Poll in After Hours by Anti's on Hare Coursing.

Invincible

There's a poll going on in After Hours set up by Anti's, on whether Hare Coursing should be banned or not, currently it's 57% in favour of a ban, 42% against.
As a Hunting group, we want to get behind this and vote against a ban.
Let's turn this poll around!

Link below:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056890887

Witcher

The poll means nothing, AH polls aren't going to change anything. A swing like that is to be expected if you ask a fieldsports question on a forum where the majority have never even seen fieldsports nevermind been involved with them.

Hunter21

Pack of uneducated individuals on that thread that think the countryside is all about prancing around in fields full of daisies :rolleyes:

Sparks

Suppose it was just a matter of time before ICABS&Co realised they couldn't post here, would be banned from the animal welfare forums and headed for anywhere else they could get into.

garv123

ahh no better place to put it than afterhours the dublin forum where people consider anyone outside Dublin culchie people living in the stone age and how they live in the only city in Ireland and are better than everyone else...

Sparks

That's not really after hours' fault to be fair - it's just the demographic they have to deal with.

dodderangler

Hunter21 wrote: »

Pack of uneducated individuals on that thread that think the countryside is all about prancing around in fields full of daisies :rolleyes:

You mean it's not? :rolleyes:

Sure there's thread on animals and pet issues on the cullin of deer in phoenix and how it's terrible and wrong

Sparks

dodderangler wrote: »

Sure there's thread on animals and pet issues on the cullin of deer in phoenix and how it's terrible and wrong

Just before anyone gets any ideas on that one, remember our charter:

Posting in Hunting to troll users in Animal Welfare or Animal&Pet Issues is not acceptable; nor are regular posters from Hunting who troll in those forums.
In both cases, infractions and/or bans may be given by mods in both forums even if the user only posted in one forum.

Leave the animal welfare forum alone, they're not exactly on the best pals list with ICABS and the others anyway and that's how it should be.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Just before anyone gets any ideas on that one, remember our charter:


Leave the animal welfare forum alone, they're not exactly on the best pals list with ICABS and the others anyway and that's how it should be.

There are some pretty hateful comments in that thread, against us.

The antis are also saying things like "I think other forms of hunting are OK, but I can't support coursing, it's cruel"......Divide and Conquer.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

There are some pretty hateful comments in that thread, against us.

Yup. Hateful comments fired back won't fix that and will just polarise things though.

Explaining the thinking involved is about as good as we can do - it might at least reach those who don't know anything about it yet.

The antis are also saying things like "I think other forms of hunting are OK, but I can't support coursing, it's cruel"......Divide and Conquer.

Yup, always.
But I don't worry so much about extremists doing that kind of thing; anyone who'll send an incendiary device to people in the post like the ALF do, doesn't have the right to comment on whether or not something is cruel.

yubabill1

Yup. Hateful comments fired back won't fix that and will just polarise things though.

Explaining the thinking involved is about as good as we can do - it might at least reach those who don't know anything about it yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hurt by this, but it would be good if the guys got behind the poll.

Invincible

yubabill1 wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by yubabill1
There are some pretty hateful comments in that thread, against us.
Yup. Hateful comments fired back won't fix that and will just polarise things though.

Explaining the thinking involved is about as good as we can do - it might at least reach those who don't know anything about it yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hurt by this, but it would be good if the guys got behind the poll.

Agreed, it's very simple to vote in the poll, besides having it so one sided, instead of complaining about it!

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not hurt by this, but it would be good if the guys got behind the poll.

It would be nice to see a poll that actually had a high turnout rate from both sides and which gave better data than the usual polls which have a high selection bias, where the only people who vote are ICABS supporters already.

I mean, a poll like that is like polling in Italy to ask if pasta is good.

fathersymes

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. Hateful comments fired back won't fix that and will just polarise things though.

Explaining the thinking involved is about as good as we can do - it might at least reach those who don't know anything about it yet.

Indeed, it seems for example that Speciesism(akin to Sexism or Racism towards animals) as preached by Roger Yates is a fundamental belief of many vegans and by default animal rights groups(I'll leave extremists out here, as I'm sure not all vegans sympathise with the ALF), these people refer to you or I eating 'someone' for dinner tonight if we eat an animal.

Now I'm confident the vast majority of the population would agree that this notion is loony, nuts and extremist.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

It would be nice to see a poll that actually had a high turnout rate from both sides and which gave better data than the usual polls which have a high selection bias, where the only people who vote are ICABS supporters already.

