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…5681011…29

Comments

  • #212
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sad that this type of ignorant shít is still going on.


  • #213
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    fourleafclover wrote: »
    i'm far from condescending but you have now lied for the third time - you have said that the spectators were grinning and now you seem to be changing your mind and that you were looking at what was happening and not the spectators.

    Ya know what pal, you're a waste of my time. As far as you're concerned everyone, except you, is either a liar or wrong. I've better things to do with my time than be insulted by an ignorant fool. Goodbye.


  • #214
    big_heart_on
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 82 ✭✭big_heart_on


    Hare Coursing is a sick and contemptible abuse of animals for entertainment. It belongs in the past with bull baiting, badger baiting, hunting with dogs and other such blood sports.

    I used to diplomatic about such things, "Each to their own" or something but now I have no hesitation in condemning it and the people who participate in it, and other abuses of animals solely for entertainment.
    Such torment of animals for "fun" is something I will actively oppose in the future.

    Whoever posted the link to the Irish Council against Blood sports watch thread, thanks, I used the links contained within to set up a number of ongoing donations to anti blood sports groups and will be taking this up with my local TDs.


  • #215
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Sparks wrote: »
    I'm curious - do the people who support this know of the background of groups like ICABS? Of their links to fairly dodgy characters?

    Who gives a shit?

    QE2 shook the hand of Martin Mc Guiness - does that mean she was in the IRA?

    Goofy logic.


  • #216
    dinemo6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 118 ✭✭dinemo6


    Reading through the amount of misinformation and sheer RUBBISH in this thread made me sick!!!

    If one does not know the facts about a legal and highly regulated sport why spout false statements about it.

    The use of words such a mauled and ripped to shreds show the posters ignorance relating to the sport.

    The health and welfare of the hare is of the utmost importance to all Coursing Clubs in this country! Which can be seen by how well the hares are cared for, fed and inoculated and the thriving hare population in our countryside.

    Perhaps people should educated themselves on what actually goes on before condemning a sport they clearly know very little about and just seem to be following the pack, some of them probably while wearing leather shoes!!


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    QE2 shook the hand of Martin Mc Guiness - does that mean she was in the IRA?
    QE2 wasn't making donations to Sinn Fein on the basis of the handshake, to borrow your analogy.
    QE2 also wasn't accepting Sinn Fein's version of events without talking to the UUP/DUP/etc.

    The start of this thread was an allegation of criminal activity (specifically article one of the Protection of Animals Act as amended, along with the laws governing hare coursing in the Wildlife Acts) against a named entity (Limerick Racecourse). It's bad enough that such allegations get slung around as though saying an identified person or group was breaking the law wasn't defamation; but to be signing up to it without knowing who you're giving your signature to is pure foolishness.

    I mean, unless having your name on a file in C3 is the kind of thing that you don't worry about. But personally, I'd rather not have my name there tied to the likes of the ALF.


  • #218
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Sparks wrote: »
    The start of this thread was an allegation of criminal activity

    This?
    Ask Limerick Racecourse to reject hare coursing
    19 February 2013

    The management of Limerick Racecourse is being asked to view footage of hares hit and mauled at the venue and stop hosting the cruel blood sport. The Irish Cup coursing meet is due to take place again at the racecourse this month. Please join our appeal now.

    In February 2012, ICABS filmed hares being severely mauled at this event. See video footage below and respond to our action alert now.

    Videos: Cruelty to hares at Limerick Racecourse (2012)

    http://www.banbloodsports.com/ln130225.htm

    ICABS are perfectly entitled to draw attention to something they (and many others) see as cruel - where is the criminality in this?


  • #219
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    dinemo6 wrote: »
    The health and welfare of the hare is of the utmost importance to all Coursing Clubs in this country!

    The lengths people go to to try and justify unnecessary cruelty to animals for entertainment in unbelievable. Even to the point of thinking they are doing the things a fcukin favour.

    Its not the welfare of the animal that's of the utmost importance its the welfare of the sport. The welfare of the animals is a by product of having to fly under the radar of blatant animal abuse.

    And the pack you are referring to is called civilised society. Ignorant sports like this and the ignorant people who enjoy them are just slow to catch up with the rest of us who dont go out of our way to torment animals for the sheer hell of it.


  • #220
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    This?
    The management of Limerick Racecourse is being asked to view footage of hares hit and mauled at the venue and stop hosting the cruel blood sport.

    ICABS are perfectly entitled to draw attention to something they (and many others) see as cruel - where is the criminality in this?
    But the video they'e using to make this claim has none of these things in it. The Hare doesn't get mauled or hit, it is picked up by an official as soon as the dogs caught up to it and carried off the field.

    It's one thing to say the event is cruel but it doesn't help their argument to embellish their story so much. If they argued against the sport on the basis of the current rules people might listen but going into hysterics and claiming things happened which we have video evidence to prove didn't is just silly.


  • #221
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    ICABS are perfectly entitled to draw attention to something they (and many others) see as cruel - where is the criminality in this?
    The bit where they say that Limerick Racecourse are supporting cruelty to animals, which would be a breach of section one of the Protection of Animals Act.

    If they suspect this has happened, the correct course of action is to make a formal complaint to the AGS, not to start a petition asking them to stop being criminals.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Sparks wrote: »
    The bit where they say that Limerick Racecourse are supporting cruelty to animals, which would be a breach of section one of the Protection of Animals Act.

    Are you qualified to state that they've breached any laws or are you just giving your opinion? Hare coursing is cruelty in their opinion. Some people think keeping birds in cages is cruel - since when is it against the law for a person or group to express their opinion that something, such as keeping a bird in a cage, is 'cruelty'.
    If they suspect this has happened, the correct course of action is to make a formal complaint to the AGS, not to start a petition asking them to stop being criminals.

    So they've accused them of being criminals now is it? This is a campaign by them to have Limerick RC stop allowing their facilities to be used for something they (and many others) see as cruel.

    Welcome to democracy and freedom in the 21st Century.

    Enjoy your stay.


  • #223
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Its not the welfare of the animal that's of the utmost importance its the welfare of the sport.
    But if the welfare of the sport wasn't dependent on the welfare of the species, then (a) it wouldn't have been banned long ago, it would have died out when the hare went extinct after overhunting; (b) it wouldn't see the hare species benefiting as it has.

    It's like pheasants. Yes, wildfowlers shoot them and eat them every year; but for every one they shoot, they raise and release more and feed them as they grow. It means the species is safe from the endangered list at the cost of a few individuals being hunted for food.

    Also, the welfare of the herd (or the species) and the welfare of the individual animals aren't always in sync; for example, because of the lack of natural predators in this country, deer will breed until they exhaust the food supply and half of them starve to death that winter (this notion that animal species reach an equilibrium with their environment is correct, but it isn't a nice process in any way - it involves slow protracted indiscriminate death across the herd or species). On the other hand, a hunter shoots two or three deer and the whole herd survives. End result; more die if they're not hunted, but you don't see the hunter in Bambi being hailed as a saviour of the herd.

    None of this stuff is "nice" to think about and soundbites are easier when you can reference Disney, so we rarely see balance in these discussions.


  • #224
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Are you qualified to state that they've breached any laws or are you just giving your opinion?
    Section one of the Protection of Animals Act says:
    1.-(1) If any person –
    (a) shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate or terrify any animal, or shall cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act, or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or, being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal;
    ...
    such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act

    Exactly how much qualification do you believe is necessary to start that the word cruelty means the world cruelty?
    So they've accused them of being criminals now is it? This is a campaign by them to have Limerick RC stop allowing their facilities to be used for something they (and many others) see as cruel.
    Which would be in breach of section one of the act as outlined above.
    Welcome to democracy and freedom in the 21st Century.
    Enjoy your stay.
    And please read the rulebook, where it says that we believe in the rule of law and not the court of public opinion as being the preferred forum to solve criminal matters. We file complaints with the police and prosecute such cases in courts of law to obtain binding judgements.

    When you go to the court of public opinion, you are bypassing things like the need for evidence and logic and rational argument. If you need to do that... then perhaps we should not be listening at all.


  • #225
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sparks wrote: »
    But if the welfare of the sport wasn't dependent on the welfare of the species, then (a) it wouldn't have been banned long ago, it would have died out when the hare went extinct after overhunting; (b) it wouldn't see the hare species benefiting as it has.

    It's like pheasants. Yes, wildfowlers shoot them and eat them every year; but for every one they shoot, they raise and release more and feed them as they grow. It means the species is safe from the endangered list at the cost of a few individuals being hunted for food.

    This is the problem, you're confusing welfare of the species with welfare of the animal. The pheasant thats shot doesnt benefit, far from it. The Hare's welfare was never a concern to the sport, the welfare of the species might be because without hares there is no sport.

    The protection of the species is only a concern to hunter/sportspeoples when it threatens the sport in which those animals are exploited. That doesnt justify it, no more than it justifies cruelty to children by allowing a certain amount to be abused to keep the paedo's away from the school yards. Its a dud argument.
    Also, the welfare of the herd (or the species) and the welfare of the individual animals aren't always in sync; for example, because of the lack of natural predators in this country, deer will breed until they exhaust the food supply and half of them starve to death that winter (this notion that animal species reach an equilibrium with their environment is correct, but it isn't a nice process in any way - it involves slow protracted indiscriminate death across the herd or species). On the other hand, a hunter shoots two or three deer and the whole herd survives. End result; more die if they're not hunted, but you don't see the hunter in Bambi being hailed as a saviour of the herd.

    Keeping naturally wild herds in equilibrium so as to avoid mass suffering is not what Hare coursing does. You've drifted into a separate argument there which has no relevance to the previous one.
    None of this stuff is "nice" to think about and soundbites are easier when you can reference Disney, so we rarely see balance in these discussions.

    I'm not talking about Disney characters I'm talking about unnecessary cruelty to animals and in the case of Hare coursing it is unnecessary and cruel. And no matter how much you pat yourself on the back for protecting the species the fact remains its only protected to be exploited.


  • #226
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Sparks wrote: »
    Exactly how much qualification do you believe is necessary to start that the word cruelty means the world cruelty? When you go to the court of public opinion, you are bypassing things like the need for evidence and logic and rational argument. If you need to do that... then perhaps we should not be listening at all.

    They have stated that they believe it is cruelty. They are entitled to believe it is cruelty. If people want to say swatting flies is cruelty they can. You're confusing being prosecuted for cruelty with an opinion on cruelty.

    Also, the parameters of what is deemed cruel in a criminal sense shift. There's no reason why it wont shift to include hare terrifying for kicks and gambling coursing. If/when the day comes that hare coursing is outlawed does that mean it was never cruel? No it would mean that society's opinion on it has shifted and the law has followed accordingly.

    It used to be legal to keep slaves. Opinion shifted - then it was outlawed.

    That's how it works. Get used to it.


  • #227
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    They have stated that they believe it is cruelty. They are entitled to believe it is cruelty.
    Indeed they can; it's when they start accusing people of cruelty to animals that the problem arises because that's accusing named people of a criminal act without going through the hassle of an actual prosecution and conviction in the courts, which is what the Defamation Act prohibits.
    They have the money to pursue such a conviction - they have 80-odd grand in the bank - so if it is cruelty and they have evidence, why aren't they pursuing the conviction?
    There's no reason why it wont shift to include hare coursing.
    Indeed, and if that day comes, it'll be a different legal landscape and things will change, as they have changed before.
    But that day has not yet come.
    That's how it actually works. We don't ban behaviour today on the grounds that it might be illegal in the future. And when we see criminal behaviour today, we call the Gardai.

    Petitions are for calling for changes in legislation (and they have such petitions) - they are not for accusing people of illegal activity.


  • #228
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This is the problem, you're confusing welfare of the species with welfare of the animal.
    My entire point was based on not confusing the two and considering how one is traded off against the other. I suspect you misread my post, and reading the rest of your post just increases the strength of that suspicion.


  • #229
    dinemo6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 118 ✭✭dinemo6


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    The lengths people go to to try and justify unnecessary cruelty to animals for entertainment in unbelievable. Even to the point of thinking they are doing the things a fcukin favour.

    Its not the welfare of the animal that's of the utmost importance its the welfare of the sport. The welfare of the animals is a by product of having to fly under the radar of blatant animal abuse.

    And the pack you are referring to is called civilised society. Ignorant sports like this and the ignorant people who enjoy them are just slow to catch up with the rest of us who dont go out of our way to torment animals for the sheer hell of it.


    Your comment says so much about the mentality of your "pack" and I am more than happy to not be part of it!!!

    Roll on Autumn!!!!!!!


  • #230
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Why don't the Irish hunting lobby become more vocal on the issue of conservation if they're so interested it in it? Its bewildering to me why they dont as they would garner a lot more public and academic support. Also conservationalists would get what they want out of it too .


  • #231
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    ScumLord wrote: »
    The Hare doesn't get mauled or hit

    It clearly does. Granted, the word mauled may be misconstrued as 'ripping to shreds' but if you look at the definition mauled also means to be treated roughly.
    mauled past participle, past tense of maul (Verb)

    1. (of an animal) Wound (a person or animal) by scratching and tearing.
    2. Treat (someone or something) roughly.

    I'm guessing these guys are smart enough to know what they can and can't get away with saying.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sparks wrote: »
    My entire point was based on not confusing the two and considering how one is traded off against the other. I suspect you misread my post, and reading the rest of your post just increases the strength of that suspicion.

    Your entire post was about trading one off against the other as if they can be be. Mine was about how they cant be considering they are completely different things and simply protecting a species doesnt entitle you to exploit it.

    Perhaps if you weren't so keen to dismiss what I said your suspicions wouldnt be so unfounded.


  • #233
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Physics dictates that a larger object (dog) running into a smaller object (rabbit) is going to hurt it.


  • #234
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I'm not talking about Disney characters I'm talking about unnecessary cruelty to animals and in the case of Hare coursing it is unnecessary and cruel. And no matter how much you pat yourself on the back for protecting the species the fact remains its only protected to be exploited.
    If that's the case there would really need to be an alternative conservation project in place before coursing is banned. It would be Ironic is coursing was banned to protect the individual animals only for the species to go extinct.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Why don't the Irish hunting lobby become more vocal on the issue of conservation if they're so interested it in it? Its bewildering to me why they dont as they would garner a lot more public and academic support. Also conservationalists would get what they want out of it too .
    I'm sure they do but the press cherry picks the most extreme viewpoints and have no interest in a constructive public debate.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    It clearly does. Granted, the word mauled may be misconstrued as 'ripping to shreds' but if you look at the definition mauled also means to be treated roughly.



    I'm guessing these guys are smart enough to know what they can and can't get away with saying.
    Ok so technically according to the definition of the word they get mauled but like you say I had an image of the word "mauled" meaning gored to death. With that definition I don't think a slight mauling is that bad in the grand scheme of things.


  • #235
    ahnowbrowncow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭ahnowbrowncow


    Just saw this boards.ie main page. Is it just me that thinks it's a bit sad that the hunting crowd are trying to get more people to vote against the banning of hare coursing?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056891872


  • #236
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 13,760 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    dinemo6 wrote: »


    Your comment says so much about the mentality of your "pack" and I am more than happy to not be part of it!!!

    Roll on Autumn- HARE UP!!!!!!!

    Disgusting!


  • #237
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Why don't the Irish hunting lobby become more vocal on the issue of conservation if they're so interested it in it? Its bewildering to me why they dont as they would garner a lot more public and academic support. Also conservationalists would get what they want out of it too .
    I've never understood it; though the attacks on hunters by the ALF and the other extremist groups would give anyone pause before objecting to what they say in public. (Incidentally, when I say attacks, I don't mean public criticism, I mean actual attacks).

    And those attacks (in my mind at least) go a very long way to explaining the usual reaction of the fieldsports sector to criticism by animal welfare groups - because they've been tainted by the animal rights extremist groups they're associated with. Oddly, most people in fieldsports believe strongly in animal welfare. It's just that there's a very distinct distinction between animal rights and animal welfare and that gets brushed over most of the time as if it was some minor philosopical point about social contracts that was best relegated to university debates, instead of being the founding principle of law and conduct that it is (and that brushing over is another mindboggling thing that I don't understand at all).

    But at the end of the day, the fieldsports sector does more (in terms of money, time and effort expended) for conservation than any other group - be it state or NGO. And that's not something people tend to know, but that doesn't make it any less true.


  • #238
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ScumLord wrote: »
    If that's the case there would really need to be an alternative conservation project in place before coursing is banned. It would be Ironic is coursing was banned to protect the individual animals only for the species to go extinct.

    I'm sure they do but the press cherry picks the most extreme viewpoints and have no interest in a constructive public debate.

    Ok so technically according to the definition of the word they get mauled but like you say I had an image of the word "mauled" meaning gored to death. With that definition I don't think a slight mauling is that bad in the grand scheme of things.

    They dont deal with conservationalists. A few hunters who post here do but the hunting lobby in general dont and dont care, unlike the American hunting lobby for example. That's why im skeptical about Irish hunting groups to be honest.


  • #239
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    ahnowbrowncow wrote: »
    Just saw this boards.ie main page. Is it just me that thinks it's a bit sad that the hunting crowd are trying to get more people to vote against the banning of hare coursing?

    Is it a problem that they have a chance to vote on something that affects them directly?


  • #240
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Your entire post was about trading one off against the other as if they can be be.
    But they are, every day, in every species, ours included (what, you think that capitalism and communism aren't different tradeoffs between the welfare of the individual and the welfare of the herd?). So the idea that they cannot be traded off is one I would see as self-evidently false.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Ok so technically according to the definition of the word they get mauled but like you say I had an image of the word "mauled" meaning gored to death.

    I agree that the language is a bit emotive but I guess that's the nature of trying to garner support and influence public opinion. In this case I think using the word 'mauled' devalues the anti-hare coursing argument as people might find it misleading.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement