Deer shooting at night?????

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Laws and rules are there for control of people

No, they're not. Laws and rules are there so large numbers of people can live together without too much discord. For example, in the times you were talking of only a few posts ago, the penalty for someone caught poaching was that you got beaten or stabbed to death by the locals or the gamekeeper. Our laws and rules allow us to move beyond such a draconian system and onto a more enlightened one. Breaking those laws and rules is indicating a wish to return to the days of cattle raids and life expectancies in the thirties. I don't agree with such a wish myself, I think it's caused by a lack of education about how life really used to be and far too much time reading the "noble savage" type of fiction.

and lets face it they don't allow for thinking outside the box

Actually, law and rules do allow for thinking outside, inside and right through the box. It's actions that they govern, and even there there is some leeway depending on circumstances. Far more than was the case even a hundred years ago for that matter. The problem is that it requires you to be an adult - if you want the law to work for you, you need to work for the law (though we're stretching the term a bit since that "work" means filling in a form).

but its not always black and white.

Of course not, but see the end of this post.

If you followed the rules of the road to the end of time, well, your time would come sooner that you'd bet on you'd cause an accident.

I'd lay good odds that you're wrong, and that you can't cause an accident by following the rules of the road except by someone else breaking them. Which is not an argument for you to break the rules; because then you, by breaking the rules, cause the accident.

rules are sometimes broken and its allowed as the law cannot make allowance for all occurrences that one might encounter.

There are allowances made; but not by any means or measure are those allowances as wide as you've implied, insinuated, and just plain stated in previous posts. The law is not without judgement; it's just that rational judgement without bias is not something we seem to see a lot of when shooters discuss firearms law - we're naturally biased and believe that because we know more than most about firearms, we're naturally qualified to know more about firearms law and that people ought to let us set the laws. Thing is, I wouldn't trust a shooter any more or less than any other lay person when it comes to the law - I have enough formal legal training to know not to trust my own opinion on such things. And while I think we should be listened to more as a technical resource by those who draft the laws (and that's what the FCP is for), I don't believe that just because we shoot, we'd make benevolent tyrants. In fact, given what I've seen of the worst side of shooters over the years, I'd protest against such a state of affairs with my last breath. We're 5% of society at the most optimistic estimate. Coexistence needs to be our goal, not dominance. And if that means you hunt deer with an appropriate tool after filling out a form, it's a small price to pay for not having to worry about getting your head bashed in with a rock by a local landowner 'cos he thought you were poaching and didn't need to go to a court to file a complaint.

There will always be shades of gray

Here's two things for you to consider when saying the world is gray, not black and white: 1, there are shades of gray so deep and shades of gray so light that not calling them black and white is just playing silly buggers; and 2, some things in life just are black and white. Ever met someone who was just slightly pregnant?

Grizzly 45

Say you are living in a state,country,etc.Where there is an over abundance e of wild game ,eg deer. To a point where there are numerous animals dying off of starvation each Winter due to food shortage.There is a total ban on hunting them because the eco freaks and nature nazis control the state legislature and with their fuddy duddy thinking have decreed that the "poor deer" are not to be hunted or anyway interfered with by man. There are no other natural predators to keep the numbers down,and the antis contraceptive for deer has cost millions and produced nothing worthwhile in the deer management numbers.The deer herd is now so interbred that they are weak,producing lousy trophies and are dying miserably,not to mind destroying young plantations of trees.
You as a hunter see this and knowing that this herd must be culled to survive with healthy animals,and being short of cash,a deer carcass would sort out the family meat bill for a season.You have enough morals not to be selling the carcass to anyone but it is for personal consumption.
Would you consider taking a deer for yourself&family?Even though it is illegal and a crime.
However the counter arguement is ;at least 100 plus are killed by road accident each year, and plenty more die off miserably each Winter by exhaustion and starvation.
Discuss.

