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?"

Witcher

The latest from the thread;

archer22 wrote: »

I would say the poll might as well be knocked off as its obviously being deliberately manipulated.Or else the People of Ireland have gone mad pro coursing in the last few hours :rolleyes:

:pac:

dodderangler

We all know that majority of people voting against it Havint a clue on how coursing works and assume the hare gets caught everytime and torn to shreds which is rare to happen
How bout coursing with golden eagles and we put corks on the talons so the hare doesn't get killed

Cass

dodderangler wrote: »

We all know that majority of people voting against it Havint a clue on how coursing works ..............

Voting for it? Those voting against it (no) say it should NOT be banned.

Grizzly 45

Cocolola wrote: »

I g



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?

A bit of an apple and orange comparision there??Have you had a same sex experiance???If not then surely you must be homphobic and biased against gay folk would be along the same thought process.

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?

Pretty simple really...Evidence..If some people botherd to research the people that the causes they espouse.They would find some rather nasty and loonier specimens of our society..Near enough all the prominent antis here have had a brush multiple times with the law,and one or two even have "form" for bomb making.
As for your example of the religion of Islam,indeed there are moderates,pacifists and outright nutters there too.However if the core tenents of your religion is waging "Jihad" against the Kafirs and infidels,[who BTW should not be the" people of the book" IE Jews,Christians or fellow Muslims.] And you want to enforce Sharia law on any place you eeside or have control over,you would have to question whether all followers arent extremistes or total dupes.

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 its not...Its an established strategy of the domino theory and divide and conquer. Isolate,marginilse,legislate out of existance,move onto the next one.
We saw it all to well with the Ward Union stag hunt here.A minority of "West Brits" and "wanna be Toffs" as described by the antis,cut them off from pouplar support and when legislated against off onto Ban foxhunting...
While maybe not all fieldsports or animal issues are everyone's cup of tae.
I'm not a fan of alot of modern farming methods like battery farming or pig production,or vivisection,but I understand you have to do certain things if people want cheap pork chops or KFC in their shops and chippers.

Its better to fight a battle in somone elses backyard than in your own living room.

Cocolola

Cass wrote: »

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.

Ok ya I see what you mean, that's fair enough. Apologies to dodder.

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.

My comparison was meant more as an example of disagreeing with something even if you haven't done it, rather than suggesting that hunting was as bad as murdering or torturing. Bad analogy I'll give you that! Maybe if I'd said I've never tried heroin but I still think it's wrong. Some people have never been to a coursing meet but also, still think it's wrong. I think that's fair enough.

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.

Slavery used to be a tradition, selling your daughter used to be a tradition. Civilisations change, usually for the best. Again at the risk of this comparrisson coming across wrong, I don't mean that hunting is a bad as slavery or such. Just that some not so nice (in my opinion) traditions die out and we're no worse for it.

Also to clarify, I have no issues with shooting or fishing. In fact, I find it preferable that a deer be shot quick, none the wiser and blissfully unaware than a couple hundred cattle being rounded up, transported and slaughtered en masse.

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)?

Again, ignore the extremists (as you would in any situation). They're few in number and really, us normal "antis" hate them too. And as for that mink thing, absolute morons. Did more harm to the local wildlife than a years worth of hunting combined. Nobody in their right mind supports that sort of carry on.

What would you class as sport, and not necessity?

Personally, anything outside the domain of shooting for food or culling reasons, and fishing.

foxinsox

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.

Oh..

That's a bit low, I know I am not any of those things and I am a very rational person. No need to tar all of AH with the one (rather descriptive) brush.

Cocolola

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

No its not...Its an established strategy of the domino theory and divide and conquer. Isolate,marginilse,legislate out of existance,move onto the next one.

Again not meaning to sound like a smart arse, but ICABS, for example, well the clue is in the name. Of course they're not going to stop protesting until all the bloodsports have been banned.

Sparks

Cocolola wrote: »

Civilisations change, usually for the best

Usually; not always (there are many examples of changes we find less appealing after all).

But more to the point; we live today under the laws as written today. And those laws say animal cruelty is illegal and should be reported to the Gardai, and that accusations of illegal activity made publicly without proof against named people or companies is defamation.

I don't think it's too much to ask for both sides to obey the law, since it's not actually seen as optional in our society...

Sparks

Cocolola wrote: »

Again not meaning to sound like a smart arse, but ICABS, for example, well the clue is in the name. Of course they're not going to stop protesting until all the bloodsports have been banned.

Without defaming anyone, ICABS are a bad example to use for anything that wishes to claim morality is on its side.

