Hare Coursing

wexfordman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

ahahahahahaha as distinct from the "real warriors" chasin' down them damned hares and keeping the rest of the country safe.

Your username is not lost on you!

Artful_Badger

yubabill1 wrote: »

Well, for the record, everything sparks said has made sense to me, which is considerably more than can be said for the emotive and illogical stuff coming from you over the past several days.

Well for the record you agreeing with sparks was never really not an option was it ?

Sparks

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Thanks.
Also from the same source:

Video records, therefore, underestimate overall hare
mortality by excluding deaths that occur in captivity before
or after the filmed event. Other causes of mortality apart
from the actual course that may account for discrepancies
between the number of hares released and those caught may
include natural causes and injury, stress or disease resulting

from capture or confinement.

Yes; which is why the studies cited above list 4.1% mortality as the mortality calculated by counting the number of hares captured and the number of hares released; the video count numbers are what place the mortality figures at 1.9% and 0.96%. This isn't a discrepency that's gone unnoticed even in this thread.

smash

wexfordman wrote: »

ye had better either accept the genuine positive impact that hunting and coursing has on these species, or stfu!

Here, why don't you get aggressive there... it's guaranteed to make people agree with you :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse

yubabill1 wrote: »

Don't follow your thinking. Hope it's a bit of fun, though, because the rest is getting bogged-down.

Well good, that shows you're not inside my head. Always a good sign that.

my point was, what the heck was that post about???

Free TV license - that'll cut down on the number of nippers

yubabill1

You know, in all seriousness (and I have been mischevious today) but I'm starting to worry that this is getting unhealthy.

Not for me btw but I feel that some posters are going to get really distressed.

Madam

Sparks wrote: »

So why have a problem when an animal does it in a way that makes it far more likely that both the individual hare and the species survive?

I can't equate the two if I'm being honest. Perhaps cos it's more 'natural' in my mind?

OldNotWIse

wexfordman wrote: »

Your username is not lost on you!

That ol' chestnut lol

I picked an "easy picking" name intentionally - helps me separate out the ones who have strength in their own convictions...and the ones who resort to name calling to substantiate themselves. I tend to avoid such offenders as they usually have very little to bring to the table. It's a good litmus test really :P

OldNotWIse

yubabill1 wrote: »

You know, in all seriousness (and I have been mischevious today) but I'm starting to worry that this is getting unhealthy.

Not for me btw but I feel that some posters are going to get really distressed.

I worry about the ones who dont have a break in their posting between Friday evening and Monday morning... thats a bit scary

Conmaicne Mara

OldNotWIse wrote: »

try reading the thread title??

Really, best you could do?

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

smash

After just seeing the opinions and comments in the thread in the hunting forum that directed you lot here, I'm going to step out. Some of you need help!

Sparks

Madam wrote: »

I can't equate the two if I'm being honest. Perhaps cos it's more 'natural' in my mind?

The thing about "natural", is that it's a word that's been hijacked. We think "natural" as being a positive thing, as having no unpleasant or harmful aspects. But smallpox was perfectly natural. So's being eaten alive by a bear. So's arsenic. So were the sixteen nuclear reactors in Oklo. So are extinction level events that kill off 96% of life in the sea and 70% of life on land.

There are a lot of "natural" things that are not particularly nice or pleasant or positive for either an individual or its species.

It's a lot easier to evaluate the comparison if you don't consider which is more "natural", but just look at which gives the better survival chance to the individual or the species.

wexfordman

OldNotWIse wrote: »

That ol' chestnut lol

I picked an "easy picking" name intentionally - helps me separate out the ones who have strength in their own convictions...and the ones who resort to name calling to substantiate themselves. I tend to avoid such offenders as they usually have very little to bring to the table. It's a good litmus test really :P

Seriously dude!! You might wanna revist the thread to which I replied to and reword the one above.

What exactly did your initial post bring to the table, specificly in response to my post I mean ?

fathersymes

smash wrote: »

After just seeing the opinions and comments in the thread in the hunting forum that directed you lot here, I'm going to step out. Some of you need help!

Close the door quietly now.

ejmaztec

yubabill1 wrote: »

Hey, guys- here's one for you to ponder

I've seen foxes bringing live rabbits for their teenage young to chase, torment and kill several times over the years.

Where do you stand on that?

Just curious.

You should have rescued the poor fluffy bunnies instead of just standing there watching them get slaughtered, you heartless so and so.:(

wexfordman

smash wrote: »

Here, why don't you get aggressive there... it's guaranteed to make people agree with you :rolleyes:

In fairness, stfu is more like an irritated LOL:D
You woldnt like me when Im angry!

Micky Dolenz

Mod

Please don't flame or make silly digs. Report posts if you believe this to be happening.

Thanks.

wexfordman

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

Please don't flame or make silly digs. Report posts if you believe this to be happening.

Thanks.

I suppose I better man up and apologise to badger, I may have offended him in an earlier post, by calling him a crackpot, a mod was on to me.

So, I would officially like to apologise to badger for calling him a crackpot. I have ammended the offending post, you can see the ammended section in bold below.

Sorry badger,

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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

wexfordman wrote: »

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!

Micky Dolenz

wexfordman wrote: »

I suppose I better man up and apologise to badger, I may have offended him in an earlier post, by calling him a crackpot, a mod was on to me.

