Publican shoots hounds

flanders1979 · 07-02-2012 3:09pm

Useless animals bred to pointlessly kill an animal that is useful in keeping rabbits under control.
The hunt crowd wont be giving him much trade after that episode. I'm sure he doesn't care. I always hated the smell of them and they way they dragged crap all over a pub I worked in years ago.

blow69 · 07-02-2012 3:14pm

Next time a child wanders over to my table on more than one occasion in a restaurant, I will kneecap the sons of bitches.

Taking it up with the parents will just involve logic and courtesy.

On a serious note, a child, like a dog, has no spatial awareness.

Gareth2011 · 07-02-2012 3:24pm

idunnoshur wrote: »

http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/publican-fired-shots-at-hounds-on-his-land-179373.html

What do you all make of this?

I for one agree with what he did.

I don't. He couldn't put up a Mesh fence held by posts into the ground to stop the dogs getting it? There is ALWAYS a soloution to keeping animals off your land and shooting them is not one of them. If I saw him on my land id shoot him because he kept coming onto my land but here's the difference. He can defend himself a dog can't.

mcdrogo · 18-02-2012 2:24pm

Gareth2011 wrote: »

I don't. He couldn't put up a Mesh fence held by posts into the ground to stop the dogs getting it? There is ALWAYS a soloution to keeping animals off your land and shooting them is not one of them. If I saw him on my land id shoot him because he kept coming onto my land but here's the difference. He can defend himself a dog can't.

Property owners have a right to protect their families, livestock/pets and properties from Apes with hunting dogs and other vermin. They are not required to turn their homes and lands into Fort Knox to keep out unwanted pests. It is a criminal offence to trespass, damage or prevent the owner from the use of their land as per Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.
The law aside, it’s a pity this guy didn't have a real gun and "go postal" on the Apes who owned the dogs. He would have done the world a big favour.

Witcher · 18-02-2012 2:27pm

mcdrogo wrote: »

Moron!
Property owners have a right to protect their families, livestock/pets and properties from Apes with hunting dogs and other vermin. It is a criminal offence to trespass, damage or prevent the owner from the use of their land as per Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.
The law aside, it’s a pity this guy didn't have a real gun and "go postal" on the Apes who owned the dogs. He would have done the world a big favour.

Thread is dead.....let it go.

Gareth2011 · 18-02-2012 2:31pm

mcdrogo wrote: »

Moron!
Property owners have a right to protect their families, livestock/pets and properties from Apes with hunting dogs and other vermin. It is a criminal offence to trespass, damage or prevent the owner from the use of their land as per Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.
The law aside, it’s a pity this guy didn't have a real gun and "go postal" on the Apes who owned the dogs. He would have done the world a big favour.

Why couldn't he not put up a fence to keep the dogs off his land seening as it wasn't the first time they were on his land and it was a recurring problem? The farmer is at fault here. Yes the dogs went onto his land but that is the hunter's fault not the dogs. If dogs see a space and they want to go through it they will. 1/ It is up to the hunter to ensure his dogs don't go on land they are not supposed to be on and 2/ The farmer knew it was a recurring problem so why not errect a strong wire mesh fence held in by 6 inch posts to put up a secure boundry around his land?

The only moron here is you.

Micky Dolenz · 18-02-2012 2:38pm

Mod

Less of the petty name calling please. It just demeans whatever point you are trying to make.

idunnoshur · 18-02-2012 2:45pm

Gareth2011 wrote: »

Why couldn't he not put up a fence to keep the dogs off his land seening as it wasn't the first time they were on his land and it was a recurring problem? The farmer is at fault here. Yes the dogs went onto his land but that is the hunter's fault not the dogs. If dogs see a space and they want to go through it they will. 1/ It is up to the hunter to ensure his dogs don't go on land they are not supposed to be on and 2/ The farmer knew it was a recurring problem so why not errect a strong wire mesh fence held in by 6 inch posts to put up a secure boundry around his land?

The only moron here is you.

Why in the name of fuck should that man have gone to the expense and trouble of putting up a fence to keep out hounds? You're not in the real world at all.

Pace2008 · 18-02-2012 2:46pm

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

So do I.

Those vicious hounds were probably guilty of terrorising foxes and tearing them to pieces.

Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

This looks very similar to something you only posted yesterday, so I'm going to have to ask you something - are you not aware that animals like dogs do not possess human faculty and morality, and as such cannot be fairly accused of acts of cruelty deserving vengeance?

Those sadistic, barbaric and amoral foxes have probably torn the throats out of many rabbits during their lives. Serves them right, I say.

suicide_circus · 18-02-2012 3:07pm

In a world in which it's fine to set dogs on a fox and allow them to rip it to shreds, I really dont see the fuss about shooting a few dogs.

Gareth2011 · 18-02-2012 3:07pm

idunnoshur wrote: »

Why in the name of fuck should that man have gone to the expense and trouble of putting up a fence to keep out hounds? You're not in the real world at all.

Well normally if something or someone is getting onto your land and you don't want it/them there its common sence to try stop it isn't it? People put up fences to keep animals in so why not put them up to keep them out?

Gareth2011 · 18-02-2012 3:14pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

In a world in which it's fine to set dogs on a fox and allow them to rip it to shreds, I really dont see the fuss about shooting a few dogs.

I don't agree with any sort of hunting be it fox's or deer or rabbits any hunting at all I can't stand it. So shooting dogs that are bred to do it just doesn't seem right to me. The dog doesn't know what its supposed to do it only does what its bred to do. Like greyhounds are breed to race. But I see them as pets and nothing more. Most SPCA members hate seening animals shot as a means of keeping them under control. Thats not keeping anything under control it just shows trigger happy. Like I know a farmer who shoots crows when they are on the power lines near his feed to the cows. He shoots at them and his idea is when they see one or 2 falling off the wire they stay away. They don't they come back every single day. Hence the comment about shooting something to keep it under control. It doesn't work.

mcdrogo · 18-02-2012 7:26pm

Gareth2011 wrote: »

Why couldn't he not put up a fence to keep the dogs off his land seening as it wasn't the first time they were on his land and it was a recurring problem? The farmer is at fault here. Yes the dogs went onto his land but that is the hunter's fault not the dogs. If dogs see a space and they want to go through it they will. 1/ It is up to the hunter to ensure his dogs don't go on land they are not supposed to be on and 2/ The farmer knew it was a recurring problem so why not errect a strong wire mesh fence held in by 6 inch posts to put up a secure boundry around his land?

The only moron here is you.

It would cost a farmer tens of thousands of euros to wire off his land. The law requires him only to say "No". The law requires the Apes to keep control of their dogs and keep them off land where they do not have permission to hunt.
A fatuous and vacuous argument.

mcdrogo · 18-02-2012 7:32pm

Furthermore, any farmer who has not given permission for hunting hounds to cross his land is allowed to shoot pests that threaten or endanger crops or livestock (with the correct licence and weapon). I would not hesitate to do so.

Apologies for printing the word moron. I should have just muttered it to myself.

nlgbbbblth · 18-02-2012 7:42pm

Pace2008 wrote: »

This looks very similar to something you only posted yesterday, so I'm going to have to ask you something - are you not aware that animals like dogs do not possess human faculty and morality, and as such cannot be fairly accused of acts of cruelty deserving vengeance?

Those sadistic, barbaric and amoral foxes have probably torn the throats out of many rabbits during their lives. Serves them right, I say.

Of course I'm aware of all that.

I just don't like dogs.

Noreen1 · 18-02-2012 8:38pm

It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the hunt responsible for their dogs. ie. If they cannot, or will not, keep the dogs off property where they have no permission to be, then the hunt should be responsible for erecting, and maintaining, adequate fencing to keep their hounds off the mans land.

I dislike the idea of dogs suffering because of the actions of their owners - but I dislike the idea of foxes being ripped apart for "sport":rolleyes: even more so!

The hunt should ensure their hounds do not stray onto private property. I see no reason why people who want nothing to do with their version of sport should have to tolerate being witness to it on their own property, and tolerate damage to the property as well!

Witcher · 18-02-2012 8:40pm

mcdrogo wrote: »

Furthermore, any farmer who has not given permission for hunting hounds to cross his land is allowed to shoot pests that threaten or endanger crops or livestock (with the correct licence and weapon). I would not hesitate to do so.

They have to notify the Gardai or the dog warden first, they can't just let loose on a dog in their field.

mcdrogo · 18-02-2012 9:32pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the hunt responsible for their dogs. ie. If they cannot, or will not, keep the dogs off property where they have no permission to be, then the hunt should be responsible for erecting, and maintaining, adequate fencing to keep their hounds off the mans land.