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Say you are living in a state,country,etc.Where there is an over abundance e of wild game ,eg deer. To a point where there are numerous animals dying off of starvation each Winter due to food shortage.There is a total ban on hunting them because the eco freaks and nature nazis control the state legislature and with their fuddy duddy thinking have decreed that the "poor deer" are not to be hunted or anyway interfered with by man. There are no other natural predators to keep the numbers down,and the antis contraceptive for deer has cost millions and produced nothing worthwhile in the deer management numbers.The deer herd is now so interbred that they are weak,producing lousy trophies and are dying miserably,not to mind destroying young plantations of trees.
You as a hunter see this and knowing that this herd must be culled to survive with healthy animals,and being short of cash,a deer carcass would sort out the family meat bill for a season.You have enough morals not to be selling the carcass to anyone but it is for personal consumption.
Would you consider taking a deer for yourself&family?Even though it is illegal and a crime.
However the counter arguement is ;at least 100 plus are killed by road accident each year, and plenty more die off miserably each Winter by exhaustion and starvation.
Discuss.

In that scenario I would decide based on my own personal circumstances. Certainly the morals of the situation would skew towards taking the deer. I don't know whether or not that would overcome my moral objection to breaking the law.

In fairness though, that scenario is so far away from the current state of affairs as to be totally meaningless. By the time the Dail had managed to be populated with people who would pass such laws I think I would have long since left the country.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Say you are living in a state,country,etc

How about instead we say I live in Ireland. Because, you know, I do. We all do. In fact, how about we actually discuss this in a context that makes sense, instead of inventing silly straw-man arguments? Because if that's all you want to do, here's one for you to point out why straw man arguments ultimately burn us - "suppose that banning all legally held firearms saved one child's life in a hundred years, wouldn't that be worth it?". Ever heard that one before? Ever felt the revulsion at the twisted chain of logic behind it? Well, try looking at your own argument with that critical frame of mind, and see how it holds up.

Would you imprison a starving man for stealing bread for his family? Of course not, it's a stupidly naive and simple example, ignoring things like charities and other mechanisms our society (and it's laws and rules) provide to try to prevent starvation. The only malnourished children I've ever seen in Ireland, I can safely lay the blame for on bad parents (in those specific cases, the parents were happily sending their children to school hungry because they were drinking their dole money, and weren't averse to sending them in with bruises and a fair few mental scars to boot). Happily, those same laws and rules that make that example silly and naive also act to protect such children. The real world is bloody complicated, and the laws and rules have evolved, and are still evolving, to try to cope with that. You need to pick examples that reflect this. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

A better way of looking at that straw man argument would be: Would you imprison a man who, despite not having money for food, seems to have money enough to buy a firearm and ammunition and hunting kit and to go off and lamp deer in the wicklow hills illegally instead of filling out a form for the licence, and then drove the meat back in his jeep (leaving most of the carcass in the middle of the field) to the house for dinner? Damn right I'd prosecute him, the git should have spent the money to feed his kids rather than indulging in his hobby of shooting deer.

Come on Grizzly, pick a decent example and actually debate the point, rather than make up silly stories.

whitser

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ivan,remember that the lurcher was originally the poachers weapon to catch hares,rabbitts ,deer etc,when most folks were not allowed to have firearms,but could afford a mutt type dog to do the job.The lurch has the bad old reputation of the poachers dog,but again it is only doing it's masters bidding.

At the dawn of time man used dogs to hunt..
But poaching thousands years ago was not considered to be a crime against the natural heritage that Ireland is fortunate to posses, it was probable a unwelcome invasion of the neighboring tribe's territories.:D

A few hundred years ago it was seen in the same light. It is only in the last century that we as a race have reconsider the value of our natural environment and the necessity of well maintained bio-diversification thats needed to support life as a whole.

Poachers today are unlikely to be hunt to stave off starvation but in any event they will not employ the use of dogs unless their sport of choice is that of hunting with dogs. They might be badger baiting, digging out foxes, running down deer, running down hare or rabbits but you can be sure that they are aggressive and dangerous as these activities are extremely difficult to carry out in a covert manner and as such for this very reason one could physiologically profile them as having very little fear of authorities or confrontation from land owners or sporting clubs/members with relevant rights etc etc.

How ever professional poachers are using methods of stealth and cunning. They might utilise modern technologies such as flash suppressors and moderators. Being more realistic they probably use old hunting methods such as traps,lines, nets and snares. With this array of implements it would be possible to catch any animal from mink to deer with a degree of skill. but be assured of this simple fact, the last thing a seriously active poacher needs is a bloody dog to blow his cover.