So, I would officially like to apologise to badger for calling him a crackpot. I have ammended the offending post, you can see the ammended section in bold below.

Sorry badger,

Banned


I gave you a yellow card to gently remind you on how to post. This followed a mod warning earlier on the thread of which you were aware.

Swapping one dig for another doesn't fly here.

laoch na mona

I don't see what is wrong with hare coursing the hare gets away and is never used twice

Dyr

Zombienosh wrote: »

People are getting caught up in details here, it boils down to some people find a hare being chased, abused and often killed entertaining. Some people do not.
We can spout all about hare numbers, muzzles and details to try and justify this, but at the end of the day you enjoy watching cruel treatment of animals for entertainment.

Its a common enough justification, Its hard to argue the main point that an activity like coursing isn't backward and perverse so you try to justify it on the basis of some beneficial side effects. You would have had the same argument about tearing badgers up with dogs back in the 70s no doubt.

Rosahane

It would be interesting to see the post count and date of joining Boards of the voters ��

fourleafclover

Rosahane wrote: »

It would be interesting to see the post count and date of joining Boards of the voters ��

Definately, one recent member joined boards and started posting immediately after a tweet was put out looking for votes on the poll by an anti coursing activist.

Zombienosh

Well if we take the reaction of pro hunters/pro coursers on this, The fact that they reacted to sharply and defended so strongly shows that they too believe the general public wouldn't be in favor of hare coursing so they felt the need to really dig the heels in.

Sparks

Zombienosh wrote: »

Well if we take the reaction of pro hunters/pro coursers on this, The fact that they reacted to sharply and defended so strongly shows that they too believe the general public wouldn't be in favor of hare coursing so they felt the need to really dig the heels in.

No, it shows that they're ticked off from years of putting up with all manner of defamation from the animal rights extremists and they're finally starting to put the foot down and demand that they get the same basic civility every other citizen can demand. And I can not only understand that, I share it because everyone in Ireland with a firearms licence regardless of the reason for having it gets exactly the same treatment at all levels from TDs to Gardai to eejits like the animal rights extremists.

So when a thread starts up based off of an animal rights campaign by one of those extremist groups, and most of the first pages are insults of the kind that break basic boards.ie rules and the AH charter, is it any wonder that people take offence?

Play To Kill

Zombienosh wrote: »

Well if we take the reaction of pro hunters/pro coursers on this, The fact that they reacted to sharply and defended so strongly shows that they too believe the general public wouldn't be in favor of hare coursing so they felt the need to really dig the heels in.

The poll has been up 5 days, if the majority of people were against coursing then surely the poll figures would reflect this by now even if the members of the hunting forum reacted sharply.

homerhop

Play To Kill wrote: »

The poll has been up 5 days, if the majority of people were against coursing then surely the poll figures would reflect this by now even if the members of the hunting forum reacted sharply.

It’s the usual spiel out of them, if it goes there way it’s a triumphant victory over the savage heartless hunters, but if it goes against them like some of the recent coverage on TV they are up in arms and all you have to do is look at some of the comments left on the face book pages of those in the public eye to the degree of malice and hatred these people have for anyone against their views.
They are claiming this vote has been rigged yet icabs and co have been calling for support on when there is comments on line in response to newspaper articles.
Ah has hundreds of viewers in a day and yet the poll has only as of now 546 votes in total. That speaks volumes to the level of support that those against any form of hunting/coursing/fishing has and the level of public interest that is out there atm about these issues.

Conmaicne Mara

Zombienosh wrote: »

Well if we take the reaction of pro hunters/pro coursers on this, The fact that they reacted to sharply and defended so strongly shows that they too believe the general public wouldn't be in favor of hare coursing so they felt the need to really dig the heels in.

Stop the presses, fields sports enthusiasts defend field sports. Does Sir Anthony O'Reilly know your talents are going to waste here?

Pumpkinseeds

There is a warning in the OP's first post that the thread is graphic. Many of us have seen graphic images over the years and I suspect that the majority of AHers wouldn't want to see graphic images of animal cruelty. Which I think is why many of the usual Ahers haven't contributed to the thread.You can argue that hare coursing isn't animal cruelty, however outside of this thread many people would disagree with you.

This thread has disintegrated into a paranoid assumption of a perceived attack on shooting/hunting. I don't think it was ever intended to be such. I'm not nor have I ever been a member of or involved with any extremist animal group. I would never condone attacks on people or the release of minks etc into the countryside.

This thread has basically become a farce at this point with anyone opposed to coursing being labeled as extremists or speciest or any number of ludicrous labels people can conjure up. As I said earlier I'm opposed to animals being used in bloodsports for human entertainment. That doesn't make me anti rural life. It seems to have become a grudge match, led largely by a mod from the hunting/shooting forum.

Conmaicne Mara

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

This thread has disintegrated into a paranoid assumption of a perceived attack on shooting/hunting.

Not at all. Firstly there is no paranoia. The squeaky wheels looking to ban this, that'n't'other will, as they do, move on to their next victim once they get their pursuit of choice banned.

What you are seeing here in this thread, I sincerely hope, is the start of all people who enjoy fields ports, defending each others activities, and not just their own.

I don't course, I've never been coursing, but I will throw in my tuppence worth to support them that do because for all I know, it'll be the things I enjoy doing that'll be next on the hit list.

That them on the other side have their nose seriously out of joint because of this, is just icing on the cake.