I mean, a poll like that is like polling in Italy to ask if pasta is good.

Unfortunately, that is the problem with all polls. In elections, it's down to timing of release, because you can select the result you want by asking the right question and by selecting a "representative" sample.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Unfortunately, that is the problem with all polls. In elections, it's down to timing of release, because you can select the result you want by asking the right question and by selecting a "representative" sample.

It's unlikely we'd ever get a perfect dataset, but at least we could try...

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

It's unlikely we'd ever get a perfect dataset, but at least we could try...

OK, that would be good for you and I, but someone would commission a "poll" with new information.

Any poll can be rubbished, however, if you have the publicity to get your message out.

Cocolola

Hunter21 wrote: »

Pack of uneducated individuals on that thread that think the countryside is all about prancing around in fields full of daisies :rolleyes:

garv123 wrote: »

ahh no better place to put it than afterhours the dublin forum where people consider anyone outside Dublin culchie people living in the stone age and how they live in the only city in Ireland and are better than everyone else...

Ok seriously, these ridiculous statements need to stop being bandied around. Plenty of people who oppose bloodsports are from the country, myself included. I don't see how the geographical location of people somehow renders their opinion invalid

dodderangler wrote: »

You mean it's not? :rolleyes:

Sure there's thread on animals and pet issues on the cullin of deer in phoenix and how it's terrible and wrong

I read it, there were 40 replies to that thread and only ONE poster said they thought it was cruel. Everyone else pointed out it was necessary and better than an overcrowded population of half starved deer and more people asked could they get their hands on the meat for their dogs or whatever. So less of the exaggeration to suit your own agenda would be nice.

Cass

Cocolola wrote: »

Ok seriously, these ridiculous statements need to stop being bandied around.

As opposed to the courteous and civil attitude on the Thread in question?

Plenty of people who oppose bloodsports are from the country, myself included. I don't see how the geographical location of people somehow renders their opinion invalid

Simple. You have a majority of people that never hunt, know nothing about country sports/field sports or rural life, attack a group of people that are pursuing a 100% legal activity with slanderous statements, accusations, and all of it unsupported by any data/official polls, etc. simply because of how they feel about the "cuddly/Fluffy" animals. This majority would be from cities, and large towns.

The use of the term Bloodsport in itself shows a level of ignorance. Because animals are killed it's a bloodsport. No attention is paid to why they are culled or the need for it. When level/logical debate is welcomed we get abuse, and slandered.

I read it, there were 40 replies to that thread and only ONE poster said they thought it was cruel. Everyone else pointed out it was necessary and better than an overcrowded population of half starved deer and more people asked could they get their hands on the meat for their dogs or whatever.

The extremists would have all forms of hunting abolished. However much of a necessary role it plays. The fact that some say they don't mind a certain type is a deception. They merely seek to divide the different groups, and attack them on a smaller one to one scale. Then move onto the next.

So less of the exaggeration to suit your own agenda would be nice.

And less accusations, and more civility from yourself or anyone taking part in this forum.

Cavan duck buster

We are 49% in the lead, keep the votes up lads.

fathersymes

Cass wrote: »

The extremists would have all forms of hunting abolished. However much of a necessary role it plays. The fact that some say they don't mind a certain type is a deception. They merely seek to divide the different groups, and attack them on a smaller one to one scale. Then move onto the next.

The Extremists also want to ban angling, some dont approve of having dogs or cats as pets. These extremists also tend to be vegans.

Cocolola

I genuinely didn't mean to sound uncivil, unfortunately you know how text can come across sometimes, so apologies for that.

Cass wrote: »

As opposed to the courteous and civil attitude on the Thread in question?

I can't speak for anyone who posted in a less than pleasant manner but I just wanted to point out that it comes from both sides, and the country/city thing really bugs me personally.

Simple. You have a majority of people that never hunt, know nothing about country sports/field sports or rural life, attack a group of people that are pursuing a 100% legal activity with slanderous statements, accusations, and all of it unsupported by any data/official polls, etc. simply because of how they feel about the "cuddly/Fluffy" animals. This majority would be from cities, and large towns.

I have actually been on hunts myself before to see both sides of it but for those that haven't and who still oppose hunting/coursing, I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss their opinions just because they've never partaken in it themselves. I made the point on the other thread that I've never murdered or tortured anyone but I still believe it's wrong. Surely I shouldn't need to have done wither to be allowed to think like this?

Also, it's patronising to assume people don't support hunting because of the "ickle furry animals". I don't find lobsters, for example, to be particularly appealing but I don't believe they should be cooked alive. Pigs aren't the cutest of creatures yet I don't eat pork unless I've bought it from a local farm where I've seen their quality of life etc.

The use of the term Bloodsport in itself shows a level of ignorance. Because animals are killed it's a bloodsport. No attention is paid to why they are culled or the need for it. When level/logical debate is welcomed we get abuse, and slandered.

Killing for sport and not necessity? It's bloodsport. Hare coursing has nothing to do with culling and I was referring to fox/stag hunting, foxing etc when I used the term. Not to culling or shooting for food.

The extremists would have all forms of hunting abolished. However much of a necessary role it plays. The fact that some say they don't mind a certain type is a deception. They merely seek to divide the different groups, and attack them on a smaller one to one scale. Then move onto the next.

I don't factor in the views or actions of extremists when I consider something. I don't assume all Muslims are women-hating terrorists just because a few have done some terrible things. I'm not sure why you are basing you opinion of all those who are opposed to coursing, for example, on the actions of extremists?

And seriously? Someone says they don't support coursing but have no issue with shooting deer and you think they're only being deceptive and are only biding their time before they suddenly go "Ah ha! Fooled you!"? That's just madness.

And less accusations, and more civility from yourself or anyone taking part in this forum.

Not being smart at all, but apart from saying dodderangler was exaggerating, what accusations did I make?

Invincible

Cavan duck buster wrote: »

We are 49% in the lead, keep the votes up lads.

50% now, 136/135, 1 vote in favour of no ban.

Invincible

fathersymes wrote: »

The Extremists also want to ban angling, some dont approve of having dogs or cats as pets. These extremists also tend to be vegans.

Alot seem to forget that their agenda was to ban stag hunting and we all know what happened to the Ward union hunt, hare coursing is just their next step to canvass for a ban in their blinkered view of fieldsport pursuits.

pugw

Fair play for spotting the poll invincible! God they are deluded, do they not have anything better to be doing in all fairness? I was at said event in limerick, I didnt see one hare get mauled thanks to good long slips by the slipper. If people could see the advantage the hare has on the dogs in his ability to turn, jink and jump away from them, great sport . . . long may it continue.

mathepac

Invincible wrote: »

... As a Hunting group, we want to get behind this and vote against a ban. Let's turn this poll around! ...

I've seen some loony posts on boards.ie, this one takes the gold medal. Michael D. isn't waiting in the Aras to sign the poll into law, just in case you're confused. Apart from which the collection of Justin Bieber fan-boys, stoners, night-owls and the bewildered that inhabits AH is representative of nothing or no-one rational IMHO.

Chillax dude, this is the interweb, not real life. As obscene as others might find the sight and sound of two dogs tearing a live hare apart for the amusement of "sporting men", AH won't change it, sadly.

Witcher

That thread makes me want to cry:pac:

Cass

Cocolola wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone who posted in a less than pleasant manner but I just wanted to point out that it comes from both sides, and the country/city thing really bugs me personally.

Bugs me too, and i don't believe one insult cancels out another, however before asking one side to be civil or cut it out, it would be prudent to ask the opposing side to do the same.

I have actually been on hunts myself before to see both sides of it but for those that haven't and who still oppose hunting/coursing, I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss their opinions just because they've never partaken in it themselves.

I do not dismiss anyone's opinion because they have not done it. I do however dismiss the opinions of poeple with no idea, comprehension or understanding of a way of life other than what they have gleamed from other people or reading a book.

I made the point on the other thread that I've never murdered or tortured anyone but I still believe it's wrong. Surely I shouldn't need to have done wither to be allowed to think like this?

There is no comparison between the two. You are attributing animals with the same level of sentience as a person. There are laws to protect humans from a vast array of harm, etc. There are also laws protecting animals, but not to the same extent as humans because they are not human. People attach the feelings, and emotions that we feel to animals to "humanise" them when this simply is not the case.

So without going too far off topic, we have hunted, bred, and used animals in such a fashion for thousands of years. We are accused of being barbaric, murderers, etc. or living in the past. We see it as a continuation of a lifestyle, and tradition. So because one group does not partake in it they believe it should not be allowed.

Also, it's patronising to assume people don't support hunting because of the "ickle furry animals". I don't find lobsters, for example, to be particularly appealing but I don't believe they should be cooked alive. Pigs aren't the cutest of creatures yet I don't eat pork unless I've bought it from a local farm where I've seen their quality of life etc.

Not everyone has that luxury. What of those extremists that believe we should not farm pigs, or cows, sheep, pheasants, etc, etc. because it's wrong. Should i become a vegetarian or Vegan to please them despite my own beliefs? What of those that release 5,000 Mink into the countryside and claim it as a "victory" for animal rights that hunters now have to be employed to trap, and kill as they are wiping out our natural fauna to the point of extinction (at least on these shores)? What about the seasonal culling of deer that were it not done (as you said yourself) we would be left with thousands of sickly, and starving animals. Foxes - if not culled would breed to excessive levels and begin to spread more and more into cities, and towns affecting domestic animals, people's lives, lead to disease, starvation, and suffering on the foxes behalf.

My point with all this is there is more to it than right or wrong. One side or the other. I do not care if someone agrees with hunting or not, and while i would enjoy a debate on the matter i would not presume to convince them my opinions are better than their's, but would expect the same from them. We do not receive it.

Killing for sport and not necessity? It's bloodsport. Hare coursing has nothing to do with culling and I was referring to fox/stag hunting, foxing etc when I used the term. Not to culling or shooting for food.

What would you class as sport, and not necessity?

As for Hare coursing, again it's a tradition that if anything has become more "modernised" with new laws, and regulations governing the sport.

I don't factor in the views or actions of extremists when I consider something. I don't assume all Muslims are women-hating terrorists just because a few have done some terrible things. I'm not sure why you are basing you opinion of all those who are opposed to coursing, for example, on the actions of extremists?

I don't, and if it came across as such then i apologise. I would no sooner tar all people with the same brush as i dislike such treatment of myself and hunters. However too many times i have seen people talking on Boards, FaceBook, and other such sites agreeing with the popular sentiment rather than making an informed opinion based on their own experiences. Experiences by the way, not hear say, or hat they heard from another.

And seriously? Someone says they don't support coursing but have no issue with shooting deer and you think they're only being deceptive and are only biding their time before they suddenly go "Ah ha! Fooled you!"? That's just madness.

No that's fore thought based on previous dealings/interaction with these people. When the stag hunt was banned they turned to foxing. If that were banned do you think they would sit back, have a cup of tea and say mission accomplished. Not on your life. Next would be deer hunting (with rifles), the fishing ( they think that's cruel too), then owning pets, then owning livestock that feeds us. There is no end for them. Only the next fight.

Not being smart at all, but apart from saying dodderangler was exaggerating, what accusations did I make?

You said he was biasing his opinion/post/argument to meet an/his agenda. That is an accusation. Please don't. By all mean attack the post, but not the poster.

Cass

mathepac wrote: »

I've seen some loony posts on boards.ie, this one takes the gold medal. Michael D. isn't waiting in the Aras to sign the poll into law, just in case you're confused. Apart from which the collection of Justin Bieber fan-boys, stoners, night-owls and the bewildered that inhabits AH is representative of nothing or no-one rational IMHO.

Chillax dude, this is the interweb, not real life. As obscene as others might find the sight and sound of two dogs tearing a live hare apart for the amusement of "sporting men", AH won't change it, sadly.

Unfortunately that attitude has gotten us exactly nowhere. For too long we have kept our opinions to ourselves or our heads down, and let the extremists say what they liked without fear of argument, opposition or rebuttal. No more. Why should we. We are pursuing a 100% legal activity, and have nothing to hide. Our way of life stretches back for hundreds of years, and i for one will be damned if i sit back any longer, and allow the unsupported ramblings of a small minority taint or ruin a way of life i have known, as have my Father/grandfather, etc. all my life.

Well the simple fact is we number in excess of 300,000 when all field sports people are counted. They number in the 15-20 mark. So no matter how "insignificant" the poll, site, thread, debate, etc. they will be met challenged at every turn.

Sparks

mathepac wrote: »

I've seen some loony posts on boards.ie, this one takes the gold medal. Michael D. isn't waiting in the Aras to sign the poll into law, just in case you're confused. Apart from which the collection of Justin Bieber fan-boys, stoners, night-owls and the bewildered that inhabits AH is representative of nothing or no-one rational IMHO.

Chillax dude, this is the interweb, not real life. As obscene as others might find the sight and sound of two dogs tearing a live hare apart for the amusement of "sporting men", AH won't change it, sadly.

"dude", please read the forum charter before posting...

yubabill1

What a coincidence, had been mulling over starting a counter-poll in AH forum

"Do you think they should legalise cannabis for medicinal use?"