Gripping Book by Animal Rights Activist

[Guest EllenT34]

I've referred to Bad Hare Days in my postings re the debate of banning bloodsports. Here's what a fellow campaigner against animal cruelty, Chris Morris has to say about this brilliant book:

 

John Fitzgerald is a freelance journalist living in Callan, County Kilkenny. He is an avid campaigner against blood sports and is well known throughout Ireland for his stance on hare-coursing

 

This memoir opens with the fourteen year old Fitzgerald walking through the ?church field?, enjoying a break from his studies, when he hears loud voices in the distance.

 

Curious to find out what is happening, he walks in the direction of the voices and sees a group of men and boys combing the church field??like I?d seen on television when they are searching for a missing person?. When he gets closer to the group he feels un-nerved by the expressions on their faces.

 

Fitzgerald takes refuge in an abandoned church in the ?church field? and looks through the fuchsia bush that covers the opening, where one imagines there was once a Harry Clarke religious stained glass window. Hysterical voices echo around the old church as he watches the leader of the group holding aloft a badly injured hare.

 

The leader passes the trembling hare to a boy, around the same age as Fitzgerald, and tells him to ?stiff? it. When the boy fails to kill the hare the leader snatches it from him and proceeds to batter the hare against the church wall??in a mounting frenzy of excitement until another man taps him on the shoulder and tells him it?s dead now you?re ok.?

 

When the group, led by their alcohol-swigging leader, walk off with the dead hare, Fitzgerald examines the scene and sees the hare?s blood splashed on the church wall and on blades of grass.

 

The image of the blood on blades of grass reminds one of the poem: I see his blood upon the Rose, composed by the Irish Roman Catholic poet, Joseph Mary Plunkett (1887-1916). One is also reminded of St Francis of Assai who loved and revered birds, bees and all of the animal kingdom. On the feast of St Francis, adults and children bring their pets to be blessed by the priest at a special mass.

 

As he walks home, shaken by what he experienced, Fitzgerald meets an old man and tells him what he had witnessed in the church field. The old man advises him: ?You?ll say nothing, not a word. You?ll only get yourself into trouble.?

 

When he leaves school and starts work, still haunted by the memories of what he witnessed in the church field when he was fourteen years old, Fitzgerald starts to write letters to the national papers, highlighting the cruelty of hare-coursing.

 

One day the parish priest, Fr. Aloysius, visits Fitzgerald in his place of work and asks him to stop writing letters to the papers. He tells Fitzgerald his letters have caused great distress to Fr. Carrigan, who had been a curate in the parish for many years.

 

Fr Carrigan, Fitzgerald reminds the reader, used the pulpit at Sunday mass to appeal for volunteers to help in the netting of hares: ?He would follow the final blessing with a favourable reference to hare-coursing or a rallying call.?

 

One would be forgiven for thinking Fr Aloysius? visit to Fitzgerald?s place of work on that day was a kind of warm up act because within an hour a man smelling of whiskey enters Fitzgerald?s place of work. He verbally abuses Fitzgerald and then physically attacks him for writing letters to the papers about hare-coursing.

 

This does not deter Fitzgerald. If anything, it makes him more determined: besides writing to the national papers, he goes on local and national radio highlighting hare-coursing as a barbaric form of entertainment.

 

Early one morning there is a loud knock on Fitzgerald?s front door: ?Standing on the footpath outside the door were five tall men in suits. They looked like men dressed up for a wedding.?

 

The leader of the men introduces himself as Detective Sergeant Michael McEvoy of the Garda Special Branch: ??We?re here to search this kip?, he said, as he pushed his way into the house. The Special Branch men raided the house and when they found a leaflet from the Animal liberation Front, McEvoy chortled ?Hip hip! We?ve nailed him!?

 

Fitzgerald gives a graphic account of his arrest and interrogation. McEvoy and Garda Collier sit behind a desk in the barren investigation room and Fitzgerald is ordered to sit on a high stool. From time to time, McEvoy circles around Fitzgerald using all kinds of threats to try and extract a confession from him.

 

One sees Fitzgerald in the same terrifying environment as the hare caught in the net in the church field. McEvoy tells Fitzgerald, as he is about to take his fingerprints, ?I can break every one of your fingers if you don?t co-operate.?

 

McEvoy continues to circle Fitzgerald trying to get him to sign a false confession. When he refuses to sign the already prepared statement, McEvoy tells Fitzgerald he will have his very ill father brought down to the station and interrogated. It is this threat that breaks the strong willed Fitzgerald and he signs the false confession.

 

Within three months Fitzgerald is arrested for the second time. This time the Special Branch?s interrogation tactics don?t have the same terrifying effects on him. Though he is held in Garda custody for forty-eight hours, the Special Branch fail to break him down or frighten him into signing a false confession, so they take him to court, using the original signed ?confession? as evidence.

 

Fitzgerald describes how the jury is selected for his trial; this in itself makes interesting reading. The jury try to restrain their giggles as the prosecuting barrister, ??in his refined, Anglo-Irish accent?? reads aloud to the court the foul language and obscene expletives from a letter Fitzgerald is accused of writing to members of the hare-coursing fraternity.

 

This court scene?s dark comedy lends light relief to an otherwise tragic, gruesome story.

 

Fitzgerald goes to the funeral mass for Masher Whelan; leader of the group in the church field on the day the fourteen year-old Fitzgerald witnessed the brutal killing of the hare.

 

Having read of the brutality this man acted out on vulnerable helpless creatures, I can?t help thinking a more appropriate name for him would have been ?Basher? Whelan.

 

When five priests and two cannons parade from the sacristy to the altar, ??someone in the congregation joked that the big guns had been wheeled in to give Masher a mighty send off??

 

As he watches the altar boy swinging the thurible of incense over the coffin, Fitzgerald gets flashbacks to that time in the church field when he watched Masher Whelan swinging the helpless, terrified hare and bashing it against the abandoned church wall.

 

This is a splendidly crafted work. Fitzgerald?s writing skill captures the reader?s attention in the way he describes, in vivid imagery, each event as though it is happening as one reads.

 

The religious imagery in the opening chapter is all the more daunting when one remembers that the abandoned church in the church field was once a sacred building.

This abandoned church once displayed the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, symbolised by the lighted sanctuary lamp.

 

It is to be hoped this memoir will inspire its readers to do what they can to have hare coursing outlawed in Ireland: a land of breathless beauty?and dark shadows of obscene cruelty to animals?

 

Bad Hare days is published by Olympia Publishers in the UK. It has 397 pages. It costs ?9.99 sterling or E12.99.

For further information and to read a review of Bad Hare Days I would respectfully direct you to the following link:

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Hare-Days-John-Fitzgerald/dp/1905513674]Bad Hare Days: Amazon.co.uk: John Fitzgerald: Books[/ame]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Your little article there made me hungry, so I found this...

 

The Complete Domestic Rabbit Cook Book contains 1001 ways to cook rabbit.

[emkay64]

groans Still droning on about all this are we?

 

I think everyone confirmed that animal abuse is bad, hunting humanely is fine.

 

Doesn't PETA have an archive where you can all discuss animal horrors and archive your literature?

[Old Salt]

I agree with = brilliant

 

I disagree with = propaganda

 

Simple enough.

[Guest EllenT34]

Your little article there made me hungry, so I found this...

 

The Complete Domestic Rabbit Cook Book contains 1001 ways to cook rabbit.

 

Not even remotely funny. I marvel at how people who condone animal cruelty get such a thrill also from hurting people who they know are upset by cruelty to animals. This is a form of bullying.

 

The book referred is not just about campaigning against Fun Cruelty...it's about how people who took a stand against bloodsports suffered for their beliefs. Such people are worlds removed from the snide brainless smart asses who snipe from the sidelines and stand for nothing.

[Guest EllenT34]

groans Still droning on about all this are we?

 

I think everyone confirmed that animal abuse is bad, hunting humanely is fine.

 

Doesn't PETA have an archive where you can all discuss animal horrors and archive your literature?

 

With respect, you would not this an issue to yawn about if you were on the receiving end of what hunters called "sport".

 

"Humane" hunting...what's that? To me, it's clay pigeon shooting (no live birds used)., drag hunting (no live fox hounded to exhaustion and death); drag-coursing (no live hare hares used as bait) etc.

 

Any so-called hunting that inflicts pain and suffering on an animal for fun is both unnecessary and indefensible.

[Chi]

With respect, you would not this an issue to yawn about if you were on the receiving end of what hunters called "sport".

 

"Humane" hunting...what's that? To me, it's clay pigeon shooting (no live birds used)., drag hunting (no live fox hounded to exhaustion and death); drag-coursing (no live hare hares used as bait) etc.

 

Any so-called hunting that inflicts pain and suffering on an animal for fun is both unnecessary and indefensible.

 

So then you are against ANY animal killing? Even for food, putting down sick in pain animals, dangerous animals, etc.? What about the death penalty for humans or self defense in a kill or be killed scenario?

[ImWithStupid]

With respect, you would not this an issue to yawn about if you were on the receiving end of what hunters called "sport".

 

"Humane" hunting...what's that? To me, it's clay pigeon shooting (no live birds used)., drag hunting (no live fox hounded to exhaustion and death); drag-coursing (no live hare hares used as bait) etc.

 

Any so-called hunting that inflicts pain and suffering on an animal for fun is both unnecessary and indefensible.

 

Yea, well. You can eat your twigs and berries.

 

I'm going to harvest all the deer, turkey, pheasant, dove, quail, duck, goose, rabbit, fish, etc... that I want, according to local, "land management" laws, that I'm allowed to harvest, and am able to consume myself or give to another to consume.

 

Without hunters and land management, many species will become overcrowded, starve or contract diseases and die slow deaths.

[phreakwars]

No doubt, you wanna talk CRUEL, How about starving over-populated growth?

 

What else are we supposed to do, expand the Purina™ plants and start making chicken, pig, deer, and wild rabbit chow, and start feeding animals for no reason whatsoever, but just to keep them producing like a Mexican on welfare?

 

HELL NAH..

 

And it's fair. Animals are always free to manufacture their own guns and kill us if they want for sport as well, nobody has ever told them they couldn't.

.

.

[emkay64]

With respect, you would not this an issue to yawn about if you were on the receiving end of what hunters called "sport".

 

"Humane" hunting...what's that? To me, it's clay pigeon shooting (no live birds used)., drag hunting (no live fox hounded to exhaustion and death); drag-coursing (no live hare hares used as bait) etc.

 

Any so-called hunting that inflicts pain and suffering on an animal for fun is both unnecessary and indefensible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again...

 

You aren't listening. There is a difference...everyone acknowledges that. The things you describe everyone has agreed it's a poor choice in entertainment. Hunting humanely refers to a clean shot and instant death for the purpose of food, not trophies. If that turns your stomach and you want a big pat on the back for campaigning against the consumption of meat.....you are in the wrong place.

 

I respect the argument against cruelty to animals and think it's a valiant cause. Sadly there are so many loons out there force feeding their issues to the masses that no one can take it all too seriously. You shoot yourself in the foot so to speak.

 

So don't get all shrill...there isn't any need...besides you're causing me undo suffering by giving me a headache.

 

For the record. Have you seen how a carnivore eats? Just wondering.....Animals kill for sport...and for food. If you need examples I can find many. Welcome to the food chain!

[snafu]

And while your at it thank God as to were you fall in the food chain. It could be worse.

[hugo]

With respect, you would not this an issue to yawn about if you were on the receiving end of what hunters called "sport".

 

"Humane" hunting...what's that? To me, it's clay pigeon shooting (no live birds used)., drag hunting (no live fox hounded to exhaustion and death); drag-coursing (no live hare hares used as bait) etc.

 

Any so-called hunting that inflicts pain and suffering on an animal for fun is both unnecessary and indefensible.

 

You would be treated better if your presence on this board was not for the sole purpose of pressing your agenda.

 

Of course, this is the spam zone.

[Guest EllenT34]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again...

 

You aren't listening. There is a difference...everyone acknowledges that. The things you describe everyone has agreed it's a poor choice in entertainment. Hunting humanely refers to a clean shot and instant death for the purpose of food, not trophies. If that turns your stomach and you want a big pat on the back for campaigning against the consumption of meat.....you are in the wrong place.

 

I respect the argument against cruelty to animals and think it's a valiant cause. Sadly there are so many loons out there force feeding their issues to the masses that no one can take it all too seriously. You shoot yourself in the foot so to speak.

 

So don't get all shrill...there isn't any need...besides you're causing me undo suffering by giving me a headache.

 

For the record. Have you seen how a carnivore eats? Just wondering.....Animals kill for sport...and for food. If you need examples I can find many. Welcome to the food chain!

 

 

There's a misunderstanding here...I understand your point about what you think of as "hunting"...death by a clean shot, but fox hunting of the kind that I refer to involves chasing the fox for miles with a pack of hounds and no guns are used. The animal is hounded to exhaustion and then torn to pieces. I live in Ireland, where the cruel hounding foxes and deer is referred to as "hunting", so perhaps there's a possible cultural difference of perception.

 

I am not into a campaign against the consumption of meat, but I certainly would oppose CRUEL methods of meat production, such as cramming chickens into tiny spaces, or veal production which is inherently cruel. I don't have my head in the sand on these issues. I just wish to help bring about change for the better in how animals are treated and, in the case of the more extreme and indefensible forms of animal exploitation, to have these banned outright.

 

It's not a pat on the back I'm looking for, but protection for animals from deliberate and AVOIDABLE cruelty. That's why I recommended that book I mentioned because it articulates the case against bloodsports rather well I thought.

 

Re animals killing in the wild...how animals behave in certain situations does not in any way justify humans devising acts of cruelty, any more than deaths in traffic accidents can in any way detract from the wrongness of murder in the human realm.

[Guest EllenT34]

You would be treated better if your presence on this board was not for the sole purpose of pressing your agenda.

 

Of course, this is the spam zone.

 

Treated better? What's "pressing my agenda?" I posted something...and then replied to postings from others who responded to that post.

 

What you call "pressing an Agenda" I call expressing my opinion.

[Guest EllenT34]

So then you are against ANY animal killing? Even for food, putting down sick in pain animals, dangerous animals, etc.? What about the death penalty for humans or self defense in a kill or be killed scenario?

 

Interesting point. Killing in self-defense, whether a human or an animal, is definitely not in the same league as commiting murder (in the case of a human), or cruelly abusing an animal.

 

Humanely killing an animal is also very different from torturing it for sport or fun. It is designed to end suffering, not inflict it for sport.

 

The Death Penalty for humans I completely oppose. I believe the Death Penalty should be abolished worldwide. Apart from the risk of excuting innocent people (which has happened in the past), I see it as state-sanctioned murder.

 

I would oppose it even in the case of Nazi war criminals...it just brings you down to their level when you resort to executions.

[Guest EllenT34]

No doubt, you wanna talk CRUEL, How about starving over-populated growth?

 

What else are we supposed to do, expand the Purina? plants and start making chicken, pig, deer, and wild rabbit chow, and start feeding animals for no reason whatsoever, but just to keep them producing like a Mexican on welfare?

 

HELL NAH..

 

And it's fair. Animals are always free to manufacture their own guns and kill us if they want for sport as well, nobody has ever told them they couldn't.

.

.

 

What I oppose is DELIBERATE, UNNECESSARY, AND AVOIDABLE cruelty to animals...bloodsports are never justified as they exist purely for human amusement.

 

The racist comments about Mexicans is typical of those who think it's okay to torture animals and generally make them suffer for fun. It's the kind of mindset opponents of Fun-Cruelty to animals are up against.

[Chi]

Interesting point. Killing in self-defense, whether a human or an animal, is definitely not in the same league as commiting murder (in the case of a human), or cruelly abusing an animal.

 

Humanely killing an animal is also very different from torturing it for sport or fun. It is designed to end suffering, not inflict it for sport.

 

The Death Penalty for humans I completely oppose. I believe the Death Penalty should be abolished worldwide. Apart from the risk of excuting innocent people (which has happened in the past), I see it as state-sanctioned murder.

 

I would oppose it even in the case of Nazi war criminals...it just brings you down to their level when you resort to executions.

 

So far I agree with all of your points and outlooks except on the issue of the death penalty. Some people will NEVER reform and will continue to molest, rape, kill, etc. as soon as they are given the chance. So why continue to spend money, time and resources on them when it could be much better spent elsewhere and not in vain?

 

Therefore I don't see it as stooping down to their level because taking them out will be very well deserved and justified. It will make the world a better place without them, save a lot of people from getting hurt, damaged and murdered by them and will encourage others to perhaps steer away from the same fate if they share the same tendencies and get help. That would be another way of helping to end suffering as you mentioned above. End suffering for future victims, current victims living in fear and end the offenders' miserable existence.

 

As far as executing innocent people, when is the last time that has happened? What are the odds of that? Convictions like those here, in the US, are done beyond a reasonable doubt, which take a lot of evidence. The odds of convicting innocent people to death are pretty slim and the benefits of ridding ourselves of hopeless offenders far outweight that in benefits. But that's another debate I guess.

[phreakwars]

What I oppose is DELIBERATE, UNNECESSARY, AND AVOIDABLE cruelty to animals...bloodsports are never justified as they exist purely for human amusement.

 

The racist comments about Mexicans is typical of those who think it's okay to torture animals and generally make them suffer for fun. It's the kind of mindset opponents of Fun-Cruelty to animals are up against.

Even though I'm Hispanic?

.

.

[snafu]

..

The racist comments about Mexicans is typical of those who think it's okay to torture animals and generally make them suffer for fun. It's the kind of mindset opponents of Fun-Cruelty to animals are up against.

 

Even though I'm Hispanic?

.

.

 

Funny bone... you need to get a funny bone Ellen. I got mine it's a walrus oosik. He didn't want to give it up but the victor reaps the rewards.

[emkay64]

Wow....did he gore you with his oosik first or did you get away unscathed?

[RoyalOrleans]

Not even remotely funny. I marvel at how people who condone animal cruelty get such a thrill also from hurting people who they know are upset by cruelty to animals. This is a form of bullying.

 

So you'd be upset to know that I eat live puppies. I call them hot pups.

 

The book referred is not just about campaigning against Fun Cruelty...it's about how people who took a stand against bloodsports suffered for their beliefs. Such people are worlds removed from the snide brainless smart asses who snipe from the sidelines and stand for nothing.

 

How can one be brainless and a smartass? If my ass is smart, then I would believe that there is a brain in it. An ass can not think on its own. You can lead an ass to water, but you can't make it think.

[RoyalOrleans]

Even though I'm Hispanic?

.

.

 

Stupid wetback!

 

Get back to your goat-roast!

[RoyalOrleans]

Treated better? What's "pressing my agenda?" I posted something...and then replied to postings from others who responded to that post.

 

What you call "pressing an Agenda" I call expressing my opinion.

 

One can't help but to feel suspect of your little meanderings since you have not, as of yet, posted in any other thread. Instead, you hide within the confines of your own little threads.

 

Why?

 

I can take a stab at it...

 

You bring nothing to the table, unless its within a thread created by you. Where you feel safe? So that the big bullies, yard dogs, and regulars can't call you out on other things that you do not fully grasp.

[ImWithStupid]

There's a misunderstanding here...I understand your point about what you think of as "hunting"...death by a clean shot, but fox hunting of the kind that I refer to involves chasing the fox for miles with a pack of hounds and no guns are used. The animal is hounded to exhaustion and then torn to pieces. I live in Ireland, where the cruel hounding foxes and deer is referred to as "hunting", so perhaps there's a possible cultural difference of perception.

 

I will agree with you on so called "blood sports" if you are to include those done in the stadium or man created arena, like most sanctioned hare coursings, dog fights, bull fights, or fight type events are held.

 

I will differ with you on those that occur in the wild. If you use your sight hounds in the wild, to chase game in it's own environment, woods, forrests, etc... and the hounds catch the game. It's just as what happened for centuries. It is a form of hunting.

 

When the scent hounds do the same with a fox, in the wild, I see this as a form of hunting also. Just as I see falcolning a form of hunting, using flushing dogs to stir upland game for the hunter or pointers to find and indicate the location of such game.

 

I see this as just reinforcing the natural insticts of the animal, and nothing worse than what happens in the wild.

[hugo]

I could actually support some of the animal rights activists agenda if it was not for the fact their long-term goal is to have us all eating tofu.