Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Hare Coursing

1…34689…29

Comments

  • #152
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    To be honest I dont mind hunting in general as long as they're not hunting an endangered species. In America I was friends with many hunters and they're nice people. Irish hunters are nice people generally too but whoever is running their lobby is an idiot frankly. The hunting support groups in america and ireland are worlds apart.

    America has some of the strictest wildlife laws in the world, the hunters support conservation efforts. Irish wildlife laws are crap putting it nicely.We have inbreds decapitating seals and other simian lifeforms causing the Norwegian Primeminister to ask us to kindly stop killing Norway's eagles.

    I suggested to hunting groups in Ireland to forge closer ties with conservation efforts. Speak out against the killing of endangered eagles ect but was told I was anti hunting. Despite the fact that I suggested hunting would have a lot more support if the worked closer with conservation. I even asked permission to start thread on a certain hunting forum and the response I got was suggesting I was going to start an anti hunting thread.

    This coarsing itself is pointless and barbaric. Hunting in general isnt somthing I have a huge problem with in general but Idont support hunting groups in Ireland based on their aims or lack of them.


  • #153
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    archer22 wrote: »
    The 40% is probably because they alert their supporters when their is a poll.

    Indeed they all pm each other to have a whinge whenever anything like this comes up.


  • #154
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ScumLord wrote: »
    It might be in that moment but after the fact they can't obsess about it like we do. They don't have the mental capacity.

    We aren't forcing anything, we are just setting up a scenario and allowing nature to take it's course. If we weren't there the dogs would still chase the rabbit, the only difference is they would most likely succeed in killing it.

    Animals cant develop post traumatic symptoms? Look around any dog pound and youll see otherwise. Read up on reports of animals rescued from violent owners.


  • #155
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

    As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.


  • #156
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

    As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.


    Can you see the evolutionary benifit of cancer, chromasomal disorders or diabtetes? Sometimes stress or enviromental conditions force us into situations that are not evolutionarly benifitial.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    steddyeddy wrote: »


    Can you see the evolutionary benifit of cancer, chromasomal disorders or diabtetes? Sometimes stress or enviromental conditions force us into situations that are not evolutionarly benifitial.

    You don't understand evolution. Cancer is largely a disease of the elderly - as such it doesn't affect evolution. Diabetes is a product of modern lifestyle we specifically didn't evolve for.

    Permanent psychological damage for prey? Wouldn't all wildlife be continuous nervous wrecks ?


  • #158
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,895 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.
    a majority of posters on the thread and in the poll, apparently.


  • #159
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Animals cant develop post traumatic symptoms? Look around any dog pound and youll see otherwise. Read up on reports of animals rescued from violent owners.

    Yup, my little rescue runs and hides when someone lifts the garden rake - and I'm pretty sure she's not afraid of being asked to do garden work :)


  • #160
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    I have a feeling that prey evolved to not get permanent damage from being chased. Can't see the evolutionary benefit of that.

    As long as the dogs are muzzled who cares.

    Me.


  • #161
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Permanent psychological damage for prey? Wouldn't all wildlife be continuous nervous wrecks ?

    The average wild rabbit or deer is definitely a cool and calm customer.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Yup, my little rescue runs and hides when someone lifts the garden rake - and I'm pretty sure she's not afraid of being asked to do garden work :)

    Ah, it's not PTSD though, it's the association of a rake with Bad Things. PTSD includes nightmares, palpatations, feelings of dread for no reason, panic attacks; things that simply can't be diagnosed in animals.


  • #163
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,171 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    A dog has no natural predators; a hare does. Does anyone have an idea of what percentage of hares die of old age as opposed to being eaten or poisoned? (genuine question)
    Do wild animals have any concept of a peaceful life and a 'nice' death?


  • #164
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    pickarooney wrote: »
    A dog has no natural predators; a hare does.

    In fairness, domesticated dogs can hardly be considered 'natural' predators.

    I don't think anyone would have a problem with wild wolves preying on Hares. Humans breeding high-speed dogs and organising a death run (how can a Hare see it any other way?) is pretty unnatural.


  • #165
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,171 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    In fairness, domesticated dogs can hardly be considered 'natural' predators.

    I don't think anyone would have a problem with wild wolves preying on Hares. Humans breeding high-speed dogs and organising a death run (how can a Hare see it any other way?) is pretty unnatural.

    For the humans, OK, but the hare doesn't know the difference between being chased by a greyhound or a wolf. The dog also doesn't realise it's being 'cruel'; its natural instinct is to catch and kill small animals.


  • #166
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    pickarooney wrote: »

    For the humans, OK, but the hare doesn't know the difference between being chased by a greyhound or a wolf. The dog also doesn't realise it's being 'cruel'; its natural instinct is to catch and kill small animals.

    Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.


  • #167
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    golfball37 wrote: »
    This is the think end of the wedge afaic. What comes next? Banning Hurling because its too violent.:rolleyes:

    These are dumb animals ffs. Its a Sport that brings pleasure to many in the countryside and is an integral part of Irish culture. If you don't like it ignore it but why ruin it for 1000's who rightly or wrongly derive some form of entertainment from it.

    The only dumb animals are the ones watching it.


  • #168
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,171 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.

    I get that. I've made the point earlier that there were two aspects to coursing, the human behaviour and the experience of the hare and that I believe only humans can judge the other humans as 'barbaric' or 'cruel' based on their enjoyment of the spectacle and the net effect on the hare (killed by a dog or a fox or a bird of prey) is moot.

    I'm also questioning if it's reasonable to state boldly that spectators at hare coursing 'get off' on the apparent suffering of the animal or moreso on the chase, the gambling or whatever goes on while denying that someone watching a predator killing its prey without any human interference also gets off on the spectacle.

    Some people seem to equate curiosity or analysis with outright support of a position. Personally, I haven't adopted one.


  • #169
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Hunter21 wrote: »

    Once anti groups get coursing banned they won't be happy they'll move on and try get all sports to do with animals banned. This in years to come could make a number of vets unemployed.

    It's like dominos once one will fall the others will fall in time..

    This anti groups routine again? Im not a fan of the extreme animal rights groups in Ireland but the hunting lobby in Ireland are the only ones responsible for the death hunting activities in Ireland. A colleague in college (he's a zoologist) wanted to forge conservation links with hunting groups (which would safeguard hunting forever in this country) and he was accused of being an anti. I had the same experience emailing hunting groups with suggestions and even here on boards.


  • #170
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Its not the fact that a hare is killed by a dog that bothers me. Its the fact that grown men get off on seeing a hare killed by a dog.

    Seemingly, there is no difference from watching a nature program involving say a lion hunting as there is from throwing a rabbit in with some dogs and watching them kill it.

    If you like nature programs, you therefore should like coursing. Because watching animals in the wild is the same as creating a scenario where animals tear other animals apart for the enjoyment of the baying masses.


  • #171
    fourleafclover
    Site Banned Posts: 45 ✭fourleafclover


    steddyeddy wrote: »

    This anti groups routine again? Important not a fan of the extreme animal rights groups in Ireland but the hunting lobby in Ireland are the only ones responsible for the death hunting activities in Ireland. A colleague in college (he's a zoologist) wanted to forge conservation links with hunting groups (which would safeguard hunting forever in this country) and he was accused of being an anti. I had the same experience emailing hunting groups with suggestions and even here on boards.


    what were your suggestions? surely the quercus report on rising hare populations points to conservation of the irish hare?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    fourleafclover
    Site Banned Posts: 45 ✭fourleafclover


    May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate


  • #173
    Zombienosh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭Zombienosh


    fourleafclover wrote: »
    May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

    The idea that just because the dogs are muzzled there's no harm done is ridiculous.


  • #174
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    fourleafclover wrote: »
    May i point out that this emotive language such as animals being killed, torn to shreds etc is a far distance from the truth, in coursing, greyhounds are muzzled and do not harm the hare as seems to be outlined on this thread. in fact it shows ignorance on the part of some people posting when they do not have the faintest idea of what they are discussing. it is quite a pity this is not an informed debate

    Not all coursing is done the legal way, in this country or across the water. The dogs are not always muzzled. Also, to state that not harm is done to the hare is showing ignorance on your part. Are you of the opinion that a dog can only cause harm to another animal with its mouth only?


  • #175
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,578 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    reprazant wrote: »

    Seemingly, there is no difference from watching a nature program involving say a lion hunting as there is from throwing a rabbit in with some dogs and watching them kill it.

    If you like nature programs, you therefore should like coursing. Because watching animals in the wild is the same as creating a scenario where animals tear other animals apart for the enjoyment of the baying masses.

    I don't know about you but I don't generally watch things like that for enjoyment but to learn and observe animals in their natural state. The last thing I would be doing is smiling when something is being killed.


  • #176
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I don't know about you but I don't generally watch things like that for enjoyment but to learn and observe animals in their natural state. The last thing I would be doing is smiling when something is being killed.

    I was paraphrasing pickarooney
    pickarooney wrote: »
    I think people like to anthropomorphise the hares a little too much. Small animals get chased and killed and eaten by big ones in their billions every day. I've never been to one of these and wouldn't have any interest, but what's the essential difference between attending a hare coursing event and watching a David Attenborough documentary?


  • #177
    OpenYourEyes
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 3,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭OpenYourEyes


    Hunter21 wrote: »
    Once anti groups get coursing banned they won't be happy they'll move on and try get all sports to do with animals banned. This in years to come could make a number of vets unemployed.

    It's like dominos once one will fall the others will fall in time..

    Anti-Groups wont be happy until they get all activities to do with animals banned, I agree.

    Anti-Groups don't get anything banned on their own however. In reality very few people are part of such groups. They require a lot of additional public support to get anything banned. For that reason they will never get activities like hunting* and fishing banned - they'll never get the public on board with getting them banned. And I'm glad of that, I enjoy fishing and hunting has many benefits.

    So its nothing like dominoes - getting hare coursing banned would not lead to getting the others banned in time, and so thats a very deterimental viewpoint to base your argument on. If you're in favour of Hare coursing you should argue on the benefits of it, not on unfounded paranoia.


    All that being said, I'm in favour of hare coursing solely for the conservation and biodiversity benefits that come out of it. And thats assuming the dogs are muzzled, and each Hare is only ever put through it once. To me, the benefits then far outweigh the costs (although there are still costs).



    *hunting meaning shooting, not the horse/hound type


  • #178
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,578 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    reprazant wrote: »
    I was paraphrasing pickarooney

    My bad :)


  • #179
    clashburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭clashburke


    reprazant wrote: »
    Not all coursing is done the legal way, in this country or across the water. The dogs are not always muzzled. Also, to state that not harm is done to the hare is showing ignorance on your part. Are you of the opinion that a dog can only cause harm to another animal with its mouth only?

    But that type of coursing is already illegal and you can be prosecuted for doing it!!!
    Saying that legal coursing should be banned because some idiots do it illegally is akin to saying dogs should be banned in Ireland because there is an element that engage in dog fighting!!


  • #180
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    clashburke wrote: »
    But that type of coursing is already illegal and you can be prosecuted for doing it!!!
    Saying that legal coursing should be banned because some idiots do it illegally is akin to saying dogs should be banned in Ireland because there is an element that engage in dog fighting!!

    No, I am saying it should be banned as it inflicts unnecessary cruelty onto the hares for not other reason than for the viewing masses to get their rocks off, whether it is legal or not.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Formosa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭Formosa


    reprazant wrote: »
    That a bit like saying that if, hypothetically, you got chased at night by a group of lads at night with knives but got away it would be fine because you'd have had a great rush and thoroughly enjoyed it. They did, so you must have, no?

    And if they did catch you but only slapped you around it a bit, sure its grand because the suffering was only minimal.

    No it's not.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement