The Irish Hare

20 Feb 2012

APrivate Member’s Bill is to be introduced in the Dáil to ban hare coursing.
Independent TD Maureen O’Sullivan and Socialist Party TD Clare Daly announced today that they hoped to move the Bill during the current Dáil term, which continues until Easter.
"Hare coursing is dangerous for both hare and dog alike, leading to injuries which cause long-term suffering, even to the dog," said Ms O’Sullivan.
Ms Daly said the Bill would be modelled on a similar piece of legislation that was unsuccessfully moved by the late Tony Gregory TD in the Dáil in the early 1990s.
"We are appealing for cross-party support for our Bill," said Ms Daly.
This is why I hope it fails, I wish people could see the bigger picture
Hares more numerous in Irish Coursing Club Preserves than wider countryside
Published: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 11:02 in Earth & Climate
Irish hares are eighteen times more abundant in areas managed by the Irish Coursing Club (ICC) than at similar sites in the wider countryside a recent study by Queen's University Belfast has shown. There are approximately 76 local coursing clubs distributed throughout Ireland and each is associated with a number of discrete localities, known colloquially as 'hare preserves'. These are managed favourably for hares including predator control, prohibition of other forms of hunting such as shooting and poaching and the maintenance and enhancement of suitable hare habitat.
Anti-field sports organisations, in addition to animal welfare objections, dispute the efficacy of ICC hare population management practices claiming that annual harvesting of hares causes local population declines and expiration.
The research team, lead by Dr. Neil Reid, Quercus Centre Manager at Queen's, indirectly tested the efficacy of management practices by comparing hare numbers within preserves to that in the wider countryside.
Dr Reid said: "While we cannot rule out the role of habitat, our results suggest that hare numbers are maintained at high levels in ICC preserves either because clubs select areas of high hare density and subsequently have a negligible effect on numbers, or that active population management positively increases hare abundance."
The research, published in the peer-reviewed international journal Acta Theriologica, suggests that field sports such as shooting, hunting and hare coursing promote the multifunctional use of farmland in which wildlife provides a resource for non-agricultural activities supporting sustainable development. Also, field sports may offer financial and recreational incentives to farmers and private landowners who are frequently willing to accept conservation costs over a wider area than Government can afford to subsidize.
Co-author Professor Ian Montgomery, Head of the School of Biological Sciences at Queen's said "The Irish hare is one of the highest priority species in Ireland and its conservation is a fine balance between the management of suitable habitat within agricultural systems, population management by coursing clubs and associated animal welfare concerns. Without legal, well organised and regulated coursing much of the costs of conservation will fall exclusively on Government."
This latest research follows on from a previous study published by the same group in the journal Animal Welfare during 2007, which showed that survival of hares at coursing events significantly improved with the introduction of compulsory muzzling of greyhounds in 1993, while improved levels of captive animal husbandry reduced mortality yet further. It is estimated that about four per cent of the 6,000 or so hares netted by the ICC each year are killed with the rest being released back into the wild.
Source: Queen's University Belfast

20 Feb 2012

Blue ...that a small proportion of the population, of any species, is killed by dogs,is not a prerequisite of conservation or preservation of that species...if your argument is for the welfare and preservation of hare populations then perhaps that should be what is done, not farming them only to cull them to 'control' the population

20 Feb 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Blue ...that a small proportion of the population, of any species, is killed by dogs,is not a prerequisite of conservation or preservation of that species...if your argument is for the welfare and preservation of hare populations then perhaps that should be what is done, not farming them only to cull them to 'control' the population

I do actually agree staggs, but as it stands people have a very valid reason for preservation at this stage. One which is working very well indeed. A combination of income, sport and food. Weather you or other'e like that reason is short sighted in my view. Take there motivation/reason away and who will step into there shoes to do the same job?. I fear the Irish hare will be consigned to history.

20 Feb 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
OK Blue, you've truly lost me with this? What's your point?
The study shows that in areas where hare populations are managed by culling of predators, maintaining habitats, and restricting shooting rights that results in an increased population of hares. Some would probably say at this point 'No shit Sherlock? And someone actually got paid good money to reach that conclusion, did they?'
If hare populations are a priority surely similar management could be arranged? The fact that that management of hare populations as of now is carried out by the ICC selecting areas where hares can be bred up for sport and maintaining them is in no way relevant, or required. Put in place something else where predators are still killed in conservation areas, habitats are maintained, and shooting rights are restricted, hare coursing still being banned, you'd have no impact on hare populations, would you?
As for this:
This latest research follows on from a previous study published by the same group in the journal Animal Welfare during 2007, which showed that survival of hares at coursing events significantly improved with the introduction of compulsory muzzling of greyhounds

No? Get away. Well I never!

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
But will that happen, and who will pay?

20 Feb 2012

In translation
"The research, published in the peer-reviewed international journal Acta Theriologica, suggests that field sports such as shooting, hunting and hare coursing promote the multifunctional use of farmland in which wildlife provides a resource for non-agricultural activities supporting sustainable development. Also, field sports may offer financial and recreational incentives to farmers and private landowners who are frequently willing to accept conservation costs over a wider area than Government can afford to subsidize. "
Becomes
"if you let us shoot things we can make money and we dont mind spending some of that on not shooting things. and we wont ask govt to cough up for not shooting things."
Shakes head and wanders away ever humbled by the inventiveness of the twaddle peddled by the pro hunting lobby and depths of dishonesty and weasel words to which scientists will stoop to earn a few bob.

20 Feb 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
But will that happen, and who will pay?

Whaddya mean, who will pay? Are not these people so up in arms about their right to course the same who frequently claim that they're the true custodians of the countryside and acting in the best interests of the hare? I'm starting to think you or they might be telling me fibs if all of a sudden the question of money's come into it?
Alternatively, suppose charities could step in and manage some of the the land and the diverse animal populations on it if the pro-coursing lobby prove themselves to have tried to play everyone false with their true intentions as regards hare welfare? An Taisce ( Irish National Trust ) own around 10 000 acres for instance, and having posted the Irish Wildlife Trust's prominently on their seem to be in favour of the ban? How many acres do the ICC own just out of interest. Struggling to find that but it must be relevant to the discussion?

21 Feb 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
But will that happen, and who will pay?

Whaddya mean, who will pay? Are not these people so up in arms about their right to course the same who frequently claim that they're the true custodians of the countryside and acting in the best interests of the hare? I'm starting to think you or they might be telling me fibs if all of a sudden the question of money's come into it?

As it stands, farmers sustain and put up with crop damage from Hares due to being able to claw back some of the money lost through people coursing on his land. Even avoid some crop sprays that are detrimental to the hare. Those that coarse put there hands in there pockets to pay farmers/landowners and also for other conservation.
Take that away and the hare looses its status and becomes just another pest that damages crops.
You see, I always look at these things from the animal welfare point. As it stands the hare is befitting from the situation.
Many will stand in there ivory towers preaching a ban. But what will they do after a ban for those animals? Most of the time nothing.
During the months after the ban here in the England, thousands of Hares were shot as pest's. Very sad for me to see it happening. Once the ban was in place, all those calling for it and campaigning vanished, without a thought for the animals they said they cared for. Of coarse many did not really care for the animals at all.
You make a good point, some charity's will help. But they will be small and isolated. You also have to remember there will be many small groups of lurcher enthusiasts who will be doing this on a small scale, just as they used to in the here. who will take there place.
I have discovered, through debating and discussing this subject over the years, many who call for the banning of country pursuits are ruled by emotion rather than logic, by ignorance rather than knowledge, and by bigotry rather than understanding.

21 Feb 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
In translation
"The research, published in the peer-reviewed international journal Acta Theriologica, suggests that field sports such as shooting, hunting and hare coursing promote the multifunctional use of farmland in which wildlife provides a resource for non-agricultural activities supporting sustainable development. Also, field sports may offer financial and recreational incentives to farmers and private landowners who are frequently willing to accept conservation costs over a wider area than Government can afford to subsidize. "
Becomes
"if you let us shoot things we can make money and we dont mind spending some of that on not shooting things. and we wont ask govt to cough up for not shooting things."
Shakes head and wanders away ever humbled by the inventiveness of the twaddle peddled by the pro hunting lobby and depths of dishonesty and weasel words to which scientists will stoop to earn a few bob.

For me, rather than being cynical, I look at the benefits for the countryside and the animals that live there. Logic, knowledge, and understanding, for me wins hands down, every time wink

21 Feb 2012

You make a good point, some charity's will help. But they will be small and isolated.

The National Trust of Ireland is small and isolated? You sure about that? Figures would be helpful. What about the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Are they small? What about all the other land in State ownership? Is that small?

I have discovered, through debating and discussing this subject over the years, many who call for the banning of country pursuits are ruled by emotion rather than logic, by ignorance rather than knowledge, and by bigotry rather than understanding.

And ya see, this is what I have discovered about the pro-hunting lobby over the years. They resort to piss poor arguments like the one above. It's called ad hominem Blue. That they resort to it is a sign of someone who knows damn well their argument is weak, IMO? Not someone possessed of logic, knowledge and understanding

21 Feb 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
You make a good point, some charity's will help. But they will be small and isolated.

The National Trust of Ireland is small and isolated? You sure about that? Figures would be helpful. What about the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Are they small? What about all the other land in State ownership? Is that small?
But we already know the hares are not doing as well in these areas as in ICC areas

I have discovered, through debating and discussing this subject over the years, many who call for the banning of country pursuits are ruled by emotion rather than logic, by ignorance rather than knowledge, and by bigotry rather than understanding.

And ya see, this is what I have discovered about the pro-hunting lobby over the years. They resort to piss poor arguments like the one above. It's called ad hominemBlue. That they resort to it is a sign of someone who knows damn well their argument is weak, IMO? Not someone possessed of logic, knowledge and understanding
And I believe you are incorrect, of coarse, having to result to swearing to make your point might well be seen as some one with a weak argument.

23 Feb 2012

Game keepers, energetically conserve habitat and wildlife, once again, another fine example of country sports championing the countryside lol

Mr Thompson said it was “wonderful” to have won.
“For the sake of wildlife, it is vital people know the truth about the effectiveness of gamekeeper-driven conservation,” he said.
“It is a lifeline for much of the UK’s flora and fauuna. That’s why I champion it at every opportunity.
“For instance, golden plover, lapwing and curlew are declining countrywide. Yet on my moor, these vulnerable ground-nesting birds are stable or increasing in numbers.”
He said heather moorland was a habitat of international conservation importance that supported a rich variety of wildlife, and it was the hard work of gamekeepers in managing the ground for red grouse that kept it that way.
Prof Bellamy described gamekeepers as “powerhouses for conservation”.

He said: “Keepers do what many other groups just waffle about, energetically conserve habitat and wildlife... Three cheers for keepers.