Cass

Cocolola wrote: »

My comparison was meant more as an example of disagreeing with something even if you haven't done it, rather than suggesting that hunting was as bad as murdering or torturing. Bad analogy I'll give you that! Maybe if I'd said I've never tried heroin but I still think it's wrong. Some people have never been to a coursing meet but also, still think it's wrong. I think that's fair enough.

You can disagree with it, and i respect your right to do so.

However you cannot compare anything human to anything animal related. They simply do not add up. So my point is whether you use drugs, murder, etc, etc it is not comparable to hunting animals. If animals are so much like people to the extent they should be treated as such, we would have no more farming, livestock, meat products. We would also be out of a recession as they could vote, pay taxes, work, etc. (obviously i gest) You get the idea though. They are not human.

Do they deserve to be treated well, absolutely. The law even says so. However, and i have to be careful here as discussion of the morality of hunting is prohibited on this forum, as soon as animals begin to walk, talk, and do everything a human can do they will still be animals.

Slavery used to be a tradition, selling your daughter used to be a tradition. Civilisations change, usually for the best. Again at the risk of this comparrisson coming across wrong, I don't mean that hunting is a bad as slavery or such. Just that some not so nice (in my opinion) traditions die out and we're no worse for it.

I get the point you are trying to make, but again it's not comparable. Slavery involved humans, not animals. Regardless of the topic you are trying to compare a human problem/event/situation with one faced by animals when it's simply not the case.

Also to clarify, I have no issues with shooting or fishing. In fact, I find it preferable that a deer be shot quick, none the wiser and blissfully unaware than a couple hundred cattle being rounded up, transported and slaughtered en masse.

Again that is your right. I personally do not find a problem with animals that were bred for a purpose fulfilling that purpose.

Again, ignore the extremists (as you would in any situation). They're few in number and really, us normal "antis" hate them too. And as for that mink thing, absolute morons. Did more harm to the local wildlife than a years worth of hunting combined. Nobody in their right mind supports that sort of carry on.

I understand that and appreciate the sentiment. However at times we (hunters) find it hard to "trust" anyone of an anti hunting nature as we have been stung or mis=quoted or had our comments bastardised to suit their purposes. We understand that there are people that genuinely do not like to see animals used in any way, and they are entitled to their opinions. It's when opinions turn to actions, and actions lead to violence, slander, hatred, etc that the problems arise.

We had for a long time here on the shooting forum some good debates on hunting shooting. However like all other media, it was corrupted, and abused by the extremists. Not that they disagreed with us, but we were insulted, and abused with names like "future baby killers", "mentally disturbed", etc, etc. So we approach al debate/conversation with a nervous distrust from experience, and not necessarily a refusal to listen.

Personally, anything outside the domain of shooting for food or culling reasons, and fishing.

That is your prerogative.

As for ICABS. I would agree with Sparks. A poor example to use. Check them out for yourself.

Cocolola

Sparks wrote: »

Without defaming anyone, ICABS are a bad example to use for anything that wishes to claim morality is on its side.

Oh I'm aware of that. It was just that poster said that it's the intentions of them (who I took to mean anti organisations such as ICABS) to one by one, have all bloodsports banned and I just though it was kinda obvious, given their name, that that's their plan and not some hidden motive.

Cocolola

Cass wrote: »

However you cannot compare anything human to anything animal related.

That's just it though, I can, it's my choice to assign whatever level of importance I wish to animals and to base my opinions accordingly. Just as you can. Neither of us is wrong really.

They simply do not add up. So my point is whether you use drugs, murder, etc, etc it is not comparable to hunting animals. If animals are so much like people to the extent they should be treated as such, we would have no more farming, livestock, meat products. We would also be out of a recession as they could vote, pay taxes, work, etc. (obviously i gest) You get the idea though. They are not human.

Ya I get what you're saying. In my ideal world, there'd be no such thing as livestock etc. but there's no point in me blathering on about that as I'd only be a dirty big meat-eating hypocrite

I understand that and appreciate the sentiment. However at times we (hunters) find it hard to "trust" anyone of an anti hunting nature as we have been stung or mis=quoted or had our comments bastardised to suit their purposes. We understand that there are people that genuinely do not like to see animals used in any way, and they are entitled to their opinions. It's when opinions turn to actions, and actions lead to violence, slander, hatred, etc that the problems arise.

We had for a long time here on the shooting forum some good debates on hunting shooting. However like all other media, it was corrupted, and abused by the extremists. Not that they disagreed with us, but we were insulted, and abused with names like "future baby killers", "mentally disturbed", etc, etc. So we approach al debate/conversation with a nervous distrust from experience, and not necessarily a refusal to listen.

Not much to add really, I agree with you here. It's a pity the extremists (from both sides) make it near impossible to debate this properly.

As for ICABS. I would agree with Sparks. A poor example to use. Check them out for yourself.

I posted my reply after yours, see above. I wasn't mentioning them for morality purposes, just to point out to someone that it's ICABS's advertised plan to ban all bloodsports.

Grizzly 45

Cocolola wrote: »

Again not meaning to sound like a smart arse, but ICABS, for example, well the clue is in the name. Of course they're not going to stop protesting until all the bloodsports have been banned.

Indeed and they define and have quite an intresting "range" as to what "bloodsports" are.
Didnt realise that cattle exports was a "blood sport".Or that intimidating ligit busisness with bad PR was one either.
Also they gave a prize example of you claiming that its "not their agenda to ban certain sports". ICABS claimed numerous times on TV and radio shows that they were never intrested in banning shooting.Yet there are numerous articles in their Animal Watch news paper that would contradict that entireily. Mostly when John Tierney was PRO of ICABS before he was kicked out for getting into trouble with the law. Simple fact is anyone who interfers with my way of life is interfering with my choices of how I live and therefore a enemy of mine.I dont go round advocating that people should hunt or eat meat.Why should somone have the "right" to force their belifs on me or a group of like minded??


g

ain, ignore the extremists (as you would in any situation). They're few in number and really, us normal "antis" hate them too. And as for that mink thing, absolute morons. Did more harm to the local wildlife than a years worth of hunting combined. Nobody in their right mind supports that sort of carry on.

Yes,that has worked really well in human history hasnt it???Ignoring extremists :rolleyes:

So if you normal antis hate these yahoos and oiks so much..Why do we not see many letters and online debates telling people like Yates and Wright to quit trying to bring the campaign up to a direct action level.
IOW you seem very reluctant to tell this bunch to put a cork in it and pipe down as they are doing more harm than good??

Sparks

Cocolola wrote: »

I just though it was kinda obvious, given their name, that that's their plan and not some hidden motive.

Perhaps just as obvious as we thought it was that groups like ALF, ICABS, CACS and others should not be listened to by policymakers because those groups have proven track records of ignoring the law those policymakers establish (ALF's bombing campaign, the criminal records and arrest records of those in other groups, all come to mind).

It seems obvious to many of us that listening to people who'll post an incendiary bomb to someone's family if they disagree with them is not what TDs should be doing....


(And that's not to say that legislation should never be changed or that lobbying for that change is immoral; but lobbying and bombing just aren't even in the same ballpark).

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Perhaps just as obvious as we thought it was that groups like ALF, ICABS, CACS and others should not be listened to by policymakers because those groups have proven track records of ignoring the law those policymakers establish (ALF's bombing campaign, the criminal records and arrest records of those in other groups, all come to mind).

It seems obvious to many of us that listening to people who'll post an incendiary bomb to someone's family if they disagree with them is not what TDs should be doing....


(And that's not to say that legislation should never be changed or that lobbying for that change is immoral; but lobbying and bombing just aren't even in the same ballpark).

What you really have is a political death-struggle for a few scraps of votes by Labour, hoping to curry favour from the urban voters deserting them for the delicious anti-fieldsports SF agenda.

Cass

Cocolola wrote: »

That's just it though, I can, it's my choice to assign whatever level of importance I wish to animals and to base my opinions accordingly. Just as you can. Neither of us is wrong really.

Apologies. Did no mean to imply you had no right to, just it's not going to hold water. IMO.

Ya I get what you're saying. In my ideal world, there'd be no such thing as livestock etc. but there's no point in me blathering on about that as I'd only be a dirty big meat-eating hypocrite

You wouldn't be on your own, about the tasty, tasty murder part that is. (too much?)

Not much to add really, I agree with you here. It's a pity the extremists (from both sides) make it near impossible to debate this properly.

Hence the prohibition of discussion on morality. Always a train wreck.

I posted my reply after yours, see above. I wasn't mentioning them for morality purposes, just to point out to someone that it's ICABS's advertised plan to ban all bloodsports.

As Sparks highlighted, some groups should be well vetted before you agree/back them.

Cocolola

Cass wrote: »

Apologies. Did no mean to imply you had no right to, just it's not going to hold water. IMO.

Oh no you didn't don't worry, and that's fair enough.

