BBC NEWS

[marky r 25]

you heard them endangerd brown hare let me take you out ill show you loads lol!

[night moocher 41]

He never mentioned the farmers and keepers who take a few quid to let lads walk the ground,theres just as many bent keepers and land owners out there if you can find them

[adamb20 22]

why drive over the land though? why such big gangs? whats ever happened to coming and going causing no disruption. not being seen or heard so you can come back another day and do the same. honestly these c**ts must be dull as f**k. You have no permission so its ok you can wreck the land let the farmer know you been there and f**k it up for everyone else. stupid pricks.

 

well said mate...just the fking mentality of sum ppl int it!

[Thomsons dogs 37]

i no theres a few farmers take wee bit on the side to let lads run dogs aswell it always the bad side dont think they no its some peoples hobby and if dont do that end up doing worse rather spend my cash on my dogs than piss it against the wall

[dpb82uk 138]

there looking at us every angle now eh? choppers the lot!!! they seem to think pedos and rapist are ok then???? f**k em the country is f****d anyway lets start immigrant coursing there is no law on that is there?

 

atb yis

THAT WHULD BE FUN

hell yer im up for a bit of immigrant coursing anyone els wunt to make a day of it we can use boar dog on the fukers

Edited October 17, 2009 by dpb82uk

[dpb82uk 138]

so to stop brown hare coursing thay shoot them all in sted

Edited October 17, 2009 by dpb82uk

[lurcher93 2]

ther will bee cheap dogs forsale now

[Leeview 791]

Hares were always the most numerouse on estates where Coursing Clubs or Syndicates had LANDOWNERS PERMISSION to hold meetings be it for Greyhounds, Lurchers, Whippets, or Salukis. These people had RESPECT for the landowner , the Land itself and all property within it as well as the HARE. most of these landowners were supporters of Coursing and attended the meets when they had time with the Clubs - people they had given the permission to. They left areas of land setaside where hares could find cover ect, they didnt shoot any Hares. People within the Club would-could help the Landowner Police his land keeping off the likes of people with not one jot of respect for themselves never mind land or quarry. It worked. As soon as the ban came in the genuine lads-lasses and landowners suffered, not to metion the Hare. Police and there resorces WASTED, genuine respectful coursing enthusiasts tarred with the same brush as those smashing down fences and ploughing across fields in motors causing massive damage and loss to landowners. The ban fecked the whole Equlibrium. It needs to be overturned so the Countryside can get back to normal and in doing so hopefully landowners will gain the trust oncemore of genuine lads-lasses and clubs. Id beb happy for it to be under a yearly licence of £20-£30 . It would generate revenue for the Country, it would boost employment across the board especially in rural areas, it would save police time and money and most importantly it would benefit wildlife and the countryside. VOTE CONSERVITIVE, its our ONLY CHANCE.

Well put Max, £20-30 you'd pay more than that for running membership with a coursing club

Y.I.S Leeview

[Leeview 791]

Hares were always the most numerouse on estates where Coursing Clubs or Syndicates had LANDOWNERS PERMISSION to hold meetings be it for Greyhounds, Lurchers, Whippets, or Salukis. These people had RESPECT for the landowner , the Land itself and all property within it as well as the HARE. most of these landowners were supporters of Coursing and attended the meets when they had time with the Clubs - people they had given the permission to. They left areas of land setaside where hares could find cover ect, they didnt shoot any Hares. People within the Club would-could help the Landowner Police his land keeping off the likes of people with not one jot of respect for themselves never mind land or quarry. It worked. As soon as the ban came in the genuine lads-lasses and landowners suffered, not to metion the Hare. Police and there resorces WASTED, genuine respectful coursing enthusiasts tarred with the same brush as those smashing down fences and ploughing across fields in motors causing massive damage and loss to landowners. The ban fecked the whole Equlibrium. It needs to be overturned so the Countryside can get back to normal and in doing so hopefully landowners will gain the trust oncemore of genuine lads-lasses and clubs. Id beb happy for it to be under a yearly licence of £20-£30 . It would generate revenue for the Country, it would boost employment across the board especially in rural areas, it would save police time and money and most importantly it would benefit wildlife and the countryside. VOTE CONSERVITIVE, its our ONLY CHANCE.

Well put Max, £20-30 you'd pay more than that for running membership with a coursing club

Y.I.S Leeview

[Leeview 791]

NOT GOING TO HIJACK THIS THREAD just read in the Sporting Press that the Irish GovT are not going to introduce any Bills to ban Coursing due to the clubs, secretaries and members contacting the local TD's and telling them about welfare, conservation and the social side to coursing

GOOD ON THEM

Y.I.S Leeview

[inan 841]

its just shows how much of a joke it is ,read the first part of the report ,it states that the law was changed to protect the brown hair , then listen to the farmer in the second vid say ,that the farmers are responsible for killing the hares because of the way farming is practiced at this time ,if they cared that much about the hare they would have changed the way farming is carried out at the same time they brought in the ban , and got it right by now .so in the farmers own words they are the ones responsable for the hares decline ,are they being done for it ,are they hell .

good point unfit but if the farmer used dogs to catch and kill them would they be done for illeagal coursing

what about this ,if the farmer was to allow some thing to get into a river or stream ,and it polluted it ,and it killed all the fish ,he would get done by the EA ,and would have to pay a big fine and all the cost ,so what is the difference ,none.but he can get away with admiting to killing hares in big numbers ,that were protected because they say they were in decline .

Farmers, in the areas mentioned ,are having hares shot to discourage illegal coursing . i am sorry, I don't see the logic of your argument.

read the first part of the report that was written ,about the so called ban because of the decline of the brown hare ,like i said its a joke ,a load of bollocks ,just like every other report .

,

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the Hunting Act knows that the ban was brought in on grounds of cruelty,rightly or wrongly,not to protect the numbers of Brown Hares, that is just an example of the BBC getting it wrong again, rather like the reference to "blood sports", instead of "field sports".

The Police ran true to form ,with the copper saying its illegal to hunt mammals ,what are rabbits and rats? Bloody reptiles!

that is what i was pointing out ,but for some reason you said you could not see my argument ,i was not arguing ,just pointing some thing out that was written wrongly by the reporter . .and what is more cruel than a slow death by poisioning ,that is what is happening to the hares because of the pesticides the farmers are using

The decline of the brown hare has been attributed to several things, farming practices being one of them.

The way land is in continuous use now ,for one,intensive cultivation,,stubble is turned in allmost immediately. Foxes take a lot of leverets . I dont know the answers, and won't pretend I do.

What I do know is previously ,when coursing was legal, hares thrived on land where it was practised.

 

I spoke to two men at the East Of England Show ,both told me that it certain areas they have permission on ,hares are shot in great numbers"you wont believe how many they have shot over the last month", one guy told me.

It saddens me to hear it,and, one of the incentives, from the farmers point of view is to deter illegal coursing,no hares -no coursing.

 

 

Hares were always the most numerouse on estates where Coursing Clubs or Syndicates had LANDOWNERS PERMISSION to hold meetings be it for Greyhounds, Lurchers, Whippets, or Salukis. These people had RESPECT for the landowner , the Land itself and all property within it as well as the HARE. most of these landowners were supporters of Coursing and attended the meets when they had time with the Clubs - people they had given the permission to. They left areas of land setaside where hares could find cover ect, they didnt shoot any Hares. People within the Club would-could help the Landowner Police his land keeping off the likes of people with not one jot of respect for themselves never mind land or quarry. It worked. As soon as the ban came in the genuine lads-lasses and landowners suffered, not to metion the Hare. Police and there resorces WASTED, genuine respectful coursing enthusiasts tarred with the same brush as those smashing down fences and ploughing across fields in motors causing massive damage and loss to landowners. The ban fecked the whole Equlibrium. It needs to be overturned so the Countryside can get back to normal and in doing so hopefully landowners will gain the trust oncemore of genuine lads-lasses and clubs. Id beb happy for it to be under a yearly licence of £20-£30 . It would generate revenue for the Country, it would boost employment across the board especially in rural areas, it would save police time and money and most importantly it would benefit wildlife and the countryside. VOTE CONSERVITIVE, its our ONLY CHANCE.

Great post ,with which I totally agree.

[inan 841]

Someone better than me do the Maths, one of the biggest marches attracted 250,000 Fieldsports supporters. How many more didnt bother and stayed at home ? Id say there at least 500,000 supporters who participate in fieldsports of some kind be it ratting, ferreting, bushing, shooting, snareing, lamping, coursing, hunting to hounds, falconry ect ect ect. 500,000 x £30 = 15 million. Thats a sum that would be raised EVERY YEAR. A good chunk of money any goverment in power could use wisely. Maybe a new hospital, a rail link, cancer research, a school, road links, REAL POLICEING, border guards to stop immigration. This would be a yearly figure raised. In doing so Hunting would be regulated a lot of clubs would be formed once more , these clubs would have rules cutting out any cruelty which a very very small number of people in any form of life use. Its a Win Win Win situation for all concerned. Like i say vote Conservitive in and give Cameron the chance to reverse the damage across the board Blair has brought to our Island.

One of the London marches ,I was on registered over 450,000 as they passed the Cenotaph,Sam Butler was standing there [the then C/A guy], they were clicking everyone who passed.

Contrast that with an anti march a month later which mustered only 460 people.

Edited October 17, 2009 by inan

[slimshady 21]

DID ANYONE SEE THE BBC NEWS,I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW PEOPLE ON HERE FEEL ABOUT WHATS GOING ON WITH THE ABUSE TO FARMERS ETC

Well gangs of blokes either driving or walking across land they have no permission on aren't doing anyone any favours imo.

The media will obviously concentrate on these people, and emphasise the more lurid stories,,ie damage to crops abuse to farmers, stolen farm equipment etc.In no way am I suggesting that all or even most lads do this , but there is a small minority that have made it bad news for the rest of dog men imo.

I mentioned this many months ago and was told it was the legal coursing men that got the game a bad name, make your own mind up about that.

I was talking to two local lads the other day ,they were saying they could not wait to get out on "big land", I told them about the on going operation , and warned them about the helicopter surveillance,and before anyone starts shouting about how the tax payers resources should be better employed, I TOTALLY AGREE, but the facts of life are that it is easier to collar a couple of blokes out in the middle of a fen ,than a burglar ,mugger ,or paedophile.The cost of a bloody helicopter and a police team ,must be pretty horrendous,but the police involved in these operations "justify " it by saying illegal coursers are often also thieves ect.We know this is largely untrue but it is a handy excuse for the expenditure of such huge funds.Some one has a political agenda at work here imo.

If I lived in Lincs ,or Cambridge I think I would want to know why mine and every body else's taxes was not spent more profitably on crime prevention,and detection, that affected the every day citizen.

YOU WOULD NOT SAY THAT IF YOU WAS A FARMER TO SCARED TO GO OUT AT NIGHT ON HIS OWN LAND

If you read some of my earlier posts on this subject ,I think you would know how I feel about farmers being intimidated ,I lost 500 acres because of some clever boys ,and a club I was in got the bar up because some more clever lads rammed the land owners Subaru with a transit and put him in hospital, the club lost 800 acres of running ground in Suffolk.

I DON'T POACH ,AND THOSE WHO DO ARE NOT HELPING THE REST OF US.

 

 

Inan

 

Say you had several farms in the fens and the same hare hunters turned up week in week out and terrorised your permission that has taken years to obtain ? would you think that was Ok ?

[mark.a 0]

Farmers on the fens :wankerzo4: were,nt moaning about hare numbers pre ban when they were taking £250 ie; £25 each for ten of us to have a saturday coursing on thier land.

[Guest joe ox]

The one thing the antis and there supporters had/have what we dont is no infighting and a common goal. If every fieldsports supporter had stuck to there guns and said no part of it gets banned things may of been different. When I say fieldsports supporter I mean shooting, coursing, lamping ferreting etc etc etc regardles of being a landowner, permision holder or even poacher. But no it didnt happen and never will to much blaming and fighting going on!!! just look at the arguing what goes on here!! Yes there was the marchs but IMO to little to late.