Can The Hare Survive The Ban

[»Tina«]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

hi tina, poison or gas? how could you possibly gas or poison a hare. more hares are shot each year than are killed by coursing and this has always been the case, and so will remain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sparky, I was on about if the anti's got guns banned, then the hare's would be trapped, gassed or poisioned, sorry for the confusion :b

Mark the point is when you shoot the hare's even though the numbers maybe the same (for now), how do you know if your taking out the strongest/healthiest hare's?,

well you don't do you, so in that case if you are shooting the fittest, the weak/ill ones will then maybe not be able to breed or pass on illness, therefore the decline in hares is enevitable (sp) in the end

 

[mally]

i think you will all agree that the picture below is much kinder to the eye than all the shot hares in the picture above.

people may think i'm a little two faced, but i'm not i hate hare shoots and believe that a hare is to be coursed not shot.

But i do have a job to do and if the boss wants a hare shoot, then i have to bite my tongue and give him a hare shoot.

the photo was taken before the ban of course!!

 

[~whitecross whippets~]

To me this another spectacular own goal by Antis.

I think were missing the point from what I have seen on TV the antis are not concerned with animal welfare more concerned that you may enjoy hunting. They also see it as class issue. I also believe that lots of them are just along for the 'excitement' of demonstrating rather than any true beliefs.

All hares culled because of the ban should be recorded, and then made public, I,m sure the league against cruel sports will be choking on humble pie, the public would be horrified

If we did that all we would do is add ammunition to antis to start on a gun ban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

but even if they did manage to get guns banned, it would be poison or gas then, I think the amount of hares shot should be recorded, and put out for the public, then we would see REAL uproar!

the anti's are also trying to get my hobby banned (keeping reptiles), it makes me sick :rant: because if they succeed ALL captive reptiles will be culled!! and they don't stop there too, it's ALL caged animals also they are trying to ban,

 

they would rather have your kids hamster/rabbit/mouse/rat etc, taken off them and put to sleep than let them live out thier short lives happy/fed/watered/loved! :rant:

 

my kids would have nightmares for weeks, knowing that the anti's KILLED thier beloved pets all because they are confined, :rant:

well what will be next? put to sleep the old people who are confined to thier beds or wheel chairs or people who are in a mental hospital because they are confined 24/7!!?

makes my blood boil!!! the stupid people :rant: :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

just thought this may interest you ...one of many views on the keeping of pets from vegans(yes i used to be a vegan long ago before i saw the light :b )i am now fully reformed :lol:

Do you keep pets?

Many vegans do, but personally I am completely against keeping animals. Never mind these poor King Penguins you see on Nature programmes - huddled together tightly, standing with their backs to the freezing Antarctic blizzard. The domestic pet is surely the most pitiable animal ever!

Once upon a time someone decided it would be a good idea to offer an animal food, shelter and safety in exchange for their contact and company. Symbiosis does occur in Nature, but with domestic pets it has become a very one-sided bargain. We restrict our pets' space and contact with others of their species. We tamper with their genitals and deprive them of their sex-life. They often have to lead the most boring existences, and we expect them to be ready to comfort or entertain us at any time. Pedigree breeds often suffer genetic diseases as a direct result of the way their species has been engineered. The most popular pet, the intelligent dog, has perhaps fifteen years of life. It is awful to watch a pet grow old and die so quickly. How sad also to think a dog might notice it is ageing at a much faster rate than its owner.

Ask yourself why people do keep pets and you will see a variety of unsatisfactory answers which tell us a lot about how sad our society is. For company. For entertainment. For security (large dogs). For their beauty (fish). Because it says something about my personality (snakes).

What about rescuing strays?

In the short term this is a loving act which saves a life. In the long term it just perpetuates the problem. Only the worst kind of people abandon pets, but put yourself in their place for a moment. You want to get rid of your dog, but that little speck of compassion in you says it is wrong. No problem - just take it to the pound and eventually someone will give it a home!

An interesting question for stray owners is, “How would you feel if there were no strays anywhere?” Would you feel totally delighted, or would you feel a tinge of sadness at the loss in your life and eventually go out and buy from a pet store?

 

[»Tina«]

that's the big thing that vegans don't seem to be able to get thier heads around,

domestic pet = totally 'unaware' of there wild ansestree (sp) so don't know any other life therefore are content

now this is what I don't believe in, taking a wild animal and keeping it as a pet, also freeing a captive bred animal into the wild, none would survive IMHO, and would be very unhappy.

and I keep my pets because I love them, its got nothing to do with my personality, company, beauty, etc.

just my point of view btw :thumbsup:

 

[~whitecross whippets~]

that's the big thing that vegans don't seem to be able to get thier heads around,
domestic pet = totally 'unaware' of there wild ansestree (sp) so don't know any other life therefore are content

now this is what I don't believe in, taking a wild animal and keeping it as a pet, also freeing a captive bred animal into the wild, none would survive IMHO, and would be very unhappy.

and I keep my pets because I love them, its got nothing to do with my personality, company,  beauty, etc.

just my point of view btw  :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i totally agree :thumbsup:

 

[Mark Roberts]

At the end of the day Coursing was only ever done for pleasure! to test the dogs 1 against the other, it was never pest control and as shooting is done for pleasure the only differance is they are shot rather than run and more will be killed.

Mark the point is when you shoot the hare's even though the numbers maybe the same (for now), how do you know if your taking out the strongest/healthiest hare's?, well you don't do you, so in that case if you are shooting the fittest, the weak/ill ones will then maybe not be able to breed or pass on illness, therefore the decline in hares is enevitable (sp) in the end

seeing as very few hares are killed if at all any during a days coursing then the weakest are still going to survive to breed on.

therefore the decline in hares is enevitable (sp) in the end

I bet the same rubbish was spouted when they banned Badger baiting? "now have badgers become extinct?"

Don't get me wronge i'd love to see the Government do a U-turn and legalise Hare Coursing again, but lets deal in facts not emotional fiction.

Thanks for the Offer of the Hare shoot Mally, i'd of definatly come down for the shoot if I hadn't already had plans to go the dogs for my birthday maybe next time. :thumbsup:

 

[chillitt]

oh how i would love to see the antis falling foul of the new glorification of terrorism law...

 

[nigelmcfc]

Hare shoots have always p----d me off , even before the ban. As a courser the sight of over 100 hares shot is a bloody waste. I know in some areas they are in pest type quantities, but I`d rather run em anyday . I`m not and have never been a shooter so maybe I`m a bit prejudiced.

As I`ve said before people will always course hares no matter what the law says , for some it is in the blood......

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

oh how i would love to see  the antis falling foul of the new glorification of terrorism law...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The goverment would not do anything against the anti's as they don't with terrorist's because that takes backbone & as you all should know by now the labour party is spineless IMO

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

Hare shoots have always p----d me off , even before the ban. As a courser the sight of over 100 hares shot is a bloody waste. I know in some areas they are in pest type quantities, but I`d rather run em anyday . I`m not and have never been a shooter  so maybe I`m a bit prejudiced.As I`ve said before people will always course hares no matter what the law says , for some it is in the blood......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree Nigel all you need is a good dog a gun with you & a witness :- "

 

[masta]

Taken from the National Coursing Club website this just part of a very well written statement from Sir Mark Prescott

MADNESS, MADNESS – MADNESS”

by Sir Mark Prescott

How many hours did Parliament devote to debating the war in Iraq? The answer is 41 hours. How many have died since that war began? If you believe independent sources 220,000 men, women and children.

How many hours did Parliament devote to debating the war in Afghanistan? The answer is 22 hours. How many human beings have died since that war began? If you believe the same independent sources again, it is in excess of 70,000 men, women and children.

How many hours have Parliament devoted to debating “Hunting with Dogs”? Answer: 700 hours. How many hares died coursing last year (wait for it) exactly 169!

If you told the Man on the Moon that 700 hours of Parliamentary time were devoted to 169 hares and only 63 hours to killing 290,000 human beings, he would scarcely believe you.

If you then described how, after 700 hours of debate and deep consideration, the Mother of all Parliaments, incorporating presumably the finest brains in the Kingdom, had fine tuned and honed a Bill, to such an extent that it had resulted in it being legal to kill a rabbit but illegal to kill a hare, the Man on the Moon would think you were joking.

If you then explained that such an offence would incur a £5,000 fine or 6 months in prison, but that almost no politician, few policemen and certainly not a dog in the world can tell the difference between a hare and a rabbit, the Man on the Moon would surely be convinced he was the victim of an elaborate joke.

Famously a BBC newsreader, some years ago, having introduced without comment footage of a Garda policeman’s dying body, partially covered by a tarpaulin, with blood pumping down the gutter, prefaced the next news item with the words “What you are about to see now, may prove disturbing” and proceeded to show footage of the Waterloo Cup. But what really is disturbing is that probably that newsreader was right to issue a warning, for modern man is so divorced, by supermarket packaging and cellophane, from the realities of nature and animal husbandry that the sight of two dogs pursuing a hare as Nature has decreed for the last 4,000 years probably is distressing.

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

That says it all Masta this bunny hugging goverment value's animal life above human life

 

[Max&Smokey]

Masta,

Its a lovely piece but as an argument its flawed. The low number of hours means agreement in principle of the bill by the majority. The high number of hours for hunting was because it was evenly split and the against the bill they used the tactic of trying to make the bill run out of time so as to not enable it to become law.

Interestingly a recent government enquiry concluded that there are more people going hunting and more foxes have been killed post ban . They attribute this to people enjoying doing something they see as fine thats illegal adds to the excitement.

So I think the best thing to do is ignore the ban and let it disappear into history as a huge waste of effort.

I really think that pictures of large numbers of dead animals to prove a point just turns more people off.

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

Thought in a fair debate we should get a view from a anti

Name:

Hometown: liverpool

where i live there are a number of people hunting foxes with lurchers and terriers i have approached these thugs on a number of occasions but i just get threatened they have killed my cats put dog poo on my lawn let down my moped tyres ripped the hood off my anorak(wich was new).they have even daubed YOU QUEER TWAT outside my flat and chased my boyfriend away.Iam at my wits end just do not know what to do for the best.Im even contemplainting getting a lurcher just to fit in a bit any advice from anyone would be helpfull

Name:Jack

Ah I think humans are the ones that need to be controlled, there's way too many of us. I love foxes and don't really understand the haters who waste their time coming to pro-fox sites to try upset us with their garbage

love to see that there are people who care about Foxes, Hares and nature in Ireland. But please keep the places wher you observe them a BIG secret when I read this guestbook I see there are a lot of crazy and sadistic people surfing on your wonderful website!!!Natural balance is completely f****d up by people who are hunter for "sport"

BAN BLOODSPORTS AND ANIMALABUSE.

And remember :

PEOPLE WHO ARE VIOLENT AGAINST ANIMALS

RARELY STOP THERE

Any reply's welcome

 

[Pennymeadow Whippets]

Just found this thought this was worth a look

Anti turns pro: name removed

16 February, 2006

Former chief officer of the League Against Cruel Sports Graham Sirl speaks frankly to H&H about life with LACS and why he changed his views on hunting

Subscribe to H&H for just £1.43 a copy >>

“LACS has achieved nothing — they've had their opportunity and hunting with hounds will never, ever be banned in this country,” says Graham Sirl emphatically.

“One year on, nothing's changed. Hunting will continue as it is until the next change in government. The Conservatives have already said they'll bring back hunting in a free vote, and I think they will come in at the next election and we'll be back to square one in five years' time.”

On a frosty, sunny morning last week, Sirl arrives — for H&H photography purposes — at a meet of the New Forest foxhounds.

The last hunt he attended was five years ago, as an anti, and he is greeted with several sidelong glances — until joint-master Paul Ames comes up to greet the ex-LACS chief officer and manager of the Barronsdown deer sanctuary on Exmoor.

“I'll shake your hand on this occasion, Mr Sirl,” says Paul.

Speaking out

In 2001, two months after an acrimonious departure from LACS, Sirl wrote a letter to the local press stating that a hunting ban would do nothing for animal welfare. In the footsteps of former LACS chief executives Richard Course and Jim Barrington, he had displayed a dramatic U-turn after years of what he describes as “boring people stupid about LACS and the campaign 24/7”.

After 22 years working against hunting, he said in his letter: “I now believe hunting with hounds plays an integral part in the management system of deer on Exmoor and the Quantocks.”

But in the five years that followed his departure, he has not once written nor spoken to the media — until now.

“I was asked by LACS not to speak to the media,” he reveals. “I've wanted to pick up a pen or the phone many times, but I've not felt the time was right. It is now, one year on from the ban.”

Back at the meet, he studies the hounds, deep in thought. He pats a hound.

“I miss watching hounds work — people probably can't understand that I used to love watching them work on a line,” he says.

In the beginning

A former carpet salesman, Sirl saw his first hunt in 1980, and began his involvement with LACS, on a voluntary basis, shortly after.

“I'd never seen a hunt before that, despite growing up in Salisbury and then the New Forest,” he says.

That first visit grew into a hobby — days spent following local hunts, taking pictures, observing and learning about them. He started to volunteer for LACS, “distributing car stickers and things like that”, and slowly became engulfed by the organisation — which he describes as close to a “cult”.

Soon, Sirl became a regional rep, giving statements to local media, taking part in debates and giving talks — drumming up support for the crusade against field sports.

“I spent a fortune on books and now have a big library of old hunting books — we used to score a lot of points in debates,” he says. “For the first time, the hunting fraternity came up against people who had done their homework.”

Moving on

He moved to the West Country, taking up a paid position managing the LACS sanctuaries and running local operations.

“It was quite an eye-opener, seeing hunting operate down there — I could see the excitement of riding after a pack of hounds,” says Sirl, who used to ride and keep horses himself.

He renovated the businesses and employed local staff — such as the now high-profile Kevin Hill and Peter White. Then, following Jim Barrington's well-publicised departure, he was asked by the LACS committee to take over as temporary chief officer — a role he continued for three years. During this time, he began to observe a change.

“The atmosphere in the London office was dreadful,” he says. “Staff members were tearing each other apart.”

Question time

As chief officer — a role he shared part of the time with John Bryan — Graham Sirl was involved with the Campaign to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA), established by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), RSPCA and LACS to co-ordinate the campaign to ban hunting. It was this, together with his involvement with the Burns Inquiry in 1999, that made him begin to question the groups' intentions.

“I used to go to a lot of CPHA meetings — some were really strange,” he remembers. “We had lobster and prawn sandwiches at one and I remember thinking 'Christ, if the membership could see what we're eating and we're discussing anti-hunt campaigns'. And we'd have meetings in places like the Liberal Club and Horseguards Hotel — it was never in the village hall down the road.”

The CPHA helped put together the Mike Foster Bill — which is precisely when the alarm bells began to ring with Graham Sirl.

“There was still a clause in the Bill allowing hounds to flush to guns — they were just doing away with one method of killing the fox, deer or hare,” he explains. “I had a meeting with Mike Foster to explain to him what flushing out meant, but he said 'sorry, it's too late'.

“The Bill didn't get through, and we moved on to the next one, but flushing out was still included in that, too. I repeated my view that this was about hunting and not animal welfare, but I just upset people — I had no support from IFAW and the RSPCA.”

He adds: “It was rumoured at the time that a few clauses in the Mike Foster Bill were to keep some of the backbenchers happy who were frightened of their seats going — particularly in Wales.”

Time to go

Then, on a last cast before he had to resign from LACS, Sirl joined the Burns Inquiry team.

“I was invited to go to events such as hare coursing near Andover and hunting in the Lake District — I met wonderful people and talked to the people involved in hunting and learnt a lot,” he recalls. “I remember going to a meet of the Duke of Beaufort's, where I was made very welcome. But I always remember feeling Kevin Hill's camera lens on me — he was working for IFAW at the time and tried to make it look like I was going over to the other side. But I did my job and filed my report.”

In reality, Sirl was changing his opinion. He felt LACS had lost direction — “strayed away from animal protection” — and staff and volunteers turned against him.

After the Burns Inquiry, he resigned from LACS after a company lawyer pointed the finger at him for distributing letters over inappropriate use of funds.

“To this day I defend myself. I was never allowed to see the solicitor's report, nor defend myself against it,” he says, going on to describe the sour feeling he has towards the organisation that forced him out.

Achieving a balance

“I despise the people who put the Hunting Bill forward, I despise those organisations [LACS, RSPCA and IFAW] that threw money at that campaign for an end that was absolutely zero. As far as I'm concerned, I wasted 20 years. They had the opportunity, it was given to them on a plate and they blew it.”

Five years on, Graham Sirl is back in the New Forest, running two antique shops with his partner, as well as a private hire business.

“I think hunting offers a balance in the countryside — if I could see it being done effectively as a management tool, I'd be happy,” he says. “I was a Labour party member until five years ago, but I lost faith.

“There's a rebellion going on about some of the bills it's pushed through, and hunting is the one that broke the camel's back.”