Poachers

[Rasher]

I'm sure he won't have an issue finding beaters badfeet, simply because most of us don't believe lurchers and deer is a humane method of putting deer in the chiller. Even the staghounds with a pack the dogs don't do the killing and as a method of deer control it is so outdated its untrue. Rasher you won't ever convince Ritchie poachers and dogs after deer is a bad thing and I can't work out whether its because he is someone who does it or whether he just enjoys stirring.

 

Al4x

 

I have no concerns regarding poor old Richie, he's way out of his depth. Personally I believe him to be a wannabe on both counts. Still it whiled a way an hour this afternoon whilst I baby sat. Here at home and on the board.

[BADFEET]

I'm sure he won't have an issue finding beaters badfeet, simply because most of us don't believe lurchers and deer is a humane method of putting deer in the chiller. Even the staghounds with a pack the dogs don't do the killing and as a method of deer control it is so outdated its untrue. Rasher you won't ever convince Ritchie poachers and dogs after deer is a bad thing and I can't work out whether its because he is someone who does it or whether he just enjoys stirring.

 

No matey, very true....he wont have an issue.

And I accept some folk dont like this paticular type of hound work BUT there are lots of people out there who dont accept any type of fieldsports at all.....dont make them right does it

[Crouch valley]

Badfeet how wrong you could be im not narrow minded or spiteful I can just do with out people like that on my shoot. The next thing he will be telling other like minded people and the next thing im over run with long dogs. As for kissing his **** I don't think so there is five people waiting to step into his shoes but thanks for your concern. As far as Im concerned its wrong you wont change my mind like I wont change yours.

[Richie10]

Rasher,

Other than saying it's my complete lack of knowledge and skirting round the issue, saying you have answered my questions, you have just quoted the same thing. You can keep trying to throw insults but it comes down to this, you cannot justify why one sport is ethical and the other isn't.

Your friends son, do you have the same issue with him and the beagles? If so why not? Tell me why it is perfectly OK for Beagles to chase Hares but not other dogs. Are you saying Beagles don't distress Hares/Rabbits or do they follow a scent so in fact they aren't hunting but walking their dogs? As for the Staghounds and Buckhounds we know what happens, it's not always the way it goes to plan.

 

As for the CA membership going up after the Ban, people thought joining the organisation would mean a repeal to the ban. The only people that have carried on even with the ban is the hound packs, now why is that? To assume it all goes to the book is naive again. I applaud them for carrying on.

 

Memberships of these groups will go up especially now as what do most of them offer? Insurance. Now in todays world you have to be insured before many people will let you onto land. Look at your recent thread on paid stalking, everyone that offers stalking insists on insurance. You will find that there hasn't been an increase in people taking up countrysports but more people joining organisations to represent them against pressure groups and for insurance. Just look at the change in the magazines from 10 years ago to now, there has never been so many group advertising for you to join.

 

Alex,

This discussion has moved from poaching to the question of ethics which still hasn't been answered, why is it wrong to take deer with dogs however it is fine to shoot farmed foreign driven birds, ferreting, beagling, falconry etc? Cruelty is involved with all these things intentional or not, so why is it crueler for one animal but not the other?

 

Rasher,

I assume falconry is next to ban, you surely cannot agree with taking Hares with birds of prey?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Richie10

[BADFEET]

Badfeet how wrong you could be im not narrow minded or spiteful I can just do with out people like that on my shoot. The next thing he will be telling other like minded people and the next thing im over run with long dogs. As for kissing his **** I don't think so there is five people waiting to step into his shoes but thanks for your concern. As far as Im concerned its wrong you wont change my mind like I wont change yours.

 

Fair enough, but the simple fact that this person runs a type of quarry with dogs and you disagree with it does not automatically make him a "wrong un"

I enjoy thousands of acres of permission on shooting estates and farms, I have to work my dogs within the law because I am a SGC & FAC holder.

On some of my farms they had crime and unwanted gangs running dogs despite having a few lads who shoot.......fact was, they did nothing compared to a bloke like myself who will work his dog at least 5 nights a week.

I have asked a few un-invited teams of lads with dogs to leave and they have seen a reduction in crime just because word gets round that someone is out all the time on that land.

They are not as you put it "over run" with long dogs, quiet the opposite, it has been reduced.

The same is true for friends of mine all over the country, they are the eyes of the land owner when everyone else is in bed!

 

Its a shame that people cant put aside their prejudice and realise that as long as you have the right people, we can all benefit each other.....as I say, its a bit narrow minded not to look at the bigger picture....give the lad a chance, it may be one of the best days work you ever do?

[Rasher]

[Other than saying it's my complete lack of knowledge and skirting round the issue, saying you have answered my questions, you have just quoted the same thing. You can keep trying to throw insults but it comes down to this, you cannot justify why one sport is ethical and the other isn't.]

of course I can say one activity is ethical and one isn't because its absolutely true. A simple undeniable fact that you either continually fail to grasp or deliberately deny for the sake of arguement. Does it matter to me/ Not in the slightest. Coursing is illegal , will remain illegal and those who participate will remain criminals. All of which I'm very happy with.

 

[Your friends son, do you have the same issue with him and the beagles? If so why not? Tell me why it is perfectly OK for Beagles to chase Hares but not other dogs. Are you saying Beagles don't distress Hares/Rabbits or do they follow a scent so in fact they aren't hunting but walking their dogs? As for the Staghounds and Buckhounds we know what happens, it's not always the way it goes to plan.]

 

I'm against the old style beagling for the same reasons that I'm against coursing. Now beagle packs drag hunt, which as you will no is perfectly legal. As do all of the hunt packs. Despite what the LACS may claim

 

[As for the CA membership going up after the Ban, people thought joining the organisation would mean a repeal to the ban. The only people that have carried on even with the ban is the hound packs, now why is that? To assume it all goes to the book is naive again. I applaud them for carrying on.]

In case it may have slipped your notice the ban has been in place for nearly 6 years the CA membership is still higher than pre ban, those hopefull joiners must be mighty patient people to keep forking out £35 and not actually do anything by way of participation. Dream on mate! dream on. All of the hunts that were active preban are still active bar a couple of small beagle packs that have either amalgamated or been absorbed into neighbouring packs' that includes beagles, harriers bassetts fox hounds and the deer hounds. You really do need to check your facts before entering the debating areana Richie.

 

[Memberships of these groups will go up especially now as what do most of them offer? Insurance. Now in todays world you have to be insured before many people will let you onto land. Look at your recent thread on paid stalking, everyone that offers stalking insists on insurance. You will find that there hasn't been an increase in people taking up countrysports but more people joining organisations to represent them against pressure groups and for insurance. Just look at the change in the magazines from 10 years ago to now, there has never been so many group advertising for you to join.}

:lol: :lol: Hoorah! You have again wedged you foot firmly in your mouth. I know its hard for you but think about what you have posted. Why would people want insurance if they weren't actively involved in some kind of country sport? If that was their main reason for joining and the membership numbers are growing year on year that means more people are participating year on year. Basic simple, undeniable, logical fact. I know undeniablity and logic don't play a major part in your arguement so lets hope the simplicity of the truth manages to find a corner to rest on.

[SteveoM]

Richie it's down to personal preference not black and white justification. Rasher and several othes have stated (very well on rashers part)why they don't agree with this type of sport and why. To put into simple terms some people think it is too barbaric and cruel in comparison to driven game shooting. It really is as simple as that. It's all about tolerance and as stated in my last post most mainstream country sports are within mine but dogs and deer is a step to far.

[Richie10]

'of course I can say one activity is ethical and one isn't because its absolutely true. A simple undeniable fact that you either continually fail to grasp or deliberately deny for the sake of arguement.'

 

 

Right, you have finally answered the question, you don't even know yourself. You are basically saying it's wrong because it is, which has no logical explaination apart from the fact in your eyes it is wrong.

 

You can skirt round the fact with all the other issues and saying how more people are joining the sport, years back people didn't worry about having insurance to go ferreting, coursing or digging.

 

So in the end you are arguing the point -'it's wrong because I think it is and other people think it is'.

 

That is not a valid point, you might as well join LACS.

 

I say then it is 'unethical to shoot a bird in flight as it does not offer the best opportunity for a clean kill.'

 

We can all make up our own morals and ethics, but it takes more to understand people are different.

