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…6791112…29

Comments

  • #242
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sparks wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not sure you're understanding of politics is up to much, I'm not aware of any trade off between the welfare of the herd at the expense of the protection of the rights of individuals not to be subjected to unnecessary cruelty which is what you're trying to justify in relation to animals. Communism and Capitalism differ in the priority of monetary well being not what you're on about.

    And to add, even if there was a trade off in some way how does that justify that same thing in relation everything else? I'm arguing justification here not that it is impossible to have such a trade off. Any trade off in societal terms would be a breach of an individuals basic human rights. It cant be justified, I dare say you wouldnt even attempt to justify it. So how is it perfectly fine in relation to animals ?


  • #243
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    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.

    It's a lot more serious than a mere inflection or idiom - they're accusing a named company of acts which are illegal. That's not something you do in a petition - it's something you do when swearing out a complaint to the Gardai to bring about a prosecution.

    There's a right way and a wrong way to change things in society that you don't agree with. The right way is to lobby TDs and seek changes in the law, and to garner support amongst the population for those changes.

    But that's not what this is; this is targeting a specific person or company and accusing them of breaking the law. It's not legal and it's not moral, any more than ALF sending incendiary devices to people through the post is, or vandalising property is, or releasing highly disruptive non-native predators into the local ecosystem is.


  • #244
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any trade off between the welfare of the herd at the expense of the protection of the rights of individuals not to be subjected to unnecessary cruelty
    You've added that part in bold there to my actual point, which is why you're not aware of such a tradeoff (though there are those who would argue that a system which ensures that some will always have more than others to the point of creating poverty and hunger was a form of unnecessary cruelty, our legislators included - that's the reason for social welfare, after all).
    Any trade off in societal terms would be a breach of an individuals basic human rights.
    ...
    So how is it perfectly fine in relation to animals ?
    Because animals don't have rights.

    And that's the deep distinction between animal welfare (which is what all of our laws are based on) and animal rights (which no country uses as a basis for law because it's not possible to have a legal system like that).


  • #245
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,788 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I'm not sure you're understanding of politics is up to much, I'm not aware of any trade off between the welfare of the herd at the expense of the protection of the rights of individuals not to be subjected to unnecessary cruelty which is what you're trying to justify in relation to animals. Communism and Capitalism differ in the priority of monetary well being not what you're on about.
    Capitalism is a system of everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest, it's very focused on the individual. Communism puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few. I would have thought that was common knowledge.
    And to add, even if there was a trade off in some way how does that justify that same thing in relation everything else? I'm arguing justification here not that it is impossible to have such a trade off. Any trade off in societal terms would be a breach of an individuals basic human rights. It cant be justified, I dare say you wouldnt even attempt to justify it. So how is it perfectly fine in relation to animals ?
    There's no justification necessary it's a fact of life. In the wild the sick animal is killed by a predator for the benefit of the prey species as a whole. The predator has essentially removed that weaker animals genes from that species making them stronger. It's not nice on an individual basis but it's good for life in general. It's the exact same in human culture. If the king is taking too much from the masses they will turn.

    Nature does not give one hoot for the individual, all that matters is the survival of the species.


  • #246
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    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.

    Conservation is an integral part of what hunters everywhere do.

    They do not go about raping and plundering the countryside, as some would have us believe, because they know how Nature works.

    Irish hunters work at parish level to protect wildlife and these type of people are do-ers, rather than talkers, so you will not hear about it a lot.

    The people I am talking about might be fine clearing weeds from a pond or feeding wildlife in cold winters or planting cover for birds when tracts of the country were getting covered in concrete: but many are modest types, who don't seek publicity in local papers etc and don't ask them to go on Twitter!


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    fathersymes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 558 ✭✭✭fathersymes


    Would the OP care to let us know whether or not he subscribes to the beliefs of Speciesism?


  • #248
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sparks wrote: »
    You've added that part in bold there to my actual point, which is why you're not aware of such a tradeoff (though there are those who would argue that a system which ensures that some will always have more than others to the point of creating poverty and hunger was a form of unnecessary cruelty, our legislators included - that's the reason for social welfare, after all).

    I didnt add it to your point at all, it is the point you were making. You mentioned Hare coursing and Pheasant shooting. Whatever about Hare coursing I'm sure even you cant try to claim that pheasant hunting which results in the shooting dead of pheasants after being scared out of their hiding place isnt cruel. The fact that its a sport means its unnecessary. You argue that hunting is a good trade off to keep the species alive so I've added nothing you havent said yourself.

    Because animals don't have rights.

    And that's the deep distinction between animal welfare (which is what all of our laws are based on) and animal rights (which no country uses as a basis for law because it's not possible to have a legal system like that).

    Animals the same as humans have whatever rights people are willing to extend to them, the law in itself is written by people dont forget and it varies from society to society. In recent years in the western world we have seen the welfare of animals protected under law. Why do you think that happened ? Because when argued it was impossible to justify needless cruelty to animals. There was no trade off in relation to clear cut animal abuse.

    In the case of certain sports they have changed it to limit the cruelty on the animals because of the changes in law. They changed to suit, the law didnt change to suit the sports so there was no trade off, just a shifting from the barbaric to the more civilised to avoid criminality.


  • #249
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Capitalism is a system of everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest, it's very focused on the individual. Communism puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few. I would have thought that was common knowledge.

    First of all you're not describing capitalism there, capitalism is based on private ownership and so on, not survival of the fittest. The western world is capitalist yet basic human rights are protected. Its not kill or be killed ffs. They differ in terms of the control the state can have, not trade offs between human rights as was being argued.
    There's no justification necessary it's a fact of life. In the wild the sick animal is killed by a predator for the benefit of the prey species as a whole. The predator has essentially removed that weaker animals genes from that species making them stronger. It's not nice on an individual basis but it's good for life in general. It's the exact same in human culture. If the king is taking too much from the masses they will turn.

    In the wild nothing, this isnt the wild, its civilised society. We cannot act as animals do in the wild, it doesnt work for us.
    Nature does not give one hoot for the individual, all that matters is the survival of the species.

    And we are not nature, we are human beings capable of giving a hoot. We live by the laws of our society which prohibits us acting like animals. So this whole "nature is cruel" thing is just one more nonsense argument. People dont torment animals because nature is cruel, they do it out of ignorance.


  • #250
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I didnt add it to your point at all, it is the point you were making. You mentioned Hare coursing and Pheasant shooting. Whatever about Hare coursing I'm sure even you cant try to claim that pheasant hunting which results in the shooting dead of pheasants after being scared out of their hiding place isnt cruel. The fact that its a sport means its unnecessary. You argue that hunting is a good trade off to keep the species alive so I've added nothing you havent said yourself.
    ...and you've just gone and accused every wildfowler out there of breaking the Protection of Animals Act, section one.

    Animals the same as humans have whatever rights people are willing to extend to them, the law in itself is written by people dont forget and it varies from society to society.
    And in no state today do animals have rights.
    And the whole point of rights is that they come with duties; you obey the law, and the law provides and protects certain rights. That's the basic, fundamental principle. Animals aren't capable of entering into that social contract, so, no rights.

    Put it another way. Let's say you give animals rights. The first right, the one on which all others are based, is the right to life. So we stop killing food animals overnight. Okay, now what about the carnivores?

    Do we expect animals who have neither the teeth nor the digestive tract to eat plant proteins to just lie down and die? And when the carnivores start killing animals to survive, will we arrest them or just say that animal rights only apply when looking at how animals interact with humans, in which case they're not rights at all, but something else and we should stop calling them rights.

    The whole concept is so fundamentally flawed from its inception that no state has ever used it as a basis for law, nor could they ever do so.

    In recent years in the western world we have seen the welfare of animals protected under law.
    Yes, welfare. Which is a completely different thing entirely. Look at the Protection of Animals Act. It's based on the concept of animal welfare - it says no unnecessary cruelty, but it has no prohibition whatsoever on food animals or animals being used to carry loads or to entertain or to be pets.
    In the case of certain sports they have changed it to limit the cruelty on the animals because of the changes in law. They changed to suit, the law didnt change to suit the sports so there was no trade off, just a shifting from the barbaric to the more civilised to avoid criminality.
    Two important points here, please note them:
    1. The law changed first. Then people followed the new law. That's how it works. Our current law is obeyed until it changes; and it currently states that what ICABS is saying with this petition is defamation of Limerick Racecourse by accusing them of breaking the law without proof. If your argument is that the law must be obeyed, then you're not only arguing my point, you're arguing against this petition and its ilk. We have a different way to change our laws; this isn't it.
    2. You say a shift from the barbaric to the civilised. I say I've seen what industrial food production in the "civilised" age looks like and frankly, I think the life lived by game animals before they are hunted is a far more humane one. And if shooting a fox is needed so we can have free range chicken instead of battery farmed chicken, then I say that's the more humane thing to do. This whole Barbarism-v-Civilisation idea is one that's rooted in ignorance of the facts (especially given what the word Barbarian actually means and what it meant in context when coined).


  • #251
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    ...

    1. You say a shift from the barbaric to the civilised. I say I've seen what industrial food production in the "civilised" age looks like and frankly, I think the life lived by game animals before they are hunted is a far more humane one. And if shooting a fox is needed so we can have free range chicken instead of battery farmed chicken, then I say that's the more humane thing to do. This whole Barbarism-v-Civilisation idea is one that's rooted in ignorance of the facts (especially given what the word Barbarian actually means and what it meant in context when coined).
    Another thing some people have difficulty with is that hunters actually respect what they hunt.

    Hunters are not simple consumers. The Irish Red Grouse is a classic example of this, when the money to maintain their habitat disappeared along with the British landlords.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Sparks wrote: »
    ...and you've just gone and accused every wildfowler out there of breaking the Protection of Animals Act, section one.

    I didnt accuse anyone of anything merely stated my opinion that killing for sport is unnecessary and cruel. Which it is.
    And in no state today do animals have rights.
    And the whole point of rights is that they come with duties; you obey the law, and the law provides and protects certain rights. That's the basic, fundamental principle. Animals aren't capable of entering into that social contract, so, no rights.

    Put it another way. Let's say you give animals rights. The first right, the one on which all others are based, is the right to life. So we stop killing food animals overnight. Okay, now what about the carnivores?

    Do we expect animals who have neither the teeth nor the digestive tract to eat plant proteins to just lie down and die? And when the carnivores start killing animals to survive, will we arrest them or just say that animal rights only apply when looking at how animals interact with humans, in which case they're not rights at all, but something else and we should stop calling them rights.

    The whole concept is so fundamentally flawed from its inception that no state has ever used it as a basis for law, nor could they ever do so.

    Yeah, I was arguing that animals should be represented in government. :rolleyes:
    Yes, welfare. Which is a completely different thing entirely. Look at the Protection of Animals Act. It's based on the concept of animal welfare - it says no unnecessary cruelty, but it has no prohibition whatsoever on food animals or animals being used to carry loads or to entertain or to be pets.

    Their definition of cruelty isnt the bases for every view of cruelty. It will change in time as most laws do. People dont take their moral cue from legislation, legislation takes its cue from the people and theirs morals change over time. Personally I see a lot of things as unnecessarily cruel that that legislation wouldnt cover for one political or economic reason or another.
    Two important points here, please note them:
    1. The law changed first. Then people followed the new law. That's how it works. Our current law is obeyed until it changes; and it currently states that what ICABS is saying with this petition is defamation of Limerick Racecourse by accusing them of breaking the law without proof. If your argument is that the law must be obeyed, then you're not only arguing my point, you're arguing against this petition and its ilk. We have a different way to change our laws; this isn't it.
    2. You say a shift from the barbaric to the civilised. I say I've seen what industrial food production in the "civilised" age looks like and frankly, I think the life lived by game animals before they are hunted is a far more humane one. And if shooting a fox is needed so we can have free range chicken instead of battery farmed chicken, then I say that's the more humane thing to do. This whole Barbarism-v-Civilisation idea is one that's rooted in ignorance of the facts (especially given what the word Barbarian actually means and what it meant in context when coined).

    I know the law changed first, I stated that very thing. Laws are open to change, and I have no doubt they will in regards the welfare of animals. If the law prohibits unnecessary cruelty to animals then its a civic duty (animals cant be relied on as you say) to stop such a thing if you believe it to be going on.

    Considering the topic at hand and how the law has changed the sport to prohibit the rather nasty death of the Hare in the tradition sport then its a pretty valid statement to say its less barbaric now. Arguing semantics isnt really gonna change it to be honest.


  • #253
    augustus gloop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭augustus gloop


    Seachmall wrote: »
    Not watching a terrified animal get ripped apart for enjoyment makes Bambi a better person.


