5,000 attend pro-hunting rally

convert · 01-04-2010 3:56pm

PaulB91 wrote: »

I think we both know that neither of us will change each others minds but i hope you don't mind a little debate on this

lol

helena.ryan wrote: »

How do the dogs form? Like do they follow one leader and almost go in file, or do they fan out? If they fan out, then the fox has only one option, to outrun the hunt. But in nature, doesn't a prey animal usually weave, change direction etc? Can they still do this when being followed by such a large pack of dogs

It's kind of difficult to explain how hounds work, but I'll try and do it as best as possible without being able to use diagrams.
As with any animals who are in a group, there's always two or three who are the 'leaders' or the 'boss', and hounds are no exception to this. When cast into a covert, the few 'leaders' will take separate paths in, but the hounds who aren't leaders will follow them in and will normally follow them closely rather than actually fanning out. So instead of having maybe 15 hounds abreast (imagine how people search fields, etc. for something) the hounds actually are maybe only 4 or 5 abreast with the others following behind. Then, when one hound picks up on the scent they usually give tongue and run off following the scent. When this happens, the other hounds follow the 'leader' and while one or two may be upsides the 'leader', most of them are actually following the leader rather than actually following the scent. Moreover, as some hounds are quicker than others, then tend to come in small groups with gaps in between rather than actually being all together in a pack or tight group, or all fanned out. (kind of imagine how horses run in a long distance jump race - not all of them are up front, and tend to be in a line one behind another, often in smaller groups with spaces between groups).

I've often watched hunts on foot and have seen foxes using many techniques to 'lose' and 'confuse' the hounds. First of all, most foxes have already left the covert before the hounds have actually picked up his scent and started in pursuit. This gives the fox time to lay false scents by doubling back on his tracks. I remember watching a fox one day who laid three false scents up and down along a ditch before hopping into the shallow stream that ran along the back of the ditch to prevent leaving any scent. It then hopped out about 20 yards further down the stream and cantered off across the field. When the hounds finally managed to pick up on his scent, they were caught out by all the false scents the fox had laid, and failed to pick up the scent where the fox had hopped out of the stream 20 yards further down the field.

Another tactic used by foxes is to run through a flock of sheep or herd of cattle. The animals will then group together in the field, normally across the track that was taken by the fox, thus 'spoiling' the scent and preventing the houds from picking up on his scent.

Is it true that once the fox goes to ground, he is left? Is there a certain season for fox hunting?

Yes, there is a set season for hunting. The opening meet is usually towards the end of October, around the bank holiday weekend, while the last meet is normally the first week in March. However, if the spring is early (unlike this year!

) then hunts will often stop hunting in February as the breeding season is earlier.

Regarding a fox going to ground, it is normally left and there are rules governing this issued by the governing bodies.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Does this really happen? :eek:

(In reference to 'blooding' of children out hunting).

I've being hunting for well over 20 years, and began when I was 3. In all my years hunting, I have never once seen this happen, nor have I ever heard of this happening. There was a thread about this in the Equestrian forum a while back, and nobody who replied to the thread had heard of it before.

PaulB91 · 01-04-2010 4:00pm

helena.ryan wrote: »

Does this really happen? :eek:

I know it did in the UK until it was banned in 2004/05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting

One of the most notable was the act of blooding. This is a very old ceremony in which the master or huntsman would smear the blood of the fox or coyote onto the cheeks or forehead of a newly initiated hunt follower, often a young child.[66] Another practice of some hunts was to cut off the tail ('brush'), the feet ('pads') and the head ('mask') as trophies, with the carcass then thrown to the dogs.[66] Both of these practices were widely abandoned during the nineteenth century, although isolated cases may still have occurred to the modern day.[66]

convert · 01-04-2010 5:41pm

PaulB91 wrote: »

I know it did in the UK until it was banned in 2004/05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

That only refers to the banning of hunting. I didn't see any reference to 'blooding' in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_hunting

Of course, wikipedia is the most reliable source in the world - did you know that horses in the eighteenth century weighed 5lbs in weight? And that the Irish Constitution was drawn up in 1916! :eek: :rolleyes:

(Sorry, I'm not attacking you or the fact that you quoted wikipedia, I just have an absolute detestation for that site and the blatant inaccuracies that are taken as fact by so many people).

Back on topic, and to my absolute horror I realise I'm going to refer to a quotation from wikipedia!:

One of the most notable was the act of blooding. This is a very old ceremony in which the master or huntsman would smear the blood of the fox or coyote onto the cheeks or forehead of a newly initiated hunt follower, often a young child.[66] Another practice of some hunts was to cut off the tail ('brush'), the feet ('pads') and the head ('mask') as trophies, with the carcass then thrown to the dogs.[66] Both of these practices were widely abandoned during the nineteenth century, although isolated cases may still have occurred to the modern day.[66]

This quotation you've included here says that while blooding did exist in the past, it was abandoned during the 1800s, which perhaps explains why neither I, nor other posters in the Equestrian forum, have ever witnessed it.

Whispered · 01-04-2010 7:53pm

Convert - do you have any idea of the % of successful hunts?

Discodog · 01-04-2010 9:01pm

It does seem strange that there is so much emphasis on hunting when the only proposed ban is on Stag hunting. Whatever we think of fox hunting it will not be banned by Irish legislation.

RISE are using the old "thin edge of the wedge" argument & are claiming that there will soon be bans on everything. By that argument we can't have speed limits because it will lead to us driving at 5kph !.

European opinion may end up as a major factor. There have been significant protests against Bull fighting in Spain. One of the arguments is that it is putting off potential tourists. Ireland's animal abuse has been a fairly well kept secret but the internet is changing this. To date the appalling Pound figures, whilst being public, have been well hidden especially since ANVIL stopped posting them. Luckily this will be changing & more of the World will become aware of our record.

Ireland needs tourism, especially now. The majority of tourists come from the UK. A few will come to partake in blood sports that are banned in the UK but other may decline to come here if we are seen as a nation of animal abusers.

ppink · 03-04-2010 12:29pm

It has been a long time(20yrs) since I have hunted but they definatley did cut the foxes tails off and there were races to get the tail (ie the prize)

Also they covered in the foxes dens before dawn so the fox was caught out and could not get back into the den.

Foxes were definately dug out too.

We had one hunt videoed and when all were finished for the day they loaded their horses covered in mud, tack still on, into their boxes and left them there and went to the neares pub to watch the video. I was stunned at the amount of them that did this.

On my first hunt we had to jump a stone wall down onto a track beneath ( big drop). A kid (10yrs) could not get her pony over it as he was unable to see the ground on the far side. The whipper in (name??) beat that pony solid over that wall. Between him hitting it and the childs mother screaming at it the poor pony eventually jumped it. This was after a nine hour day.

I am sure a lot has changed since my experiences but it really put me off hunting. I would be interested to see how much it has changed now.

johngalway · 03-04-2010 1:38pm

Discodog wrote: »

RISE are using the old "thin edge of the wedge" argument & are claiming that there will soon be bans on everything.

The thin edge of the wedge argument is perfectly sound. Do you honestly think that if the WH is banned, people protesting will stop there - specifically in regards to hunting. They will move on to attack another aspect of hunting, and so on.

Some folks would want to take a look at the people doing the protesting. You may well not wish to be associated with them.

eilo1 · 03-04-2010 3:26pm

I have no problem with fox hunting, in fact I think it as a bad name.
I was a vegetarian for 10 years and also worked in the horse industry (showjumpers and flat racing).

I think its far more complex than killing an animal for fun.
If we are talking about hunting being wrong because of its motive then maybe we should look at our motives for killing other animals.

Farming has a lot of practices that are not very kind to the animals such as battery hens and live transport and the reason for this is a demand for cheap meat. Do we really need so much cheap meat? Is all this meat production really out of necessity or is it preference and indulgance? And there fore what are our motives for buying it? Are our motives simply that we like it and not that we need it. So did we kill that that chicken just for the pleasure of eating it?
Would it be better to only have meat 3 times a week and buy organically and then you may have a better motive for eating meat.

I now LOVE eating meat and I eat it because i like it and not because I need it. I buy cheap chicken and pork (god i love sausages) knowing that the animals my meat came from had a horrid life, never saw sunlight and were transported in god awful conditions before being killed at a young age.

Am I any better than someone who attends a local hunt meeting?

When the hounds pick up a scent it is up to the fox to out smart them. Very often they do, just because there is a chase does not mean that the fox will die. The fox population does need to be controlled in Ireland and at least if a hunt goes out instead of a farmer with a gun, the fox dies quickly, almost instantly. The reasoning behind saying that it is the weaker and older ones that get caught is that at least if the hunt gets them they dont die in a ditch from disease or hunger. They also are the ones that tend to go for chickens. The young healthy clever foxes tend to get away, still giving the ridersa good day out.

I prefer to see the hunt go out and chase foxes as there are many benifits finacially as well as socially to the country side. The hunts provide services such as taking dead animals from farmers (its expensive to despose of carcuses) to feed the hounds, most of the riders will meet at a local pub after the meet, they buy horses from breaders, they employ farriers to shoe the horses, they give the vets alot of buisness. The horse industry is the 4th biggest employer in Ireland and hunting is a big part of that.

My last thought on this is that, nobody likes to see animals suffer and most people who hunt will say they love the counrty side and the animals in it. Hunting plays a part in keeping the countryside finacially viable and does attract tourist coming to ride in hunts. Weather you like that or not money matters!

Hope I havnt offended any one!

convert · 03-04-2010 5:30pm

helena.ryan wrote: »

Convert - do you have any idea of the % of successful hunts?

What exactly do you mean by successful hunts? Is it the number of days upon which a given hunt catches quarry?
(sorry, I've had a very long day, am really tired, and things that probably should be very clear to me aren't...)

The Sweeper · 04-04-2010 2:14am

I'm not anti-hunting.

However I find chase hunting extremely distasteful, purely due to the prolonged distress caused to the quarry animal, be it fox or deer. The final death may be quick, but stand that against the potential hours of high-adrenaline running - literally for its life - hiding, the final panicked scatter as it's held at bay and then the pain when it's torn apart (and it does NOT always die instantly - if you have one good lead dog that catches and wools the animal it will indeed kill it instantly by breaking its neck or back, but if a second dog gets a hold before the shaking, the quarry animal becomes the living rope in a tug of war).

That is in marked contrast to a man with a rifle and a dog, heading out on a long, long walk in the woods; or sitting freezing his arse off in a hide for hours, and then exercising what will be hopefully excellent marksmanship to kill an animal that will literally hardly know what hit it, or even a sport where a dog flushes a quarry animal that is then dispatched with a shot. Frankly that sort of hunting is far more humane even than production slaughterhouses as the distress caused to the animal is absolutely minimal.

Think about it - would you rather die by being shot by a sniper you didn't know was there, or would you rather be chased for hours before being killed? If the welfare of animals is really the question, hunting involving the prolonged distress caused by a chase would be banned.

Whispered · 05-04-2010 12:21pm

eilo1 wrote: »

Am I any better than someone who attends a local hunt meeting?

It may not be the popular answer, but in my opinion, no you're not. We all have an obligation to source our animal products with as little suffering caused as possible. To describe the horrific conditions these animals live in and then say you simply don't care is horrible imo.

convert wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by successful hunts? Is it the number of days upon which a given hunt catches quarry?
(sorry, I've had a very long day, am really tired, and things that probably should be very clear to me aren't...)

Yes, how many hunts come back having caught a fox. And once one is caught, do you all head home then?

The Sweeper wrote: »

I'm not anti-hunting.

However I find chase hunting extremely distasteful, purely due to the prolonged distress caused to the quarry animal, be it fox or deer. The final death may be quick, but stand that against the potential hours of high-adrenaline running - literally for its life - hiding, the final panicked scatter as it's held at bay and then the pain when it's torn apart (and it does NOT always die instantly - if you have one good lead dog that catches and wools the animal it will indeed kill it instantly by breaking its neck or back, but if a second dog gets a hold before the shaking, the quarry animal becomes the living rope in a tug of war).

That is in marked contrast to a man with a rifle and a dog, heading out on a long, long walk in the woods; or sitting freezing his arse off in a hide for hours, and then exercising what will be hopefully excellent marksmanship to kill an animal that will literally hardly know what hit it, or even a sport where a dog flushes a quarry animal that is then dispatched with a shot. Frankly that sort of hunting is far more humane even than production slaughterhouses as the distress caused to the animal is absolutely minimal.

Think about it - would you rather die by being shot by a sniper you didn't know was there, or would you rather be chased for hours before being killed? If the welfare of animals is really the question, hunting involving the prolonged distress caused by a chase would be banned.

Exactly my sentiments.

convert · 06-04-2010 12:54am

ppink wrote: »

It has been a long time(20yrs) since I have hunted but they definatley did cut the foxes tails off and there were races to get the tail (ie the prize)

I've never heard of races in order to get the brush. Traditionally (and I'm going back years here, way more than twenty years - back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) the brush used to be presented to the lady who was riding closest to the front of the hunt.

We had one hunt videoed and when all were finished for the day they loaded their horses covered in mud, tack still on, into their boxes and left them there and went to the neares pub to watch the video. I was stunned at the amount of them that did this.

Leaving tack on the horse in a box for a short while isn't all that unusual as the saddle can help keep the horse's back warm, especially if one only has a warm rug with them (putting a warm rug on a warm horse will only result in the horse getting too hot and they can get a chill from it). If it's a short trip home (less than 20 minutes), I'd often loosen the girth, but leave the saddle on the horse under a cooling rug so that the horse's back doesn't get cold. If it's longer journey home, I'd often leave the saddle on for a while with the cooling rug and then stop on the way home to take off the saddle and put on a warmer rug when the horse has cooled off.

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry (unless you can wash it off with a hose and then you need to have the facilities to dry the horse's legs relatively quickly). The horse's legs will dry on the journey home, so when they get home the owner/rider can simply brush off the mud without rubbing it into the horse's coat.

This was after a nine hour day.

With all due respect, I really doubt that a hunt could have gone on for 9 hours. Besides the fact that neither horses nor humans would be able to stay out for 9 hours, the fact that the hunting season runs from October to March would mean that there isn't enought daylight to stay out for 9 hours, even if the hunt starts at 7.30am. Hunts don't start before 11am (the normal times for starting is somewhere between 11.30am and 13.30) so there's definitely no way that what you've stated above can be accurate.

I am sure a lot has changed since my experiences but it really put me off hunting. I would be interested to see how much it has changed now.

Then why don't you arrange with your local hunt to go out on foot or mounted and see how things have changed? That way you'd be able to see things for yourself rather than relying upon second hand information.

eilo1 · 06-04-2010 8:10am

I think id rather have a chance at survival and out running the hounds than be shot from afar.
Also the shot are not always perfect and the animal will sometimes wander off to die slowly from a gun shot.
Also the shooter is not more likely only shoot the elderly or weak ones, he will take out anything he can see.

Whispered · 06-04-2010 11:05am

convert wrote: »

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry .......

That makes sense. We do the same with our dog.

One thing I have to say is that when we do pass the hunt, most of the horses are magnificent, dying to go, loads of energy etc. The dogs are the same. I wouldn't accuse the hunt of being cruel to their own animals. I think it's good for animals to do what they are supposed to do, whether they are horses, dogs etc.

eilo1 wrote: »

Also the shooter is not more likely only shoot the elderly or weak ones, he will take out anything he can see.

This is the only good thing I can see with a hunt. The younger, fitter foxes are likely to be the ones who survive. I just still think the whole parctise is outdated and unnecessary.

ppink · 06-04-2010 12:38pm

convert wrote: »

I've never heard of races in order to get the brush. Traditionally (and I'm going back years here, way more than twenty years - back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) the brush used to be presented to the lady who was riding closest to the front of the hunt.

Leaving tack on the horse in a box for a short while isn't all that unusual as the saddle can help keep the horse's back warm, especially if one only has a warm rug with them (putting a warm rug on a warm horse will only result in the horse getting too hot and they can get a chill from it). If it's a short trip home (less than 20 minutes), I'd often loosen the girth, but leave the saddle on the horse under a cooling rug so that the horse's back doesn't get cold. If it's longer journey home, I'd often leave the saddle on for a while with the cooling rug and then stop on the way home to take off the saddle and put on a warmer rug when the horse has cooled off.

With regards to the mud: the easiest way to take mud off a horse is when it's dry (unless you can wash it off with a hose and then you need to have the facilities to dry the horse's legs relatively quickly). The horse's legs will dry on the journey home, so when they get home the owner/rider can simply brush off the mud without rubbing it into the horse's coat.

With all due respect, I really doubt that a hunt could have gone on for 9 hours. Besides the fact that neither horses nor humans would be able to stay out for 9 hours, the fact that the hunting season runs from October to March would mean that there isn't enought daylight to stay out for 9 hours, even if the hunt starts at 7.30am. Hunts don't start before 11am (the normal times for starting is somewhere between 11.30am and 13.30) so there's definitely no way that what you've stated above can be accurate.

Then why don't you arrange with your local hunt to go out on foot or mounted and see how things have changed? That way you'd be able to see things for yourself rather than relying upon second hand information.

I am not relaying on any second hand information for anything in my post. I saw the tail cut off and raced for as I was on my horse wondering why we were all lining up across a massive field and racing to get the tail.

Tack was left on the horses for hours not minutes, agian something I witnessed as the pub they were all outside was close to home for me.

The 9 hour day was referrign to from the time that pony was prepared for the hunt to the time late afternoon when we were faced with that wall.

Graces7 · 06-04-2010 4:48pm

None of your words have anything to do with the issues I raised. But of course you know that.

doctor evil wrote: »

If Ireland still all her native animals foxes would be chased by the likes of wolves. It is in their nature to run, it is how they are evolved. They don't stand there and try to reason it out with the hound/wolf/Golden Eagle. They run and try to get to underground. They don't do this blindly, foxes are smart they will double back and go through water to disrupt their scent. The quarry is caught/killed swiftly and then the body is torn apart, not the living animal. People get this mixed up.

The older/weaker foxes are often the ones that will go after the easy meal, new born lamb/chickens etc

How is it one thing? It still involves the death of an animal.

Discodog · 06-04-2010 6:49pm

johngalway wrote: »

The thin edge of the wedge argument is perfectly sound. Do you honestly think that if the WH is banned, people protesting will stop there - specifically in regards to hunting. They will move on to attack another aspect of hunting, and so on.

Some folks would want to take a look at the people doing the protesting. You may well not wish to be associated with them.

Would I be better associating with people that kill animals purely for pleasure ?. I have met many hunt saboteurs as I lived in the middle of a hunting area in the UK for several years. Most were students & many were very well informed regarding wildlife. My local "chief" saboteur was a fairly well known zoologist !. I used to invite them in for tea & as a result I had to put up with the Hunt & the police trying to film in my garden.

Yes people that hate animal abuse will oppose hunting & some will campaign to abolish fox hunting. We live in a democracy & that is their right. But the idea of opposing any law because it could be the thin edge of a wedge is not viable.

doctor evil · 06-04-2010 9:20pm

Did you report it to the master ppink?

doctor evil · 06-04-2010 9:30pm

With fox hunting they do not chase the same fox for hours on end, the fox is either caught, goes to ground (sometimes dug out, sometimes not often at discretion of the landowner) or it escapes. Then the hunt goes to another likely covert to catch the scent.

Can I ask what do folks think of foot packs?

doctor evil · 06-04-2010 9:53pm

Discodog wrote: »

I am also intrigued by this new separation of animal rights & animal welfare.

Animal welfare and animal rights may have been inextricably linked long ago but not now. Animal welfare is taking care of the animal and following correct care/animal husbandry, pet owners, breeders, zoos, welfare organisations strive to do this. Preventing cruelty to animals and prosecuting perpetrators who commit this deliberately is part of animal welfare. Animal rights is the likes of PETA and ALF, I won't go into the activities these organisations or members of have been involved in. I am very careful who I donate to and there are bogus charities about, and with these 'charities' you can never be sure what the money is used for. From what I can find on the ISPCA they are animal welfare minded. We donated our cat from the DSPCA.

RISE has modelled itself on & taken advice from the UK Countryside Alliance.

Is that such a bad thing?

The idea is simple & clever in that you bundle all possible "rural" issues together. So someone who believes in rural building will support RISE & consequently support hunting. There is this assumption & I am a countryman, that only country people know what is best for the countryside.

It's about standing up for activities/issues in your area and not letting that activity/issue be decided upon by someone else/other group of people in a completely different place.

RISE is not about one issue.

Discodog · 07-04-2010 8:35am

doctor evil wrote: »

Animal welfare and animal rights may have been inextricably linked long ago but not now. Animal welfare is taking care of the animal and following correct care/animal husbandry, pet owners, breeders, zoos, welfare organisations strive to do this. Preventing cruelty to animals and prosecuting perpetrators who commit this deliberately is part of animal welfare. Animal rights is the likes of PETA and ALF, I won't go into the activities these organisations or members of have been involved in. I am very careful who I donate to and there are bogus charities about, and with these 'charities' you can never be sure what the money is used for. From what I can find on the ISPCA they are animal welfare minded. We donated our cat from the DSPCA.

Is that such a bad thing?

It's about standing up for activities/issues in your area and not letting that activity/issue be decided upon by someone else/other group of people in a completely different place.

RISE is not about one issue.

In every group of people there will be some who hold more extreme views. The idea that everyone that believes in or campaigns for animal rights is a criminal is all part of the propaganda being spouted by the hunt lobby. You cannot legislate for animal welfare until you accept that animals have rights.

We live in a democracy & we decide issues as a Country. The predominance of local issues at the expense of national issues has already done great harm. In the case of hunting many people find the "activity" to be repugnant & not part of a civilised Ireland.

RISE is not about one issue because the hunt lobby know that many country dwellers do not approve of hunting. By putting it in with planning, public transport etc you make it harder for people to object to the stated overall aim. I doubt that we will see the hunt lobby campaigning for real rural issues in the future. In the UK the Countryside Alliance did the same thing & it is still focussed on hunting & field sports.

Did you donate your cat to the DSPCA ?.

eilo1 · 07-04-2010 1:38pm

helena.ryan wrote: »

It may not be the popular answer, but in my opinion, no you're not. We all have an obligation to source our animal products with as little suffering caused as possible. To describe the horrific conditions these animals live in and then say you simply don't care is horrible imo.

It may not be popular but it is a reality, Oh and dont forget the shoes and belts you are wearing and thank the cheap indian cows for their leather, they certainly were not treated like kings.

I really wish people would not annoyed and out spoken about hunting when it has so many benefits (even to the fox, as previously stated, they have a good chance of survival and it maintains a healthier population than shooting)
Surely hunting should not be considered any more or less cruell than certain totally accepted farming practices. Personnaly i think the foxes have much better life than farm animals despite what way they die. They have to controlled one way or another!

Discodog · 07-04-2010 11:13pm

I really wish people would not annoyed and out spoken about hunting when it has so many benefits (even to the fox, as previously stated, they have a good chance of survival and it maintains a healthier population than shooting)
Surely hunting should not be considered any more or less cruell than certain totally accepted farming practices. Personnaly i think the foxes have much better life than farm animals despite what way they die. They have to controlled one way or another!

When the hunt are defending hunting they always tell us that very few foxes are killed so how is it making the population healthier ?. The small numbers that they claim do not effect the population let alone their health. Hunting does not control foxes. There are far more foxes than hunts. There are huge populations of urban foxes that are no where near a hunt.

So if it is not about controlling numbers then it can only be killing for pleasure & I do not see that as a benefit to man or fox.

Graces7 · 08-04-2010 8:01am

There is truly none so blind as they who won't see.

"Reality" can and needs to be changed. It is called progress.

On all fronts where animals are concerned.

eilo1 wrote: »

helena.ryan wrote: »

It may not be the popular answer, but in my opinion, no you're not. We all have an obligation to source our animal products with as little suffering caused as possible. To describe the horrific conditions these animals live in and then say you simply don't care is horrible imo.

It may not be popular but it is a reality, Oh and dont forget the shoes and belts you are wearing and thank the cheap indian cows for their leather, they certainly were not treated like kings.

I really wish people would not annoyed and out spoken about hunting when it has so many benefits (even to the fox, as previously stated, they have a good chance of survival and it maintains a healthier population than shooting)
Surely hunting should not be considered any more or less cruell than certain totally accepted farming practices. Personnaly i think the foxes have much better life than farm animals despite what way they die. They have to controlled one way or another!

eilo1 · 08-04-2010 12:33pm

ah now really grace thats a lovely quote but can go either way,
Im sure everyone would like to see animals being treated fairy and as nature intended.

Whispered · 08-04-2010 1:03pm

eilo1 wrote: »

It may not be popular but it is a reality, Oh and dont forget the shoes and belts you are wearing and thank the cheap indian cows for their leather, they certainly were not treated like kings.
Surely hunting should not be considered any more or less cruell than certain totally accepted farming practices. Personnaly i think the foxes have much better life than farm animals despite what way they die. They have to controlled one way or another!

I agree, farming is definately an issue too in animal welfare. I think most people would agree. And I see your point but you can't say "oh I know hunting is bad but so is farming so...." Like graces said

On all fronts where animal welfare is concerned.

The foxes do absolutely have a better life before death. Nobody could dispute that. And I'm sure the terror felt by the fox for the last few moments of his/her life is akin to the terror and confusion felt by farm animals on their way through a slaughter house.

It still doesn't remove the fact that fox hunting goes against many peoples morals and serves no purpose beyond a day out.

eilo1 · 08-04-2010 1:25pm

Discodog wrote: »

When the hunt are defending hunting they always tell us that very few foxes are killed so how is it making the population healthier ?. The small numbers that they claim do not effect the population let alone their health. Hunting does not control foxes. There are far more foxes than hunts. There are huge populations of urban foxes that are no where near a hunt.

So if it is not about controlling numbers then it can only be killing for pleasure & I do not see that as a benefit to man or fox.

Farmers let you ride over there land because you are helping to control the fox population and because of the socail and economical benefits of hunting for the country side.
Urban foxes are OBVIOUSLY not controlled by hunting on horse back. I dont know why you would even bring urban foxes into this, its irrelevant. An urban problem needs to be delt with in an urban way.
The average hunt that goes out twice a week will normally kill about 6 a month from my experiance.
When i state that the population is healther from hunthing its ment in a survial of the fittest way.
And as I have already said, its not the nicest thing in the world to go killing foxes but I think it just has a bad reputaion. Farming practices are much worse but no one gives out about buying chicken from tesco or wearing nike runners.
Its a bit fatalistic but still reality

johngalway · 08-04-2010 4:34pm

Discodog wrote: »

Would I be better associating with people that kill animals purely for pleasure ?. I have met many hunt saboteurs as I lived in the middle of a hunting area in the UK for several years. Most were students & many were very well informed regarding wildlife. My local "chief" saboteur was a fairly well known zoologist !. I used to invite them in for tea & as a result I had to put up with the Hunt & the police trying to film in my garden.

Yes people that hate animal abuse will oppose hunting & some will campaign to abolish fox hunting. We live in a democracy & that is their right. But the idea of opposing any law because it could be the thin edge of a wedge is not viable.

If you're happy to be associated with people who break the law, who advocate criminal damage and violence against people, who dig up dead bodies, good for you.

Some think all the anti hunting side are whiter than white, truth is they're not. I don't see many hunters having to don balaclavas when they march.

Discodog · 09-04-2010 8:03am

johngalway wrote: »

If you're happy to be associated with people who break the law, who advocate criminal damage and violence against people, who dig up dead bodies, good for you.

Some think all the anti hunting side are whiter than white, truth is they're not. I don't see many hunters having to don balaclavas when they march.

You are the one who is criminalising people who voice their objection to hunting & yet you accept a "sport" that clearly breaches the 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act. The only reasons that hunts cannot be prosecuted in that Foxes were designated as vermin & therefore could be subjected to cruelty unlike a domestic dog. Yet both Foxes & domestic dogs feel pain & distress in the same way.

You fail to mention the "criminal" hunters who, according to one farmer & also a land valuer on the RTE frontline, trespass on farm land & cause damage running to thousands of euro. As you know an increasing number of farmers will not allow the hunt onto their land. Why do they do this if hunting controls foxes & is beneficial to farming ?.

In any event the only hunt that it likely to be banned is the Ward Union. They go one step further in that they breed/farm the deer so that they can be hunted. So this has nothing to do with vermin control. The animals are bred to be chased to the point of exhaustion purely for pleasure.

cos!! · 09-04-2010 2:14pm

Discodog wrote: »

As you know an increasing number of farmers will not allow the hunt onto their land. Why do they do this if hunting controls foxes & is beneficial to farming ?.
.

They hunt themselves, simple.;)

5,000 attend pro-hunting rally

Comments