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

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.

Grizzly 45

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. 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.

People have tried and have got nowhere...Ever hear of the third way group in the UK??It was set up by a former anti,that realised the anti groups were going too extremist and turning people away even on the pro side who would talk and negoiate.His former anti colleuges thrashed him and still do to this very day.Obviously the pro side wasnt going to speak to him either as he claimed to be able to bring the antis with him to the table.
So simply put it has been tried,and the end result is you cant reason,deal or negoiate with extremists,especially those who have criminals and terrorists in their ranks.

Sparks

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

people who work in animal welfare

I think what you'll find if you read on is that people who work in animal welfare actually get a lot of respect because what they do and what hunters do and what farmers do are just all sides of the same coin.

It's people who protest (and vandalise and bomb and defame and so forth) for animal rights who get the derision, and honestly, I think rightly so.

When you say "the other side", you're not asking people here to sit down with the ISPCA; you're asking them to sit down with people with criminal records. I'd have to say no thanks to such an offer myself.

meoklmrk91

Cass wrote: »

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.

Yes I did but there are far more than the last 10 posts in this thread.

ISPCA is an animal welfare group. They look after, and treat the problem instead of actively campaigning yet never getting physically involved in the day to day workings. Or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

ISPCA is but one animal welfare group there are plenty more.

Mostly, yes, yes, and yes.

Why? Why dismiss people, why not try and educate them?

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?

Simply put as someone who has done a fair bit of work in animal welfare, I have come across more than a few irresponsible hunters who's mess animal welfare organisations end up cleaning up. Don't get me wrong I fully and completely support responsible hunting, it's the lifeblood of the country side and our wild life would differ without it. It's irresponsible hunters that are giving hunters a bad name, not animal welfare organisations. Few bad eggs in every basket.

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.

But is it not the truth, England banned Fox Hunting, bullfighting was banned in Catalonia, it's a sign of the times, not a threat.

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.

Extremists is a good word, I don't and will never support that kind of behaviour. It does nothing but harm to the cause, the countryside etc. utter stupidity IMHO. But as I pointed out above are always a few bad eggs.

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.

That is not an attitude, simply what I believe to be true. I am more than willing to discuss anything no matter how much I disagree with someone.

And you know this how?

If coursing in its present form is not banned in the next 10 years I would be very surprised. There is a private members bill being put forward in that by Clare Daly and Maureen O Sullivan, whether or not it will pass is another thing.

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?

What one sided crap?

Cass

And this is why allowing such talk is pointless. You cannot argue your point so you revert to the same name calling, insults, and accusations that others from the AH thread did.

Pity, but not unexpected.

meoklmrk91

yubabill1 wrote: »

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.

Hares are still being mauled and killed at meets, simply not good enough. It got them many more years of coursing and the hares weren't being ripped to shreds anymore. Honestly can't understand why anyone would want anything to do with the sport of they weren't muzzled tbh.

Oh forgot to say lads I am in no way asking anyone to sit down with extremists, it would just a be a waste of time and do no one any good. But sometimes it seems like hunting, coursing etc are very closed off, people are often very defensive, desmissive and unwilling to have a conversation. For instance there was some TV show that tried to get in to film coursing and they werent allowed in, instead the cameras were outside with the protestors. Only one side of the story was told that day and it made it look like the coursers had something horrible to hide. They did however show the cameras where the hares were kept, they had some really fantastic facilities in fairness. This is an emotive topic, one side believe that this is a non issue and they should be left alone to get on and the other believes that this should be banned, no questions. Who's right? I don't think it is as simple as that.

meoklmrk91

Cass wrote: »

And this is why allowing such talk is pointless. You cannot argue your point so you revert to the same name calling, insults, and accusations that others from the AH thread did.

Pity, but not unexpected.

Can you point out where i name called, insulted and accused?

yubabill1

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

What one sided crap?

We might be coming across a little aggressive, but these animal extremists have been rankling us for some time and it seems to have come to a head.


The extremists have been orchestrating twitter and facebook campaigns with the same old suspects......they target influencers and purport to represent public opinion.


Look, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the guff you are being fed about sustainability and such is rubbish.

Sustainability, when you think about it, is another way to stuff more human beings on the planet. And that's not good IMHO.

meoklmrk91

yubabill1 wrote: »

We might be coming across a little aggressive, but these animal extremists have been rankling us for some time and it seems to have come to a head.


The extremists have been orchestrating twitter and facebook campaigns with the same old suspects......they target influencers and purport to represent public opinion.


Look, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the guff you are being fed about sustainability and such is rubbish.

Sustainability, when you think about it, is another way to stuff more human beings on the planet. And that's not good IMHO.

I haven't been fed any guff, I don't listen to what extremists have to say because I believe they are doing more harm than good. I am a massive supporter of responsible hunting, I know plenty of lads that go out with their dogs, who are adored and often get better dinners than myself and enjoy their day and they are doing nothing but good. I've also known fellas who act like scobes, treat their dogs like dirt, treat land with no respect and leave other people to clean up their messes after them.

It's the very same in animal welfare, a few bad a eggs and a lot of good.

yubabill1

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I haven't been fed any guff, I don't listen to what extremists have to say because I believe they are doing more harm than good. I am a massive supporter of responsible hunting, I know plenty of lads that go out with their dogs, who are adored and often get better dinners than myself and enjoy their day and they are doing nothing but good. I've also known fellas who act like scobes, treat their dogs like dirt, treat land with no respect and leave other people to clean up their messes after them.

It's the very same in animal welfare, a few bad a eggs and a lot of good.

You sound like a reasonable person and I'm sure you are too clever to listen to extremists, but unfortunately, this guff (sustainability) is coming from mainstream sources.

You, me and Dupree know the planet cannot sustain the population growth it is experiencing and I, personally don't want to squeeze a little tighter....

Cass

I'll start with this post;

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Can you point out where i name called, insulted and accused?

My apologies. You quoted my entire post instead of multi-quoting, and i read your response outside of that quote which said "what load of one sided crap". I thought it was referring to my post. i did not see your responses in my post until you edited them to highlight them. So apologies.

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Yes I did but there are far more than the last 10 posts in this thread.

I was referring to the polite conversation between myself, and Cocolola. Might be a few more than 10 or even a few less, but i was referring to what kind of conversation/debate is needed. It's a rarity to ba able to discuss it without name calling.

ISPCA is but one animal welfare group there are plenty more.

No doubt, and they are to be commended for their hard work.

However i am referring to groups that claim to be all for the welfare of animals, then act improperly and cause problems. Such as the breaking into the mink farm, and release of thousands of mink into the countryside. They saw this as a victory, Now hunters are being employed, and asked to actively hunt these mink as they are devastating our natural fauna. Action without though of consequence.

Why? Why dismiss people, why not try and educate them?

I would love to be able to get my points across, and listen to rebuttals or "their side". If only they were as reasoned as the few (yourself included) that have posted here tonight. However years of previous dealings with them have shown this not to be the case or possible.

Simply put as someone who has done a fair bit of work in animal welfare, I have come across more than a few irresponsible hunters who's mess animal welfare organisations end up cleaning up. Don't get me wrong I fully and completely support responsible hunting, it's the lifeblood of the country side and our wild life would differ without it. It's irresponsible hunters that are giving hunters a bad name, not animal welfare organisations. Few bad eggs in every basket.

I in no way defend or would try to defend the actions of any hunter that acts irresponsibly or without thought for their actions. Yes, they also give us a black eye with their actions. However they are not seeking to destroy our way of life. Plus the law will deal with the hunters. As firearms owners the Gardaí know everything, and i mean everything about us. These extremists are anonymous posters, bar a few public figures, that slander us with outrageous names, and accusations.

But is it not the truth, England banned Fox Hunting, bullfighting was banned in Catalonia, it's a sign of the times, not a threat.

I don't know. There is more than hunters involved in fox hunting. We provide a service for land owners, farmers, and the Government in the form of population control, and livestock protection. It is afforded no protection other than basic animal rights in relation to humane dispatch, etc.

Extremists is a good word, I don't and will never support that kind of behaviour. It does nothing but harm to the cause, the countryside etc. utter stupidity IMHO. But as I pointed out above are always a few bad eggs.

Agreed. See above.

That is not an attitude, simply what I believe to be true. I am more than willing to discuss anything no matter how much I disagree with someone.

As were we. We would welcome the resumption of reasoned, and level headed debate, but thus far have gotten nothing.

If coursing in its present form is not banned in the next 10 years I would be very surprised. There is a private members bill being put forward in that by Clare Daly and Maureen O Sullivan, whether or not it will pass is another thing.

Not to dismiss it, but we will not know until it's passed. I doubt it myself, but thought the same about Stag Hunt.

What one sided crap?

For years hunters, and field sports people kept their heads down, did not engage in any sort of rebuttal of accusations, and definitely not on any sort of meaningful or sustained level. All the while letters, e-mails, Tweets, messages on Facebook were being sent out saying how hunters were involved in the most horrible of offences. When we looked into it they were "normal" events or situations blown completely out of proportion to invoke sympathy for their cause.

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Hares are still being mauled and killed at meets, simply not good enough.

Then at these meets why does someone not reprot it to the Gardaí. If they are breaking the law then the Gardaí will deal with it.

It got them many more years of coursing and the hares weren't being ripped to shreds anymore. Honestly can't understand why anyone would want anything to do with the sport of they weren't muzzled tbh.

Their choice. I don't get Cycling, Cricket, Horse racing, Greyhound racing. Yet i don't call for a ban. I leave the people to their sport.

Oh forgot to say lads I am in no way asking anyone to sit down with extremists, it would just a be a waste of time and do no one any good. But sometimes it seems like hunting, coursing etc are very closed off, people are often very defensive, desmissive and unwilling to have a conversation. For instance there was some TV show that tried to get in to film coursing and they werent allowed in, instead the cameras were outside with the protestors. Only one side of the story was told that day and it made it look like the coursers had something horrible to hide. They did however show the cameras where the hares were kept, they had some really fantastic facilities in fairness. This is an emotive topic, one side believe that this is a non issue and they should be left alone to get on and the other believes that this should be banned, no questions. Who's right? I don't think it is as simple as that.

I know the program, and watched it myself. However i have to repeat my previous comments about being stung before, and being overly cautious. When you get the same treatment for so long it's hard to break a trend. Same with the poll on AH. Previously such polls would swing in favour of the "anti" view. However when any hunter voted we were accused of orchestrating some sort of mass voting. Not the case.

Not being smart, but we simply outnumber most groups if not all of them. So when we take the time to actually "put pen to paper" (which we do not always do) we can show what we think, and unlike others that would vote and stay sitting in their chair in their front room, we vote because it effects us directly. I mean if hare coursing or fox hunting was banned would it have any direct effect on your life (other than your feelings towards it). For most of us it would mean thousands of Euro in "wasted" firearms, lost birds from breeding programs, lost money from membership to clubs, and through insurance, etc.