    If it was done to a dog in a garden by one man with a knife we call it animal abuse and demand he be locked up.

    If it's done to a hare on a racecourse by 50 men with dogs we call it sport and let it continue.
    show me anywhere you can find a hare getting "ripped apart", utter tripe, to compare it to a man with a knife is moronic, not even remotely similar. never heard such tree hugging tripe


  • #254
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Another thing some people have difficulty with is that hunters actually respect what they hunt.

    Hunters are not simple consumers. The Irish Red Grouse is a classic example of this, when the money to maintain their habitat disappeared along with the British landlords.

    Every hunter I know (wont tar them all with the same brush though) is more interested in trophies and stories than conservation or animal welfare. A lot of them are from the by gone days where animal cruelty wasnt an issue but the younger ones dont seem any different to me. I havent encountered these noble hunters you speak of. Just people who like shooting things then bragging about it.


  • #255
    Cocolola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 606 ✭✭✭Cocolola


    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?

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

    Well it's fair enough I guess.

    What annoys me though is the constant "Feckin Dubs, city slickers don't know a thing about the countryside, rabble rabble, uneducated fools think it's all daisys" etc. statements that are thrown around time and time again. I've lived all my life in the countryside and am against bloodsports, as are my immediate and extended family who all live in rural areas.

    I don't understand why firstly, it's assumed that all antis are urban dwellers and secondly, why a city person's opinion on the matter is irrelevant? I don't partake in murder or torture, am I not allowed to have the opinion that they are wrong and are justifiably illegal?


  • #256
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    Every hunter I know (wont tar them all with the same brush though) is more interested in trophies and stories than conservation or animal welfare. A lot of them are from the by gone days where animal cruelty wasnt an issue but the younger ones dont seem any different to me. I havent encountered these noble hunters you speak of. Just people who like shooting things then bragging about it.

    You say you won't tar all hunters with the same brush, then say you haven't encountered the hunters I speak of:

    If no-one did any conservation work and just shot everything, then there would be very little left.

    As it is, we live in a bountiful country, but it needs to be conserved.

    Anyway, this is a bit off topic.....


  • #257
    Cavan duck buster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 386 ✭✭Cavan duck buster


    Pols aren't going to change anything,
    All you people have no idea what the countryside is like,
    If you's lived on farms in the country, do real work other than working indoors all your life, get the fresh air that is needed to keep a healthy mind them you wouldn't be bragging on about something that you hate and have no idea about!!!

    Why bother try and change something that will always be done?


  • #258
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Cocolola wrote: »
    I don't understand why firstly, it's assumed that all antis are urban dwellers and secondly, why a city person's opinion on the matter is irrelevant?

    Usually those who are against foxes being shot etc. are from the town..at least in my experience and have no clue about the realities of lambs and poultry being taken by them or even how farms operate in general.

    A few months ago in a thread like this on AH I questioned how a person who was aginst foxes being shot would protect sheep etc. Their answer was to build a wall around the entire farm...it that doesn't typify the ignorance people harbour about farming I don't know what does. I live in the town but I've been on farms and understand that just because I don't have a problem with foxes here doesn't mean they're not an issue for farmers and need to be dealt with. Wildlife isn't like the Animals of Farthing Wood no matter how much people would wish it so.


  • #259
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Ive no problem with hunting as long as the hunter consumes what he kills, or sells it on.

    As for watching an animal being tortured for someones pleasure or so they can bet on it, ill have to pass on that one. Id imagine it takes a certain type of person to feel zero empathy for another living creature being subjected to what is a terrifying experience.

    Just because im a meat eater, doesnt mean i want to go watch the animals being slaughtered. But if push came to shove and i had no alternative, id have to slaughter an animal.

    I dont agree with blood sports, and hare coursing to me is a blood sport, i could care less if someone says its not. Muzzle or no muzzle, you can be sure there is blood spilled. Id no sooner like to see a child be mauled by a dog muzzled than i would a hare.


  • #260
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    You say you won't tar all hunters with the same brush, then say you haven't encountered the hunters I speak of:

    Because I havent, I didnt say they dont exist I'm saying I havent met any.
    If no-one did any conservation work and just shot everything, then there would be very little left.

    As it is, we live in a bountiful country, but it needs to be conserved.

    Anyway, this is a bit off topic.....

    People down this way tend to conserve their own thing. Estates are kept by whoever runs the estates, farms by the farmers, and people keep their own thing. Any big patch of wild land is usually entrusted to some organisation or anything that conserves it. All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.


  • #261
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Blay wrote: »
    Usually those who are against foxes being shot etc. are from the town..at least in my experience and have no clue about the realities of lambs and poultry being taken by them or even how farms operate in general.

    A few months ago in a thread like this on AH I questioned how a person who was aginst foxes being shot would protect sheep etc. Their answer was to build a wall around the entire farm...it that doesn't typify the ignorance people harbour about farming I don't know what does. I live in the town but I've been on farms and understand that just because I don't have a problem with foxes here doesn't mean they're not an issue for farmers and need to be dealt with. Wildlife isn't like the Animals of Farthing Wood no matter how much people would wish it so.

    Whats a farmer shooting a predator got to do with hare coursing?

    He is protecting his livelihood, he is not going out shooting foxes for fun!


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    Whats a farmer shooting a predator got to do with hare coursing?

    He is protecting his livelihood, he is not going out shooting foxes for fun!

    The poster was talkign about the town/country divide. Foxes being shot is the most common complaint you hear on threads like these. Farmers don't shoot foxes themselves., generally they have hunters do it for them.
    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

    What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.


  • #263
    clashburke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭clashburke


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

    do you mean lawfully enter a farmers land with permission to hunt/shoot vermin??


  • #264
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Blay wrote: »
    What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.

    I seen them killing things, I'd be willing to bet they were killing things. They were on someone elses property, safe bet it wasnt theirs. Havent seen them do much else. So yanno, I might tend to go with the things I actually seen with my own two eyes rather than whatever mystical thing you might think could have happened.


  • #265
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I seen them killing things, I'd be willing to bet they were killing things. They were on someone elses property, safe bet it wasnt theirs. Havent seen them do much else. So yanno, I might tend to go with the things I actually seen with my own two eyes rather than whatever mystical thing you might think could have happened.

    That's generally what hunters do..they aren't there to have tea with the rabbit/fox/pheasent.

    You're aware hunters can get permission from land owners to shoot on their land and that your local Superintendent and every other one in the country licences firearms for just this reason? How do you know the landowner didn't give them permission?


  • #266
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    clashburke wrote: »
    do you mean lawfully enter a farmers land with permission to hunt/shoot vermin??

    That makes it conservation does it ?


  • #267
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Blay wrote: »
    That's generally what hunters do..they aren't there to have tea with the rabbit/fox/pheasent.

    So what was with this ?
    What you see and what actually takes place are two different things.


  • #268
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Artful_Badger wrote: »



    People down this way tend to conserve their own thing. Estates are kept by whoever runs the estates, farms by the farmers, and people keep their own thing. Any big patch of wild land is usually entrusted to some organisation or anything that conserves it. All I ever seen hunters do poke about other peoples property killing things.

    While we're still on the subject of hunting......Estates involved with hunting charge for the privilege and use some of the income for conservation - correct.
    Farmers work with the likes of gun clubs in reciprocal arrangements and gun clubs were funded to do this from a % of national gun licence fees until 1985, since when they have to spend their own resources.
    And there are the government agencies who oversee wild land, as you say, where hunters have to pay to shoot on them.

    The final category you mention are what we call poachers.


  • #269
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    That makes it conservation does it ?

    You don't conserve vermin. It's game birds(pheasent, woodcock, duck etc.) that hunters help to conserve by rearing chicks, feeding them, providing cover for them and allowing those they don't shoot to spread out when the season is over.


  • #270
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,461 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    So what was with this ?

    Just because you didn't see them raise and feed the pheasents doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    Foxes and rabbits are generally shot as a favour for the farmer for letting you use their land.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Blay wrote: »
    You don't conserve vermin. It's game birds(pheasent, woodcock, duck etc.) that hunters help to conserve by rearing chicks, feeding them, providing cover for them and allowing those they don't shoot to spread out when the season is over.

    Whatever pheasants are in the area usually get shot in hunting season, thats why they have to release more the next year. They dont conserve anything, they just kill what they can while they can and do whatever they can to enable them to do so. Less of a shít could these people give about other peoples property if there was nothing to kill on it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement