tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post4008190471704916614..comments2022-04-11T01:28:17.873-07:00Comments on A Blog of Beasts!: Why The Rabbit But Not The Hare?Animals in the Middle Ageshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10809281152134119502noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post-39296304305568405442010-12-07T10:33:14.437-08:002010-12-07T10:33:14.437-08:00I wondered that myself (the fur differences) and r...I wondered that myself (the fur differences) and rabbit fur IS softer than hare fur, at least according to my sources so this may well be a reason. <br /><br />LRWLRWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15480670554760312418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post-38290935032228489112010-10-28T17:04:12.588-07:002010-10-28T17:04:12.588-07:00I agree with Phil. I think you found the answer in...I agree with Phil. I think you found the answer in that rabbits are domesticated while hares are not. Being able to guarantee a supply of meat and fur rather than having to hunt for it makes a great deal of sense to me. Perhaps rabbit fur is softer?<br /><br />RLFBAnimals in the Middle Ageshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809281152134119502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post-65100163733897883012010-10-27T07:31:28.581-07:002010-10-27T07:31:28.581-07:00It seems to me that the issue of domesticated vs u...It seems to me that the issue of domesticated vs undomesticated would be an important aspect. With the mention of how much faster hare are over rabbit it seems it would be much more convenient. It would probably be easier to send ferrets into a rabbit warren, then to have to chase down hare with dogs, etc.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07094189121429804488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post-26514579156090734812010-10-24T11:59:38.254-07:002010-10-24T11:59:38.254-07:00Megan, I would assume that rabbits weren't wid...Megan, I would assume that rabbits weren't widely thought of as a destructive species during this period. Unlike in Australia, there was the difficulty in keeping the rabbits alive. This means the rabbits would have been kept in specifically made locations that (as best I can gather) were relatively far from farmed land. The rabbits couldn't go very far from their burrows and didn't have many wild communities. If a lord began having issues with crops destroyed by rabbits, he would probably just have enough rabbits hunted to reduce the spread of the rabbit population. <br /><br />An unrelated point: Maybe the fact that hares change color made them less desirable? I know nothing about skinning animals and what one makes out of rabbit pelts. However, if you're trying to make something out of multiple pelts, it would presumably be helpful if they were all the same reliable color. Similarly, rabbits not changing color probably made them easier to hunt in the winter.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035944042961181003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4176769156825838190.post-8629202247745276412010-10-23T16:09:28.153-07:002010-10-23T16:09:28.153-07:00If you look, hares have a different mouth than rab...If you look, hares have a different mouth than rabbits and can really go to town on some stems. I had been wondering if hares (in large numbers) are more destructive than rabbits for this reason, like alpacas vs other ruminants, but actually looking it up, apparently rabbits are now considered more destructive than hares?<br /><br />"The Book of the Farm" (having trouble telling the original year, but looking at a revised edition from 1889) states that rabbits are more destructive to corn crops than hares, but that hares are more damaging to turnips. Rabbits are now more of an invasive species due to their burrowing/breeding, but I'm wondering to what extent this is more of a modern concern anyhow? And now I'm up to my eyeballs in the history of Australian rabbit bans.Megan Boatrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10013157633289387010noreply@blogger.com