irish countryside than 270,000+ farmers?

I'm skeptical of this assertion.

who mentioned ALF nutters? Very few things can do more to the countryside than 270000 famers. The oul countryside wopuld get along fine without them, seems as how we're fretting about the countryside now

OldNotWIse

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Maybe we should introduce a policy where people who don't agree with farming don't get fed. I'd be all for that.

We get fed from hare coursing?

Conmaicne Mara

OldNotWIse wrote: »

We get fed from hare coursing?

Try reading it slower this time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83497300&postcount=695

smash

wexfordman wrote: »

And what activities are you doing to maintain the hare population ?

Whats your interest in keeping them alive, and how are you doing so ?

Eh, I don't have an interest in keeping them alive so why would I participate in any activity to do so? I just think it's pretty sh!tty that some people want to keep them alive just so they can set dogs on them.

Sparks

But allowing the species to go extinct would be less repellent?

GoldCobra

Sparks wrote: »

But allowing the species to go extinct would be less repellent?

I didn't know it was on the endangered species list?

Also when a species does become endangered I didn't know coursing was the best way of saving it.

Sparks

GoldCobra wrote: »

I didn't know it was on the endangered species list?

Conservation status "poor" rather than "endangered".
But that's down from the "help, we're drowning in the hairy <blank> <bleep>s" status they had earlier, and downward trends aren't good when talking about a species' survival. Unless, you know, we want the species gone.

Also when a species does become endangered I didn't know coursing was the best way of saving it.

At that point, there wouldn't be enough hares to course.
Which would, technically, be one way to stop coursing... it's just not really an option I'd choose personally, but I like hares - maybe others would choose differently (who, I don't know, only Fr.Jack comes to mind for me and he was more anti-rabbit than anti-hare).

wexfordman

smash wrote: »

Eh, I don't have an interest in keeping them alive so why would I participate in any activity to do so? I just think it's pretty sh!tty that some people want to keep them alive just so they can set dogs on them.

I think its pretty sh!tty that you have no interest in keeping them alive!

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

I don't love how scientific peer-reviewed evidence is being discounted because of "gut feeling" as if 25 feet of intestine was a better way to make decisions than evidence.

Except the evidence you speak of isnt related specifically to coursing. Its related to the conservations efforts by the coursing community. And Paddy earlier showed that those same effort he makes on his farm which results in Hares not going extinct. You stated without Coursing Hares would go extinct, gut feeling is it not considering you admit without the extinction there is no way to actually prove it ?

The fact is that Hare populations can be conserved without the sport, and the fact that the community wouldnt give a shít without the sport goes to show their priorities in the matter. Hares are maintained to be used as in Coursing for the purposes of gambling a needles act regardless of how much care the community takes in making sure there are Hares around to exploit.

Artful_Badger

wexfordman wrote: »

I think its pretty sh!tty that you have no interest in keeping them alive!

I think its pretty shítty that people think keeping them alive justifies tormenting them.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

The fact is that Hare populations can be conserved without the sport

No, the fact is that the hare populations could be conserved without the sport, if we had the money and the manpower, neither of which is available.

Therefore, until you have some alternative mechanism which can work, banning coursing is unethical because it puts a species whose conservation status is already "poor" at further risk of extinction.

You may not like coursing; it may not be your cup of tea; but it's better for the hare species than what ICABS suggests.

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

No, the fact is that the hare populations could be conserved without the sport, if we had the money and the manpower, neither of which is available.

Therefore, until you have some alternative mechanism which can work, banning coursing is unethical because it puts a species whose conservation status is already "poor" at further risk of extinction.

You may not like coursing; it may not be your cup of tea; but it's better for the hare species than what ICABS suggests.

Allowing a species to go extinct isnt itself unethical. To drive them to extinction is. But so is keeping a species around to be used in this way.

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned. And as I said the fact coursing fans have no interest in the Hares conservation outside the sport shows that what they are doing isnt ethical as they are keeping Hares around for the sole purpose of tormenting them. Those Hares are not better off, they are taken from their environment in nets, locked in a box and then released to be chased by two predators for shíts and giggles. How is that ethical ??

If stil allowing them to be killed brought in more money and led to better conservation would you consider it more ethical ?

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned.

The last time I saw ethical reasoning that was that binary, was in a study that compared ethical thinking in humans before and after puberty using the traditional "is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" hypothetical; specifically, in the pre-puberty reasoning.

Is it too much to hope for that our society would have a view on ethics that took reality more into account?

Besides all of which, you've been arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare; what they do involves culling foxes, so you're arguing to preserve one species by culling another and seeing no ethical dilemma there.

Things like this are making it hard to find merit in your case, to be honest.

ScumLord

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Allowing a species to go extinct isnt itself unethical. To drive them to extinction is. But so is keeping a species around to be used in this way.

So unless the species is being conserved through ethical means then its unethical to conserve it as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see your logic at all.

And as I said the fact coursing fans have no interest in the Hares conservation outside the sport shows that what they are doing isnt ethical as they are keeping Hares around for the sole purpose of tormenting them.

Your using emotive language there. They don't want to torment the animal they want to see it doing what is was designed to do, evade predators. I'm sure the people involved in the sport try to learn about the animal and actually admire it's abilities. More often than not the Hare "wins" doesn't it?

wexfordman

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I think its pretty shítty that people think keeping them alive justifies tormenting them.

Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of an odd character who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing, so I pretty much assume you would think that sneezing in the wrong direction towards an animal would be sh!tty

Im pretty ammazed that your more than happy to see the extinction of species though!

smash

wexfordman wrote: »

Im pretty ammazed that your more than happy to see the extinction of species though!

Talk about a nonsense argument...

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

The last time I saw ethical reasoning that was that binary, was in a study that compared ethical thinking in humans before and after puberty using the traditional "is it right to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving family" hypothetical; specifically, in the pre-puberty reasoning.

Is it too much to hope for that our society would have a view on ethics that took reality more into account?

You mean a view on ethics that suits your agenda of taking pleasure in tormenting animals right ? Because you brought ethics into it but once its argued that having dogs chase Hares for the craic isnt ethical then there is something wrong with my view of ethics.

You've made it patently clear in this thread that logic and reason are outside your remit of defending hunting and anything associated with it along with your cohort from the hunting forum.

Besides all of which, you've been arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare; what they do involves culling foxes, so you're arguing to preserve one species by culling another and seeing no ethical dilemma there.

Have I ? Where did I say that ? I said the means of conserving Hares wasnt solely tied to coursing as you would have people believe. If you read above you'll see me state that "If a species cannot be conserved through ethical means then it is unethical to conserve it".

Things like this are making it hard to find merit in your case, to be honest.

Your own agenda is making it hard for you to see any merit in anything that doesnt suit it. Case and point in the paragraph above where you yet again misrepresent an argument to suit your needs which you have done time and time again in this thread.

ScumLord

wexfordman wrote: »

Yea, but going by your posts, your a bit of a crackpot who also wants to see an end to fishing and horse racing, so I pretty much assume you would think that sneezing in the wrong direction towards an animal would be sh!tty

I don't know that he really cares about the welfare of the animals, he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives. That's just madness.

smash

ScumLord wrote: »

he is promoting the extinction of a species so that one Hare won't have one bad day in their lives.

Sorry, but anti coursing does not equal pro extinction.

Artful_Badger

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see your logic at all.

I'll clarify it for you. You cant abuse an animal because your the reason its alive. If I bred a new species tomorrow to kick around my garden it wouldnt be ethical to keep breeding it for that purpose because otherwise it would go extinct. Its pretty simple logic in fairness.

Your using emotive language there. They don't want to torment the animal they want to see it doing what is was designed to do, evade predators. I'm sure the people involved in the sport try to learn about the animal and actually admire it's abilities. More often than not the Hare "wins" doesn't it?

And thats not tormenting it ? The Hare is good at evading predators, lets set dogs on it and see how good it is ? This make more sense to you than not wanting animals to be kept around to be exploited ?

Madam

For some odd reason I can't get my head around grown men(and its almost always men)enjoying the fact that an animal is run into the ground with nowhere to run and no escape as the field is barricaded so they can't go anywhere - where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

Artful_Badger

smash wrote: »

Sorry, but anti coursing does not equal pro extinction.

Dont bother. I dont give a shít about the animals welfare either apparently. To these people I'm simply anti hunting agenda and nothing more.

Sparks

Artful_Badger wrote: »

You mean a view on ethics that suits your agenda of taking pleasure in tormenting animals right?

I don't take pleasure in tormenting animals, but you appear to take pleasure in accusing people of doing so.

You've made it patently clear in this thread that logic and reason are outside your remit of defending hunting and anything associated with it along with your cohort from the hunting forum.

....by citing scientific studies you mean?

Have I ? Where did I say that ?

Where you suggested that what the coursing club does could be done independently of the coursing club. As Paddy does. Which means feeding hares, having them treated by vets and culling the predators that would otherwise eat them. Which means shooting foxes.

OldNotWIse

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Try reading it slower this time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83497300&postcount=695

try reading the thread title??

yubabill1

Madam wrote: »

For some odd reason I can't get my head around grown men(and its almost always men)enjoying the fact that an animal is run into the ground with nowhere to run and no escape as the field is barricaded so they can't go anywhere - where's the fun in that?:rolleyes:

Now it's a man thing.
Well, at least it's a new angle, the others have been battering along in circles for days!
Thanks for the bit of relief, Madam.

Sparks

Madam wrote: »

nowhere to run and no escape

If the hare has nowhere to run and no escape, how do 95.9 to 99.04% of hares escape?

From Reid(2007):

Madam

Sparks wrote: »

If the hare has nowhere to run and no escape, how do 95.9 to 99.04% of hares escape?

From Reid(2007):

Depends on who's doing the stats;)

Artful_Badger

Sparks wrote: »

I don't take pleasure in tormenting animals, but you appear to take pleasure in accusing people of doing so.

Sorry, its hard to know if you enjoy coursing as well as use it to push your agenda or just using it to push your agenda. Fault is mine entirely. So you dont enjoy coursing then ? Having dogs chase a Hare to gamble on is just an ethical way to conserve the species ?

....by citing scientific studies you mean?

The few studies you cited doesnt validate the amount of agenda pushing nonsense you've spouted in this thread.

Where you suggested that what the coursing club does could be done independently of the coursing club. As Paddy does. Which means feeding hares, having them treated by vets and culling the predators that would otherwise eat them. Which means shooting foxes.

And ? What part of that is me

arguing that we should just have "people" do what the coursing clubs do to preserve the hare

???

More misrepresenting bullshíte. You made the point that Coursing itself conserves the Hares and it would otherwise go extinct. Which is nonsense. Where's your study on that ? You admitted yourself it couldnt be proven and Paddy showed it wasnt true.