It was banned as the majority of the population see foxes and deer as fluffy and don't want them killed by any means, just look at media coverage on shooting an average Red Stag in November.

 

Drag hunting isn't a Country pursuit nor is simulated coursing, so don't tell me you are a supporter of Country sports when your only interest is shooting.

[Richie10]

Richie it's down to personal preference not black and white justification. Rasher and several othes have stated (very well on rashers part)why they don't agree with this type of sport and why. To put into simple terms some people think it is too barbaric and cruel in comparison to driven game shooting. It really is as simple as that. It's all about tolerance and as stated in my last post most mainstream country sports are within mine but dogs and deer is a step to far.

 

I understand that is personal preference but what I am saying, other than some people don't have the stomach for it, there is no difference in the ethics, you are out to kill something a life has been taken. A life being no more important due to its size. Rasher has only said he doesn't agree with it because it is wrong and his reasoning 'because it is'.

 

Why is shooting a bird with a spray of pellets while flying morally better than a dog taking a deer? It's not, the bird suffers from stress as well. But I guess that doesn't matter because it's a bird not a deer so one deserves respect and not the other.

 

On Rashers thinking, we should ban ferreting, Falconry and all hunting with dogs even gun dogs as the act of flushing puts stress on animals, drag hunting could lead to the dogs following a real scent.

[UKPoacher]

I've got to say that I think it right to sack the beater who has open disregard of the law. The relationship between beaters and shoot managers has to be one of trust.

 

Our shoot doesn't suffer much from poachers, more from irresponsible dog walkers. Part of the shoot borders a country park and is unfenced. We have broad margins left for the stewardship program and these attract dog walkers like a magnet. It is always those with problem dogs. They walk all over the land to avoid having to deal with their dogs when meeting other dogs being walked on footpaths. At this time of year when the days are short it causes unnecessary disturbance around the feeders that they never seem to appreciate.

[Rasher]

[Right, you have finally answered the question, you don't even know yourself. You are basically saying it's wrong because it is, which has no logical explaination apart from the fact in your eyes it is wrong.]

Well at least you admit that I have answered the question. If you would actually read what has been written rather than jump to assumption about what you think has been written we would have been here 6 pages ago. Wrong! I am saying it is wrong for all of the reasons and logical explanations I have already provided. You continualy appear to be incapable of grasping that fact. In fact I'm beginning to realise your obtuseness is not only based upon your intellectual inability to cmprehend simple facts its also a deliberate state in which you enjoy wallowing.

 

[You can skirt round the fact with all the other issues and saying how more people are joining the sport, years back people didn't worry about having insurance to go ferreting, coursing or digging.]

I am sure that you'll fnd, if you care to look back that I have not skirted around any issue. In fact I have provided you wioth detailed and comprehensive answers. That fact that you are incapable of comprehending those answers as you have made abundantly evident is not my problem. Again in your haste to make a fool of yourself it was you only a few posts ago that said people only join for the insurance, because now insurance is becoming demanded to which I agreed.Whether that is a good thing is an entirely differnt matter. What relevance it has to this discussion I am at a loss to understand. Perhaps you would care to step out side of you normal post style and actually provide a clear and consise explanation as to it relevance to poaching deer with dogs, the ethical and moral considerations between coursing and game shooting or any of the other rambling points you have tossed into the discussion ring in order to try and gain some toe hold on the slippery decent towards complete idiotic gibberish in to which you have manovered over the last 6 pages of exchanges between us. I will freely admit that I'm not holding by breathe for a reasoned and intelligible response.

 

[so in the end you are arguing the point -'it's wrong because I think it is and other people think it is'.]

Again NO! See above. font]

 

[That is not a valid point, you might as well join LACS.}

I very much doubt you would know a valid point if it was stood beside you with a large badge pinned to it say " I'm a Valid Point!

 

[i say then it is 'unethical to shoot a bird in flight as it does not offer the best opportunity for a clean kill.']

You can say what you like. Its called free speech! The fact that by doing so makes you look an idiot is neither here nor there.

 

[We can all make up our own morals and ethics, but it takes more to understand people are different.]

A philosophy lesson from someone incapable of grasping simple truths and clear facts is of little value, but thanks for making the effort.

 

[it was banned as the majority of the population see foxes and deer as fluffy and don't want them killed by any means, just look at media coverage on shooting an average Red Stag in November.]

Again wrong! You really don't understand this subject matter do you, as you have repeatedly made evident. I would suggest that before you sally forth into any further thread or post you sit yourself down and take the time to read the vast amount of information that is available on the subject. and read it all not just the stuff that you like or the stuff that affirms you rather skewed grasp of the facts. Then and only then you might have something valid and worthwhile to contribute. Based upon your posts thus far I'm fairly confident in saying that should you decide to take my advise we wont be seeing you here for some considerable time. What with you being a slow learner.

 

{Drag hunting isn't a Country pursuit nor is simulated coursing] ]

There are hundreds of people that would whole heartedly disagree with you on that statement, me being one of them. I would also be so bold as the say neither would the NLRC. But I can see you make it a habit of being wrong on such matters

 

[so don't tell me you are a supporter of Country sports when your only interest is shooting]

Thanks! I wont cos it isn't my only interest as far as country sports, field sport, blood sports re concerned. I have many avenues of interest, covering the whole gamete of country sports, field sport, blood sports. Some I have had since early childhood some I became interested in as a teenager or as an adult as my knowledge and base of experience grew. I have learnt from the best and have sat around the table with some of the recognised greats in their chosen field and have enjoyed every single minute. I consider myself privileged to have been able to have done so, and I try to give back to those country sports, field sport, blood sports, when ever and what ever I can. What have you done?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Rasher

[Rasher]

I've got to say that I think it right to sack the beater who has open disregard of the law. The relationship between beaters and shoot managers has to be one of trust.

 

Our shoot doesn't suffer much from poachers, more from irresponsible dog walkers. Part of the shoot borders a country park and is unfenced. We have broad margins left for the stewardship program and these attract dog walkers like a magnet. It is always those with problem dogs. They walk all over the land to avoid having to deal with their dogs when meeting other dogs being walked on footpaths. At this time of year when the days are short it causes unnecessary disturbance around the feeders that they never seem to appreciate.

 

Ignorance and a disregard for the law are not the prerogative of the low classes, chavs and scumbags. Far to frequently you find those that by rights should know better making a right pain of themselves. Trespass is against the law.

 

I know its not a crime its a civil tort. Before anyone decides to have a pop.

[Richie10]

It seems you cannot discuss this without trying to belittle me. I am fed up of continually having to explain each point.

 

[i say then it is 'unethical to shoot a bird in flight as it does not offer the best opportunity for a clean kill.']

You can say what you like. Its called free speech! The fact that by doing so makes you look an idiot is neither here nor there.

 

You cannot discuss issues with people that write things such as this, you could not see the point,that one is ethical and moral because you have justified in your mind and not the other, the fact is to kill a bird is no more morally justifiable to killing a deer by any method.

 

Bored of trying to discuss things with you and you coming back with insults, in your justification of everything you have written, you are right whatever you believe.

 

Do you follow the country sports on Countryfile as well, they like drag hunting.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Richie10

[Rasher]

[it seems you cannot discuss this without trying to belittle me. I am fed you continually having to explain each point.]

I'm not belittling you, I leave that entirely to you to get on with. I explain each point as you seem unable or unwilling to grasp anything even when its broken down into the simplest of facts. God forbid I should launch into a complete and comprehensive explanation that encompasses more than a single question ,answer, point or issue. We would then have to spend hours, days even, trying to break that post down into single lines in order for you to understand the basic rudiments.

 

[You cannot discuss issues with people that write things such as this, you could not see the point,that one is ethical and moral because you have justified in your mind and not the other, the fact is to kill a bird is no more morally justifiable to killing a deer by any method.]

:lol: Wrong yet again. You must try harder to look up and see th world for what it is Richie. Let me try to help you grasp some of the complexities regarding moral and ethical choices. Like the Janes, (you do know who the the Janes are don't you?) some would say that all killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances. Other say , myself included say there are degrees of morality and ethics observances that provide sufficiently clear, logical, and reasonable grounds for hunting(killing). What those grounds might be are up for the individual and the society in which they live in to decide. Based upon unemotional and empirical evidence. Not heresay, not want, not need, not desire and certainly not hysteria. Here in the UK as we sit in the year 2010 the coursing of hares and deer is illegal and has been banned since Feb2005. For good and justifiable reasons to which I fully subscribe. Whether you agree, whether you can grasp that having moved away from that base line as set down by the Janes, means that the decision making process in regards to the moral and ethical considerations for or against hunting is no longer black and white , is no longer a line drawn firmly and clearly in the sand of which you either stand one side or the other. Is not my problem , is not my concern and is certainly not for me to lead you by the hand thru. In fact I don't give a FF. You can make a prise fool of yourself and say black is white and blue is pink for *** long as you wish. Those that know, those that can grasp more than the basics, those that can evaluate the complexities for themselves have voted, have stated clearly and concisely on numerous occasions that your wrong. I suggest that you would do well to write that on the wall so that you can remnd yourself as frequently as possible that you're wrong. Hopful;ly soon or later the penny will drop and you'll see yourself as other see you. That would be WRONG!

 

[bored of trying to discuss things with you and you coming back with insults, in your justification of everything you have written, you are right whatever you believe.]

Bored! that make 2 f us! There only so many times that you can repeat the same answer to the same questions before the novelty wears off and the clown at the other end looses his amusement factor. Glad that you have finally acknowledged that I am right and that my beliefs are right i knew we would get there in the end. Its only taken 2 days and 56 posts :D

 

[Do you follow the country sports on Countryfile as well, they like drag hunting.]

I rarely watch Countryfile. I find it rather patronising and mundane. It is a shadow of what it once was when first broadcast in '88 as a replacement for the Farming Programme on BBC2 on a Sunday

[BADFEET]

Anyone who has obviously such a high opinion of themselves and their obviously fairly ordinary intellect as this Rasher character just has to be written off as some kind of idiot.....no rational person would carry themselves in such high regard.

 

 

The most level headed posts on this thread have been some of Redgums, a person who, while not agreeing with, can see and understand two sides of the equation.

 

And there ARE two sides chaps, no matter what your personal opinion is..

 

All in, a very interesting thread that has been kept pretty non-personal or insulting (other than for some).........I will continue to follow with interest.

[Rasher]

:lol: Oh dear it would seem that I have upset at least 2 of the lurcher lads. Such is life. High opinions and ordinary intellects what a combination' I'll have to try and remember that one.

When it comes to cruelty and un-ethical acts there are no 2 sides of the equation. There is only one side, the right side, the side which says no. As hard as that may be for some to accept.

There have always been times when the mass social consciousness moves forward and takes a massive leap to the good, but by doing so acts against a disenfranchised and disenchanted minority, as in this case. The abolition of slavery,the giving of the right to vote to women, the banning of DDT, the wildlife protection acts, the banning of hare and deer coursing, all have opposed all have been criticised, all have had their clamorous dissenters. But all have proven beneficial and all have been supported by the majority.

 

There are just some thing's you can't argue against, and seeing the end of legal coursing is just one of them.

[Rasher]

Fair enough, but the simple fact that this person runs a type of quarry with dogs and you disagree with it does not automatically make him a "wrong un"

I enjoy thousands of acres of permission on shooting estates and farms, I have to work my dogs within the law because I am a SGC & FAC holder.

On some of my farms they had crime and unwanted gangs running dogs despite having a few lads who shoot.......fact was, they did nothing compared to a bloke like myself who will work his dog at least 5 nights a week.

I have asked a few un-invited teams of lads with dogs to leave and they have seen a reduction in crime just because word gets round that someone is out all the time on that land.

They are not as you put it "over run" with long dogs, quiet the opposite, it has been reduced.

The same is true for friends of mine all over the country, they are the eyes of the land owner when everyone else is in bed!

 

Its a shame that people cant put aside their prejudice and realise that as long as you have the right people, we can all benefit each other.....as I say, its a bit narrow minded not to look at the bigger picture....give the lad a chance, it may be one of the best days work you ever do?

 

For every "good one" as you call them.There are a dozen or more "bad ones".

 

Unfortunately in this life if it walks like a duck, act like a duck and does what a duck does, its a duck!

Whilst guilt by association might not stand the test of the courts, it certainly stands the test of the landowning public. Would I or any of my friends, family, and land owning associates give open permission for someone to lamp their ground with lurchers. Not on your nelly! Call that prejudice, call it narrow minded, call that not seeing both sides of the equation, call it what you like. I'll call it good sound common sense.

 

IMO CV has already done the best days work he'll ever do. He did it when he showed the criminal in question the farm gates and told him to leave.

[The Duncan]

Ignorance and a disregard for the law are not the prerogative of the low classes, chavs and scumbags. Far to frequently you find those that by rights should know better making a right pain of themselves. Trespass is against the law.

 

I know its not a crime its a civil tort. Before anyone decides to have a pop.

Isn't the law of torts to do with contracts?

[Rasher]

Isn't the law of torts to do with contracts?

 

Type "civil tort trespass to land" into Google and read what you find. Its all there.

 

Just to give you a taster.

 

Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se`. Thus the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.

[Richie10]

What have you done?

Now this is infantile, I can feed you any line about sitting with the greats, spending time with the most influential names in their fields, but it is easy to type lie after lie. I won't, I don't need to, I have lived a very varied life with many experiences that I treasure and wouldn't taint the memory trying to get one over a faceless name on the internet.

Those that know, those that can grasp more than the basics, those that can evaluate the complexities for themselves have voted, have stated clearly and concisely on numerous occasions that your wrong.

 

The ban was decided by a party that had always suscribed to banning fieldsports, nothing to do with complex decision making, it was based on trying undermine the culture of this society. Nothing more nothing less.

You are naive to think otherwise, do you really think that when this went to vote they were thinking whether it was morally right or whether they would get an extra term because the general public were against people chasing a fox on horseback.

If you leave the protected circle that you live in and speak to someone off the street they wouldn't have even been aware of coursing being banned. Most think that only fox hunting was banned. Try speaking to someone in a city. Trying to make it seem a complex debate and scientific decision was never needed, people voted with their hearts and the Labour party with the view to line their pockets with expensies.

 

There is nothing worse than a prejudice snob of which you have revealed to be in later post. Quote what philosophers have written, what religious teachings have influenced people, quote laws which were brought in for the privileged classes to protect their interests from the great unwashed, however nothing can change the fact that the ban was to do with vote winning.

[latchy]

Anyone who has obviously such a high opinion of themselves and their obviously fairly ordinary intellect as this Rasher character just has to be written off as some kind of idiot.....no rational person would carry themselves in such high regard.

 

 

The most level headed posts on this thread have been some of Redgums, a person who, while not agreeing with, can see and understand two sides of the equation.

 

And there ARE two sides chaps, no matter what your personal opinion is..

 

All in, a very interesting thread that has been kept pretty non-personal or insulting (other than for some).........I will continue to follow with interest.

[/quote you probarly upset more than 2 lurchermen... because it seems to me you think its ok to shoot something dead which if you dont connect rite will carry on flying and suffer a painfull death.. were as a dog on a deer if uv got the rite dog would be over in secounds.. it seems to me you think there only shooting whats a country sport which we all know is wrong

[Rasher]

[Now this is infantile, I can feed you any line about sitting with the greats, spending time with the most influential names in their fields, but it is easy to type lie after lie. I won't, I don't need to, I have lived a very varied life with many experiences that I treasure and wouldn't taint the memory trying to get one over a faceless name on the internet.]

True, its easy to lie whilst sat at a keyboard but personally I can't see the point of doing so. Like wise with continually posing the same inane questions despite repeatedly being answered in a comprehensive manner. Both achieve naff all and only go to make the poster look a complete dork. from your obvious reluctance or inability to answer a simple question we are left with only one conclusion. You have done very little and would rather not open your limited activities to scrutiny in case you're exposed all the more. Understandable, but rather pointless seeing as you have already made you limited knowledge of country sport rather evident.

 

[The ban was decided by a party that had always suscribed to banning fieldsports, nothing to do with complex decision making, it was based on trying undermine the culture of this society. Nothing more nothing less.]

IIRC it was a free vote, and not subject to the whip. What society would you be referring too. Certainly not the one We lived in as the opinion polls showed quite clearly that you were and still remain in a very small minority.

 

[You are naive to think otherwise, do you really think that when this went to vote they were thinking whether it was morally right or whether they would get an extra term because the general public were against people chasing a fox on horseback.]

Naive?I don't think so. I would have thought it was as evident as the nose on your face that its you that's being naive. The MP's voted based upon their moral judgement, as elected representatives of their constituencies. Given the weakness of the various opposition parties at the time it was a racing cert that they would get another term under their belt. To suggest otherwise shows how restricted and delusional your view of the realities of the time and all that has happened subsequently truly is.

 

[if you leave the protected circle that you live in and speak to someone off the street they wouldn't have even been aware of coursing being banned. Most think that only fox hunting was banned. Try speaking to someone in a city. Trying to make it seem a complex debate and scientific decision was never needed, people voted with their hearts and the Labour party with the view to line their pockets with expensies.]

Perhaps you talk to different people be they city dwellers , townies or country villagers than I. Those that I frequently encounter are well aware that chasing hares and deer with greyhounds and lurchers is banned. Many have expressed their utter contempt for those that participated pre-ban and let alone those that have continued since the ban came into force. True people voted with their hearts as they understood right from the start that coursing deer was and a will remain cruel and morally wrong. I doubt MP's expenses had anything to do with it. But I supposes it's always worth clutching at any straw in your position.

 

[There is nothing worse than a prejudice snob of which you have revealed to be in later post. Quote what philosophers have written, what religious teachings have influenced people, quote laws which were brought in for the privileged classes to protect their interests from the great unwashed, however nothing can change the fact that the ban was to do with vote winning.]

 

Prejudice snob? :lol: Now I know your getting desperate! I have always been lead to understand that the 2004 ban was seen as an act against the privileged classes and not as a means of protecting their interests from the down trodden masses as you have stated. Again in your haste to try and gain some ground you have made a fundamental mistake. How deep is that hole you have dug for yourself now. 8-10 feet? I'm starting to think we'll have to wait until you reach bed rock before you realise you're out of your depth.

 

Just for you.

 

Heigh Ho.

We dig dig dig dig dig dig dig

In a mine the whole day through

To dig dig dig dig dig dig dig

Is what we like to do

 

Heigh ho, heigh ho

It's off to work we go

Heigh ho, heigh ho, heigh ho, heigh ho heigh ho, heigh ho, heigh ho

 

Remember to whistle whilst you dig

[BADFEET]

:lol: Oh dear it would seem that I have upset at least 2 of the lurcher lads. Such is life. High opinions and ordinary intellects what a combination' I'll have to try and remember that one.

 

You have not upset me matey just the same as most antis dont upset me, your all entitled to your opinion, I just pay them no mind.

Everyone paints a self portrait with their words and actions

 

I will be really honest and admit I find it hard to believe that anyone connected with fieldsports thinks as you do with as much bigoted bile, but there you go.

 

YIS

[Rasher]

you probarly upset more than 2 lurchermen... because it seems to me you think its ok to shoot something dead which if you dont connect rite will carry on flying and suffer a painfull death.. were as a dog on a deer if uv got the rite dog would be over in secounds.. it seems to me you think there only shooting whats a country sport which we all know is wrong

 

Upsetting lurcher lads is the last thing I'd be bothered about. The fact that some many of them are intellectually incapable of articulating their views in a concise and comprehensible manner is hardly my concern. In fact it just adds weight to the arguement that coursing is morally and ethically wrong. They inevitable end up feeding the anti -hunting campaigners all of the ammunition they could possibly need. Why do you think the pro-hunting lobby effectively tossed them to the wolves in the run up to the debate that lead to the 2004 ban. They knew that coursing was indefensible in this modern society and had only survived for as long as it did due to the complexities of getting a hunting ban thru the parliamentary process.

 

Would you care to explain how you can shoot something dead yet not connect? That's a classic oxymoron if ever I read one. Are you saying a dog is faster than a bullet, and a more sure way of killing deer? :lol:

 

I have never said that shooting is the only country sport. In fact if you had read the thread you would have read that I have already said that its not. But hey! Thanks for your input.

[fortune82]

bloody hell lads this has all got a bit out of hand! I initially started the thread to find out the legal situation of shooting some long dogs owned by poaching scum.

 

Anyway the problems solved now using some "unorthadox" techniques shall we say! Lets just say the poachers dont really have the ability to poach this piece of land anymore!!!