You wouldn't be on your own, about the tasty, tasty murder part that is. (too much?)

Well I support PETA...... People for Eating Tasty Animals

As Sparks highlighted, some groups should be well vetted before you agree/back them.

I wish I was more eloquent, I can't make my point well enough I wasn't agreeing with or backing ICABS. Grizzly said

Its an established strategy of the domino theory and divide and conquer. Isolate,marginilse,legislate out of existance,move onto the next one.

and I was just making a little joke that ICABS has the words Against Blood Sports as their name and that it's not some secret or anything. That's all. Not aligning myself with them or anything

meoklmrk91

I have to say I think it's a pity to see hunters putting people down like this, people who work in animal welfare, people who aren't from the country, people who have never hunted. Because they apparently don't understand, they are naive and they are humanising animals.

Woukd ye not try and see it from the other sides point of view instead of dismissing th as vegans and fluffy little animal lovers? I can see yers. Coursing is a tradition in this country, it's a day put, often a family day out. People put a lot of work into it and their dogs.

This isn't a personal attack on hunters, it's basically just saying adapt or die, I don't see why any animal should have to suffer for a humans entertainment, that's just my personal belief, that's why I don't agree with coursing, bull baiting, dog fighting etc.

Maybe if the people involved were willing to work with those on the other side then some issues could be resolved and meets wouldn't be protested and coursing wouldn't end up being banned. Which it will be if things are going the way they are. Everyone is digging in their heels and its doing no one any good.

Cass

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I have to say I think it's a pity to see hunters putting people down like this..........

Have you bothered to read the previous ten posts or so? Very polite, and reasoned debate between myself, and a non hunting person. However it's nothing to the names hunters have been labeled with by extremists. So don't try and apportion the blame on us. We are once again forced to defend ourselves.

, people who work in animal welfare

ISPCA is an animal welfare group. A good one. They look after, and treat the problem. Others are not so good and actively campaig yet never getting physically involved in the day to day workings. Or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

, people who aren't from the country, people who have never hunted. Because they apparently don't understand, they are naive and they are humanising animals

Mostly, yes, yes, and yes.

Woukd ye not try and see it from the other sides point of view instead of dismissing th as vegans and fluffy little animal lovers? I can see yers. Coursing is a tradition in this country, it's a day put, often a family day out. People put a lot of work into it and their dogs

Why?

I hunt, but i don't spend the rest of the day/week sending out tweets, e-mails, letters, FB , etc asking those that don't hunt to pick up arms, and lay seige to the animal kingdom. :rolleyes:

IOW i don't try and push my views on those that do not want it. I also do not make slanderous accusations against non hunters, insult them, use made up polls/data to try and prove my point. I leave people to their own opinions/decisions. Why can hunters not expect the same?

This isn't a personal attack on hunters, it's basically just saying adapt or die

Well feck me. If that i not a declaration of intent i don't know what is. "We mean you no harm, surrender or die" !!!!!!! Seriously.

, I don't see why any animal should have to suffer for a humans entertainment, that's just my personal belief, that's why I don't agree with coursing, bull baiting, dog fighting etc.

Necessity. Not entertainment. Culling numbers for the benefit of the herd, livestock protection, and most recently due to the actions of some animal rights extremists that released thousands of mink into the country. By the way it's the government paying hunters to clean up that "victory" with your tax Euros.

Maybe if the people involved were willing to work with those on the other side then some issues could be resolved and meets wouldn't be protested and coursing wouldn't end up being banned.

They are not interested in anything except the attitude you displayed above. Surrender or die. So how can you discuss something when the other party refuse to listen.

Which it will be if things are going the way they are.

And you know this how?

Everyone is digging in their heels and its doing no one any good.

Wrong. Hunters are fighting back against this one sided crap. However with over 300,000 people directly involved, and a further 120,000 people associated (along with family, and friends that could easily double) and guess who has the bigger voting power?

yubabill1

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I have to say I think it's a pity to see hunters putting people down like this, people who work in animal welfare, people who aren't from the country, people who have never hunted.

Woukd ye not try and see it from the other sides point of view instead of dismissing th as vegans and fluffy little animal lovers? I can see yers.

Maybe if the people involved were willing to work with those on the other side then some issues could be resolved and meets wouldn't be protested and coursing wouldn't end up being banned. Which it will be if things are going the way they are. Everyone is digging in their heels and its doing no one any good.

Well, Meoklmrk91, wrt working with the other side, the coursers many years ago put muzzles on their dogs and where did that get them?

Adapt or die? They are not valid options.