IMO poachers using dogs are doing it for the sake of sport with the dogs and they are not primarily concerned with the detention or capture of the animals they hunt but are primarily concerned with the business of engaging their dogs in a pursuit. The successful capture of any quarry is only viewed as a bonus.
On the other hand the covert poacher armed with his arsenal of devices is only concerned with the numbers of animals captured in any set period of activity
Is there a differance?? Who knows!

ivan are you saying men who hunt with dogs are aggressive and dangerous? that dog men and lurcher men are some kind of criminals? because thats out of order.

Vegeta

whitser wrote: »

ivan are you saying men who hunt with dogs are aggressive and dangerous? that dog men and lurcher men are some kind of criminals? because thats out of order.

I thought he was saying the opposite

I thought he was saying that lurchers have a bad name from their use in the past but nowadays they are used because of the sport they provide.

whitser

he says that,you can be sure they'll be agrresive etc...and that they have less respect for land owners etc.....
i dont think he's much experience of lurchers.
surley a man poaching with a gun is just as disrespectfull of the land owner and clubs etc...
and probably more inclined to be dangerous cos he has a gun and is probably poaching for financial gain and not for sport.
a good lurcher is less likely to give to away then a rifle going off in the still of night. i've no experience of hunting deer,day or night, but a good lurcher will put as much game in the bag as any gun.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

How about instead we say I live in Ireland. Because, you know, I do. We all do. In fact, how about we actually discuss this in a context that makes sense, instead of inventing silly straw-man arguments? Because if that's all you want to do, here's one for you to point out why straw man arguments ultimately burn us - "suppose that banning all legally held firearms saved one child's life in a hundred years, wouldn't that be worth it?". Ever heard that one before? Ever felt the revulsion at the twisted chain of logic behind it? Well, try looking at your own argument with that critical frame of mind, and see how it holds up.

Would you imprison a starving man for stealing bread for his family? Of course not, it's a stupidly naive and simple example, ignoring things like charities and other mechanisms our society (and it's laws and rules) provide to try to prevent starvation. The only malnourished children I've ever seen in Ireland, I can safely lay the blame for on bad parents (in those specific cases, the parents were happily sending their children to school hungry because they were drinking their dole money, and weren't averse to sending them in with bruises and a fair few mental scars to boot). Happily, those same laws and rules that make that example silly and naive also act to protect such children. The real world is bloody complicated, and the laws and rules have evolved, and are still evolving, to try to cope with that. You need to pick examples that reflect this. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

A better way of looking at that straw man argument would be: Would you imprison a man who, despite not having money for food, seems to have money enough to buy a firearm and ammunition and hunting kit and to go off and lamp deer in the wicklow hills illegally instead of filling out a form for the licence, and then drove the meat back in his jeep (leaving most of the carcass in the middle of the field) to the house for dinner? Damn right I'd prosecute him, the git should have spent the money to feed his kids rather than indulging in his hobby of shooting deer.

Come on Grizzly, pick a decent example and actually debate the point, rather than make up silly stories.

Well Sparks if you consider it a silly story,why did you bother replying to it in the first place?????

BryanL

what about rabbit poaching?
kid with a lamp and gun/dog,Should they be prosecuted with the full force of the law?
Bryan

Vegeta

BryanL wrote: »

what about rabbit poaching?
kid with a lamp and gun/dog,Should they be prosecuted with the full force of the law?
Bryan

well it is legal to lamp rabbits, so legally and morally there is no issue

Now maybe you mean someone under the legal age to have a firearm
Someone tresspassing
Or taking rabbits where they have been told not to

I don't quite get the question.

BryanL

taking rabbits without permission from the land owner is poaching,yes? even if the farmer wants them gone etc.
what i'm asking is are people just against this because it's deer and might be "their deer" or because they don't see lamping deer as sporting etc.
or are people only objecting to all of this because it's illegal and nothing more.
Bryan

Vegeta

BryanL wrote: »

taking rabbits without permission from the land owner is poaching,yes? even if the farmer wants them gone etc.
what i'm asking is are people just against this because it's deer and might be "their deer" or because they don't see lamping deer as sporting etc.
or are people only objecting to all of this because it's illegal and nothing more.
Bryan

My objection is purely the law breaking aspect.

IRLConor

BryanL wrote: »

taking rabbits without permission from the land owner is poaching,yes? even if the farmer wants them gone etc.
what i'm asking is are people just against this because it's deer and might be "their deer" or because they don't see lamping deer as sporting etc.
or are people only objecting to all of this because it's illegal and nothing more.
Bryan

Well, I'm objecting to it because it's illegal and nothing more.

I can't construct a plausible, theoretical situation where poaching would be morally justifiable. If someone is hunting animals without permission they're doing it because they want to not because they need to. Breaking the law without being forced into doing it by the circumstances can't be excused or condoned in my book.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well Sparks if you consider it a silly story,why did you bother replying to it in the first place?????

Because if you picked an approach that wasn't silly, there was potential there for constructive discussion.

ivanthehunter

BryanL wrote: »

taking rabbits without permission from the land owner is poaching,yes? even if the farmer wants them gone etc.
what i'm asking is are people just against this because it's deer and might be "their deer" or because they don't see lamping deer as sporting etc.
or are people only objecting to all of this because it's illegal and nothing more.
Bryan

Your are partly right! people get very touchie about their deer and their belief that they are prim and proper hunters.
But some people aren't as fussy when it come to legal issues and it wont matter to them whether it was a rabbit or it was a deer. Its a but crazy to think that some landowner might take you to court for pinching a rabbit and it would be interesting to see how a judge would respond to such a small time crime. BUT WAIT AND SEE!!!:D

Sparks

BryanL wrote: »

taking rabbits without permission from the land owner is poaching,yes? even if the farmer wants them gone etc.

I strongly suspect that if you go poaching rabbits (ie shooting them without permission to do so from the landowner) that you'll wind up in just as much trouble as for deer, for a few reasons. Firstly, you'll be trespassing with a loaded firearm. Secondly, you'll be in breach of your firearms certificate and thus you'll be in possession of a firearm without a cert and not in one of the exempted categories. And thirdly, there's a safety issue - if the farmer doesn't know you're shooting in a field, he may well have let livestock or himself into that field in the danger area.

ivanthehunter

whitser wrote: »

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ivan,remember that the lurcher was originally the poachers weapon to catch hares,rabbitts ,deer etc,when most folks were not allowed to have firearms,but could afford a mutt type dog to do the job.The lurch has the bad old reputation of the poachers dog,but again it is only doing it's masters bidding.

ivan are you saying men who hunt with dogs are aggressive and dangerous? that dog men and lurcher men are some kind of criminals? because thats out of order.

heres what i said whitser
"Poachers today are unlikely to be hunt to stave off starvation but in any event they will not employ the use of dogs unless their sport of choice is that of hunting with dogs. They might be badger baiting, digging out foxes, running down deer, running down hare or rabbits but you can be sure that they are aggressive and dangerous as these activities are extremely difficult to carry out in a covert manner and as such for this very reason one could physiologically profile them as having very little fear of authorities or confrontation from land owners or sporting clubs/members with relevant rights etc etc."
Note the ref to poaching and the ref to a certain type of poacher thats not afraid of confrontations.
I have dogs myself and i am in the process of breeding some lurchers so i have full respect for dog hunting but i was making a reference to blatant poaching as i believe that it next to impossible to keep dogs under control to such a degree that they could be relied up remain quite in a covert situation especially when compared to older mechanical methods of game entrapment.

Vegeta

ivanthehunter wrote: »

i believe that it next to impossible to keep dogs under control to such a degree that they could be relied up remain quite in a covert situation especially when compared to older mechanical methods of game entrapment.

Cant see how a dog and lamp would alert people to your activities any worse than a lamp and the supersonic crack of a moderated rifle.

Hezz700

bunny shooter wrote: »

1st man is commiting an illegal act against law.

2nd man if he has chosen not to join the club is a sponger !

If the club won't allow him join, unless there is a good reason, eg kicked out for poaching etc, then fair play to him !

That a little black and white! the real spongers are the 45 lazy B******s out of a club of 50 that show up a few time in the season to get their "share of birds".

I never see them out freezing there nads off, feeding, traping or shooting vermin. On the other hand if they were all out shooting vermin it would mean less sport for me.:)

ivanthehunter

Vegeta wrote: »

Cant see how a dog and lamp would alert people to your activities any worse than a lamp and the supersonic crack of a moderated rifle.

Try thinking of snares, deadfalls, fenns, gins, nets, poisons, stupefying baits, and live cage traps.. not a single bit of noise or disturbance to the night time silence:eek: These are the real tools of the poaching man and if i was forced to pick the 'one tool for all animals' that a poacher might use it would be the snare by a long shot(long shot:))
Any animal is easily caught in a quite manner with appropriate techniques whether under government license or otherwise.






Don't poach its not worth getting caught:cool:

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Because if you picked an approach that wasn't silly, there was potential there for constructive discussion.

Ah..So you are now in charge judging what is constructive or isnt silly here nowadays????Well EXCUSSEEEE ME!!!!

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ah..So you are now in charge judging what is constructive or isnt silly here nowadays????Well EXCUSSEEEE ME!!!!

Well, he *is* the moderator...

ivanthehunter

[QUOTE Sparks
Would you imprison a starving man for stealing bread for his family? Of course not, it's a stupidly naive and simple example, ignoring things like charities and other mechanisms our society (and it's laws and rules) provide to try to prevent starvation.

The real world is bloody complicated, and the laws and rules have evolved, and are still evolving, to try to cope with that. You need to pick examples that reflect this. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

QUOTE]
Has the worm has turned? There are exceptions to all circumstances in our daily or nightly lives;). Hunting is no different and it too throws up from time to time dilemmas for any normal man to ponder upon.... Shades of gray! perhaps not when using terminology such as poaching but poaching is only one facet of hunting and our government has not crossed all its t's and dotted all of it's i's so the law is open to interpretation and it is every citizens right to do as he wishes in the eyes of the state as long as he stays with in the remit of such ever changing legal goalposts. A person can test the water if they fancy their chances of being on the right side of the law through their own understanding, we all know that ignorance is no defence but people have a right to do as they see fit.

Now where is my big stick:D
Sparks:mad: what have i told you about talking in shades of gray?:D
If the man stole he stole and thats that, ask Adrian Kennedy:D
and whats this about the changing law evolving to try and cope?
Seriously
Pm if some one has a gun to your head and I'll shoot over in the Bat-Car and rescue you girls

lol at you showing your softer side next you,ll be looking for me to rub you belly:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Moderator ;definition;[www.thefreedictionary.com] most revelant defination of this.

One that arbitrates,or mediates.
One who presides over a forum,meeting or debate.

Nuff Said I think!;)

Agree with Ivan on this,the snare is by far the most common and effective way of taking game[and the most cruel] that I have come across.Next the underpowerd cal rifle,and homemade hillbilly slug.

Hate to say it lads,but a good professional poaching gang is almost as good as a Spec Ops unit in night movement,concealment and leaving no trace of it being there.It is not to their advantage to let the World know they were there poaching in the first place.They will know the terrain better than you and the rangers.
No one would dare use a jack light anymore when you have NVG,2way radios and scanners available, or even let rumours of a poaching gang start in an area.Nor would you ever catch one of them dressed up like hunters, or in cammo,driving big Jeeps,or bragging down in the pubs or leaving carcasses around the country like confetti.Or even have a non broken down deer carcass or excess game meat that is inexplicable in their property.Nor would they be inclined to sell the ill gotton gains.Too risky of being stung by the law.

Nor will they hit the same area twice in a season.Anything like that is asking for trouble.

What you have here are amatuers and cowboys.No sane poacher would waste a deer carcass like described,when they have gone thru all the hassle of gaining 100kg of meat to abondon most of it in a field and let everyone know somthing illegal is going on.

On a point;who Actually DOES own the wild deer in Ireland???Obviously if it is park deer the landowner..But what of the escaped/set free 2nd gen animals that rove over a district??
Hope this question meets with some peoples approval.:rolleyes:

irish setter

hopefully this isn't too silly... i don't know anything about poaching for profit because never heard about it going on where i'm from. anyway in my fathers time poaching as we know it today was a way of life. my arguement is if hunting as we know it today was banned or more likely restricted who here would then become poachers. i myself think i would.

Sparks

Spec Ops? Deadfall traps? Adrian Kennedy? Bat-cars?
Feck's sake.

Vegeta

Folks I think this thread has run its course.