I dislike the idea of dogs suffering because of the actions of their owners - but I dislike the idea of foxes being ripped apart for "sport":rolleyes: even more so!

The hunt should ensure their hounds do not stray onto private property. I see no reason why people who want nothing to do with their version of sport should have to tolerate being witness to it on their own property, and tolerate damage to the property as well!

That would seem to be the sensible thing to do but who would enforce this. The easiest and most sensible thing would be to ban these cretins from hunting, just as they do in more civilised countries.

If marauding packs of bloodthirsty dogs are endangering your children or livestock, you do not need to consult with the Gardai, dog wardens, local politicians or the parish priest to protect their lives.

lesserspottedchloe · 18-02-2012 9:43pm

I don't agree with him shooting the hounds.They're not the problem the owners are, so it makes about as much sense to kill them as it does to injure/kill an innocent animal for sport.

He's right not to stand for this crap though and he seems to have the local flora and faunas protection in mind. I'll never understand how these absolute tools are still allowed to hunt and have a fox torn to pieces in an unfair fight and call it a 'sport'

Witcher · 18-02-2012 9:55pm

mcdrogo wrote: »

If marauding packs of bloodthirsty dogs are endangering your children or livestock, you do not need to consult with the Gardai, dog wardens, local politicians or the parish priest to protect their lives.

I was wrong on informing them first but they do have to be informed after the fact and you have to try and control the dog by non lethal means first. Plus the dogs weren't even worrying livestock, he had the field as a nature sanctuary.

I'm not against a farmer shooting dogs but in this case he used the wrong firearm and while the dogs should not have been on the land they were not endangering livestock, there were other ways to deal with it.

Noreen1 · 19-02-2012 12:47am

mcdrogo wrote: »

That would seem to be the sensible thing to do but who would enforce this. The easiest and most sensible thing would be to ban these cretins from hunting, just as they do in more civilised countries.

If marauding packs of bloodthirsty dogs are endangering your children or livestock, you do not need to consult with the Gardai, dog wardens, local politicians or the parish priest to protect their lives.

Therein lies the problem. AFAIK, there is no such law in this country that could be enforced, and I have no hope that any such law would ever be proposed, much less passed.

Personally, I would be in favour of fox-hunting being banned.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would regard this barbarous practice as a sport. As far as I am concerned, anti cruelty laws should be expanded, and then used to outlaw this practice, and I say that as someone who fully supports the need to control certain species by culling.

However, in the absence of any political will to outlaw fox-hunting, enforcing the rights of private landholders to protect their property should be a bare minimum.
If that means that huntsmen/women are obliged to put their hands in their pockets to protect property that they might otherwise damage, I wont lose any sleep over it.....

The other question is, what use is the control of dogs act, if 40 dogs can "stray" onto someones property, and yet, despite laws that state that dogs must be kept on a leash, the landowner apparently has no protection from the forces of law and order. Hmm.. I wonder....

Liam Byrne · 19-02-2012 12:41pm

moceri wrote:

There have been so many instances of hounds and horses wandering onto private land, damaging fences and leaving gates open,

Some clever (if irresponsible and inconsiderate) hounds and horses there!

The Harrier · 08-03-2012 1:23am

Time to clear a few things up on this. The pack in question is not a bunch of rich "West Brits" on horse back. It is a trencher fed foot pack, one of roughly 150 foot packs spread through out Ireland, but most common in Munster and South Ulster. The membership of most foot packs would consist of ordinary joe soaps, small farmers, paye workers, unemployed construction workers. The hounds they use are not fox hounds but the Kerry Beagle, one of Ireland's native breeds. The hounds used in the pack are owned by the individual members and are brought together on the hunting day. The hunt is followed on foot and not on horse back.

As the hounds are trencher fed i.e. not kept in a kennel but kept by a family as a pet, it is unlikely that they would pose a threat to any human let alone a child, so less of that rubbish.

Most foot packs operate only in there immediate area so they would be hunting over their neighbours and often their relation's land and in my experience do so with the good wishes and welcome of 99% of landowners. Most of these packs have been hunted by the same families for generations so they are as a familiar part of the local area as the say the local GAA club. Most hunts will do all they can to avoid the 1% where they are not welcome, but it is inevitable that they will cross that land on the odd occasion. I am not familiar with the details of the case involved but I would be 100% certain the hunt would have been following up to take the dogs off, but as the hunt is followed on foot it was not most likely not possible to be there immediately. Some compromise should have been possible. As Kerry Beagles are as a rule gun shy, a shot into the air from a shotgun would most likely have scared off all the hounds. This is a compromise my own club came to with a farmer who did not want us on his land. He had our mobile number and would call if the hounds were in the area and we were not. If we could not get there in time he would simply fire a shot into the air and the hounds would clear. Not ideal, but it was better than a shot at the hounds.

By the way to all antis out there, I will not be answering any abusive posts or I shall not enter into any debates on the moral rights and wrongs of hunting. I honestly have no interest in anything you have to say.

Dyr · 08-03-2012 1:29am

The Harrier wrote: »

PR blah blah supposition PR blah blah
Time to clear a few things up on this. The pack in question is not a bunch of rich "West Brits" on horse back. It is a trencher fed foot pack, one of roughly 150 foot packs spread through out Ireland, but most common in Munster and South Ulster. The membership of most foot packs would consist of ordinary joe soaps, small farmers, paye workers, unemployed construction workers. The hounds they use are not fox hounds but the Kerry Beagle, one of Ireland's native breeds. The hounds used in the pack are owned by the individual members and are brought together on the hunting day. The hunt is followed on foot and not on horse back.

As the hounds are trencher fed i.e. not kept in a kennel but kept by a family as a pet, it is unlikely that they would pose a threat to any human let alone a child, so less of that rubbish.

Most foot packs operate only in there immediate area so they would be hunting over their neighbours and often their relation's land and in my experience do so with the good wishes and welcome of 99% of landowners. Most of these packs have been hunted by the same families for generations so they are as a familiar part of the local area as the say the local GAA club. Most hunts will do all they can to avoid the 1% where they are not welcome, but it is inevitable that they will cross that land on the odd occasion. I am not familiar with the details of the case involved but I would be 100% certain the hunt would have been following up to take the dogs off, but as the hunt is followed on foot it was not most likely not possible to be there immediately. Some compromise should have been possible. As Kerry Beagles are as a rule gun shy, a shot into the air from a shotgun would most likely have scared off all the hounds. This is a compromise my own club came to with a farmer who did not want us on his land. He had our mobile number and would call if the hounds were in the area and we were not. If we could not get there in time he would simply fire a shot into the air and the hounds would clear. Not ideal, but it was better than a shot at the hounds.

By the way to all antis out there, I will not be answering any abusive posts or I shall not enter into any debates on the moral rights and wrongs of hunting. I honestly have no interest in anything you have to say.

Likewise buddy, likewise

vixdname · 08-03-2012 1:52am

Nodin wrote: »

'arsehole takes out anger on animals'.

Why didn't the fuckwit shoot the people who were in charge of the dogs? The ones who brought the dogs.....He comes across as so thick I'm suprised he's capable of breathing on his own, let alone getting beer into a glass.

You say he should have shot a human instead of the dogs ? You are obviously one of these insane people that value animal life over human life - THAT IS WRONG, and you have the cheek to call the guy stupid, you're both stupid and have your moral standards dangerously out of sync :mad:

Carawaystick · 08-03-2012 1:52am

The Harrier wrote: »

Time to clear a few things up on this.

I am not familiar with the details of the case involved but I would be 100% certain the hunt would have been following up to take the dogs off, but as the hunt is followed on foot it was not most likely not possible to be there immediately. Some compromise should have been possible.

Seems like the hunt was breaking the law by not keeping their dogs under control from what you've said.

vixdname · 08-03-2012 2:12am

Gareth2011 wrote: »

I don't agree with any sort of hunting be it fox's or deer or rabbits any hunting at all I can't stand it. So shooting dogs that are bred to do it just doesn't seem right to me. The dog doesn't know what its supposed to do it only does what its bred to do. Like greyhounds are breed to race. But I see them as pets and nothing more. Most SPCA members hate seening animals shot as a means of keeping them under control. Thats not keeping anything under control it just shows trigger happy. Like I know a farmer who shoots crows when they are on the power lines near his feed to the cows. He shoots at them and his idea is when they see one or 2 falling off the wire they stay away. They don't they come back every single day. Hence the comment about shooting something to keep it under control. It doesn't work.

I'm not a fan of fox hunting with dogs, I am a hunter of deer- Doing so on Coillte forestry working from a NPWS \ Coillte culling limit, decided by experts on what amount of the population male \ female must be culled in order to ensure theres a sufficient habitat for the remaining deer to survive on without the chance of undernourishment caused by too high a population living off a limited amount of food in a wood.
I hunt rabbits on farmers land which otherwise would become over run and thus unusable for its intended agricultural purpose - To keep us humans in milk or meat, that includes you Gareth2011.
I hunt foxes using a rifle again to keep a control on their population within a given area as they attack lambs during the lambing season and occasionally sheep as well as domestic fowl, my own of which have been killed by foxes in recent times.
So to make a statement that all hunting of deer, foxes and rabbits is the statement of someone living in a fantasy world where foxes dont kill lambs, sheep or fowl, where rabbits dont breed prolifically and quickly destroy good agricultural land required to feed the population and deer dont eat young saplings or strip bark from trees thus destroying them and the natural habitat they provide for many various indigenous fauna or wander onto farms where they again cause damage to the lands.
Therefore your comment that shooting anything doesnt keep anything under control is absolute and utter misguided nonsense in every sense of the word.
Get your facts right before you make a fool of yourself by writing ridiculous posts like the one above and proving nothing other then your ignorance and naivety on a subject you obviously still have a lot to learn about

steddyeddy · 08-03-2012 2:38am

vixdname wrote: »

I'm not a fan of fox hunting with dogs, I am a hunter of deer- Doing so on Coillte forestry working from a NPWS \ Coillte culling limit, decided by experts on what amount of the population male \ female must be culled in order to ensure theres a sufficient habitat for the remaining deer to survive on without the chance of undernourishment caused by too high a population living off a limited amount of food in a wood.
I hunt rabbits on farmers land which otherwise would become over run and thus unusable for its intended agricultural purpose - To keep us humans in milk or meat, that includes you Gareth2011.
I hunt foxes using a rifle again to keep a control on their population within a given area as they attack lambs during the lambing season and occasionally sheep as well as domestic fowl, my own of which have been killed by foxes in recent times.
So to make a statement that all hunting of deer, foxes and rabbits is the statement of someone living in a fantasy world where foxes dont kill lambs, sheep or fowl, where rabbits dont breed prolifically and quickly destroy good agricultural land required to feed the population and deer dont eat young saplings or strip bark from trees thus destroying them and the natural habitat they provide for many various indigenous fauna or wander onto farms where they again cause damage to the lands.
Therefore your comment that shooting anything doesnt keep anything under control is absolute and utter misguided nonsense in every sense of the word.
Get your facts right before you make a fool of yourself by writing ridiculous posts like the one above and proving nothing other then your ignorance and naivety on a subject you obviously still have a lot to learn about

Well predators are much more effective at controling animal numbers than shooting as studies have shown after the reintroduction of the wolf in yellowstone park. In fact even here where the golden eagle was reintroduced crow numbers dropped. Saying that I think culls are needed where the reintroduction of an animal may not be possible. We certainly shouldnt have to shoot crows or birds here.

vixdname · 08-03-2012 4:00am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well predators are much more effective at controling animal numbers than shooting as studies have shown after the reintroduction of the wolf in yellowstone park. In fact even here where the golden eagle was reintroduced crow numbers dropped. Saying that I think culls are needed where the reintroduction of an animal may not be possible. We certainly shouldnt have to shoot crows or birds here.

If you look at the three animals I spoke about, firstly Deer, they have no natural predators in Ireland since the wolf became extinct. Reintroducing the wolf again to Ireland would obviously be a no go as they would not just stop at feeding on Deer, other valuable livestock would be on the menu in a short time so this straight away is a no go. Therefore shooting is the only way forward to cull Deer in Ireland in the present day.

Secondly, the fox, again, no natural predators in Ireland hence fox are classed as vermin and must be treated as such, you obviously cant use the introduction of wolves as a measure against foxes as the same issues would arise again with livestock being attacked.

Lastly, rabbits, the fox is a rabbits natural predator and the shooting of foxes, but not to excessive numbers ensures both fox numbers are kept down to a controllable number whilst leaving adequate numbers of fox to help keep the rabbit population under control but considering what prolific breeders rabbits are in the wild, the fox population would never be able to single handedly keep the rabbit numbers under control unless supplemented by hunter using guns to keep the numbers down also.

Therefore, taking into consideration the 3 points above, you will plainly see that the reintroduction of certain predators into Ireland is a non runner from the start. The use of hunters and their firearms is the only way forward.

Publican shoots hounds

Comments