Ethical question on Deer Hunting.

ivanthehunter

I have an question.
Let us imagine for a moment that a hunter is out after Deer when he/she sees a nice specimen. They take a shot but unfortunately it is not good enough to achieve an instantaneous drop. Some how the quarry finds enough power and energy to make a final run for safety but unfortunately the deer runs out of the area for which the hunter has permission.

What should the hunter do here.

If he follows the animal on to another plot of land for which he/she has no prior permission than he commits a crime by armed trespass.

But if (s)he leaves an injured animal to die slowly (s)he could be leaving him self open to a charge of cruelty to animals.

There is also the most evil crime to consider. That is the crime of allowing this animal rot.

What is one to do??

Jonty

The stalker has no right to persue to wounded animal outside his area of permission either armed or un armed.

I believe in the event of the animal entering state lands the local Game Warden must be contacted, and he she will escort you onto the state lands.

In the case of private lands, the stalker must get permission from the landowner before entering.

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

The stalker has no right to persue to wounded animal outside his area of permission either armed or un armed.

I believe in the event of the animal entering state lands the local Game Warden must be contacted, and he she will escort you onto the state lands.

In the case of private lands, the stalker must get permission from the landowner before entering.

Please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

this may suprise jonty but ;injured deer may be killed by any one at any time in or out of season with or without permisson or without a deer hunting licence ,using any legal means .also its not necessary to advise the npws or the garda or any one else and no futher permission is required ..but it would do no harm to leave a quick message with the duly ranger or local cop shop .this policy relates to the humane treatment of injured animals and the pervention of futher suffering .The says noting about how the deer was injured or shot .

Jonty

I think what Ivan is getting at is the legality of entering somebody's property. To enter somebody's property without permisssion, while carrying a firearm, is armed tresspass.

I agree 100% to dispatch a wounded deer as quick as possible, but in today's "claim and blame culture" the best method of doing anything is still CYA - cover yer ar$e.

kerryman12

well i am not very sure about the legalities, but if it was me and I had taken the shoot - I would follow up and finish the job humanely. I owe the quarry that much at least.

Grizzly 45

Agree with both POV here.The legal side of things,do it right by contacting the NPWS and /or Gardai.However in the really real world of Ireland is this a viable scenario? Is the Garda station in lower Baile Amadhan going to be open at ten o clock in the night? Or are they going to have the NPWS local ranger s number?Is he going to get out before dark?Have you marked the blood trail?Can you find it again in the dark?Have you access to a trained scent dog[you should if you hunt deer]Weather is a factor too.Is it raining?The scent can be diffused.Do you know the next landowner?Are they helpful?.Meantime you animal is suffering out there.IMO would be follow as far as possible as weather/daylight allows,if it was a killing shot,the deer will lie down within a certain disrtance to rest and hopefully expire.If it sprinted off and died on state lands or hostile farmers land.You have more of aproblem.Come back in the AM or whenever the Ranger gets away from his desk to help and go looking for the animal.However if you have a good strong blood trail,and it s still light,there is a good chance the animal is down within a short distance,I would persue,on humanity grounds alone.Doubt seriously that anyone would under the vauge procedure of enforcing the law on this here in this situation consider it poaching or armed tresspass.Dammed if you do or dammed or if you dont.

jwshooter

Jonty wrote: »

I think what Ivan is getting at is the legality of entering somebody's property. To enter somebody's property without permisssion, while carrying a firearm, is armed tresspass.

I agree 100% to dispatch a wounded deer as quick as possible, but in today's "claim and blame culture" the best method of doing anything is still CYA - cover yer ar$e.

the reading, is its ok to enter some ones land to dispatch a injured deer with out permission thats what ivan asked .to enter lands to hunt with out permission is a differ matter . that is armed tresspass

meathstevie

Let's complicate things a bit...If you have the sporting rights or permission on the land where you shot the deer you can argue that you own the carcass or the soon to be carcass. Are you entitled to retrieve it on land you don't have explicit hunting permission for ?

Personaly I would follow the deer unless there were specific signs denying entry or I was told in the past I couldn't enter the fields or forrestry. Hell, never mind deer. I've crossed into fields I didn't have explicit permission for to pick up winged pheasants and pigeons...I think it's worse to leave the animal to suffer or become vermin food than it is to enter a grey area.

I also think that in the case Ivan used as an example you should also keep in mind that there's no such thing as trespassing unless someone takes offence at you being there and speaking from experience I don't know too many farmers who would have a problem with you trying to recover wounded deer rather than be left with a rotting carcass on their land.

Sparks

Are you entitled to retrieve it on land you don't have explicit hunting permission for ?

It's not the hunting permission that's relevant there. As in the rest of the thread, the simple question is can you go onto land that you don't have permission to enter (the obvious answer being no, of course not, it's trespass). The firearms/hunting bit is just a red herring.

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

It's not the hunting permission that's relevant there. As in the rest of the thread, the simple question is can you go onto land that you don't have permission to enter (the obvious answer being no, of course not, it's trespass). The firearms/hunting bit is just a red herring.

what .. read my first post hear the question in answered

thelurcher

Sparks wrote: »

It's not the hunting permission that's relevant there. As in the rest of the thread, the simple question is can you go onto land that you don't have permission to enter (the obvious answer being no, of course not, it's trespass). The firearms/hunting bit is just a red herring.

sparks - you are saying that jwshooter is incorrect right? Could you elaborate on exactly why? i.e he says that you CAN follow an animal that you wounded out of your permission.
I'd have thought that you could - and personally I would - regardless.

I'm hunting a fairly long time now with guns, hounds, lurchers and terriers and I've never heard of anyone being done for trespass is it common in this context?

ivanthehunter

Sorry to cut across you there lurcher,
IMO legislation needs to be modified to protect the animals welfare above all other considerations. And if by default this improves hunters right, well then so be it....
If I was to take some steps to reduce the possibility of this incident occurring then they would be as follows,

1-Get prior permission to enter land if the above occurs which is not always practical or possible or easily achieved.

2-Try to take shots in locations away from boundaries which is very restrictive and not always possible when planning for a back stop.

3-When an animal is close to a no go area, a head shot should be used if the hunter is capable of such a well placed shot, again this is not alway possible either because of previously discussed ethical reasons of the difficulty of these shots and/or the range and the back stop.

4- Use a sufficiently powerful firearm to do the job as quickly as possible but again this is no guarantee that the beast will drop instantaneously. Also there is the age old problem of licencing such powerful firearms when dealing with different Garda Stations and their respective superintendents, firearms officer and crime prevention officers.

In regards to the lurchers comments, in practice there never seem to be a problem when retrieving any shoot animal from someones else's land in my limited experience but none the less this activity is against the law and if the land owner wished to prosecute, he would be entitled to do so. Generally though it is common practice to ask local farmers what their neighbours are like and to ask if any of them are likely to be greatly offended by such activities.
It is not beyond belief that when a hunter is approached by a farmer in a field for which the hunter has no permission, this whole incident is often over looked when the hunter provides the name of the neighbouring farmer but never say never. And remember that a few minutes spent chatting to the local neighbours might save a load of hassle further down the road.

But again in general, farmers depend on one another for help, knowledge and support from time to time through out the year and as such most of them will do their utmost not to fall out with their neighbour by their actions or word to either the farmer, his family, his assigns or visitors.
Thats how it is for the most part in country life.

NB*NB* I am not encouraging any illegal activity and i would suggest that people take steps to avoid such actions.

whitser

dont shoot deer or own a rifle so this is purlely just opinion. but i'd follow the animal regardless, i dont think any farmer or landowner would have a problem with you retrieving a wounded deer like that. i certainly wouldnt go looking for permission etc...in that time wasted the animal could move futher away and disappear altogether.
i think finding the deer asap should take precidence over land boundries.

whitser

also the fact that you have permission on the land beside will show the farmer your not some poacher etc..so i wouldnt see a problem.you'd probably end up getting more permission.;)

Grizzly 45

One or two other points on this..Has anyone ever had to evict tresspassers??I have,and I can say with surety,that you can only prosecute if[1] They refuse to leave your land or premisis [2] have no good reason for being there.[3] A witness to the fact is also pretty much needed as well.[4] last time I looked the fines for tresspassing was pretty derisiory.

Also a question on head shots on deer.How do you folks display your antler racks??If you head shoot a stag,Iwould assume that the head must disintergrate,thussly destroying the rack or any possibility of mounting a half way decent looking trophy...

IRLConor

I think the core issue here is a conflict between ethics and laws.

Ethically, I think it's pretty clear cut. You follow the animal and dispatch it properly. I don't think anyone here would argue otherwise.

It's in the law where the problems lie. If you go onto someone's land without their permission you open yourself up to a lot of problems. Imagine that the land you cross into is owned by someone with no experience of hunting. What will they think of someone camoed up and carrying a rifle on their land without their permission? What are the odds on them calling the Gardai? What if you cross onto Coillte land and you're spotted by some walkers? Will they call the Gardai? Or imagine if the landowner is an activist for ICABS. I'm sure some of them would love to get you charged with trespassing on their land, even if it got thrown out later.

I guess it boils down to a question of "Am I willing to risk legal trouble to dispatch an animal I wounded?". I don't think there's a simple answer to that, it will depend on the shooter and on the precise circumstances. Only someone in that particular situation will have enough information to decide for themselves.

That said, it might be worth checking with the people you have your permission from to ask what the neighbours are like. Either that or check with the neighbours yourself.

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

One or two other points on this..Has anyone ever had to evict tresspassers??I have,and I can say with surety,that you can only prosecute if[1] They refuse to leave your land or premisis [2] have no good reason for being there.[3] A witness to the fact is also pretty much needed as well.[4] last time I looked the fines for tresspassing was pretty derisiory.

A scumbag will not care about the risk of a conviction for trespassing for those very reasons.

On the other hand, a law abiding person wouldn't like to run the risk of being hauled in for it even if it will never go to court. If you were hunting in your local area and the Gardai were called because you were trespassing on their land it could cause trouble come renewal time.

Sparks

lurcher - no, I'm not saying jw's wrong, he and I are talking about different things. He's talking about dispatching a wounded animal - I'm talking about going onto land you have no permission to go onto in pursuit of said animal. You are not legally entitled to do the latter, and while an individual farmer might have no problem with you doing so, another might have a massive problem with it and you're then in the unenviable position of having been caught red-handed - and having probably confessed while explaining your actions - in the act of armed trespass, which isn't a crime anyone gets very sympathetic towards.

You *might* have a legal defence by saying that you were in pursuit of a wounded animal to effect a merciful dispatch and that that's your "good reason" for being on someone else's property; I personally wouldn't want to be the one who was risking my liberty on that - especially when you'd probably have to morgage your home to pay for such a gamble regardless of the outcome (barristers and solicitors are not cheap).

It's not a great area of law really, and conor's comment on the ethics/law conflict here is spot on. The problem really is that we're living in the second most litigious state in the world (only the US sues more often than we do).

Best advice is probably to never get into this situation and always do the job right in the first place. If the deer are up against the edge of the property today, maybe they won't be next time; and if they're always there, it gives you time to get permission for the adjacent land - or at least sound out the owner - and you're sorted. This kind of situation seems pretty much set up by a kind of "getthereitis", which is something that kills a lot of pilots and drivers - this inner urge to do something right now even though waiting would be a better option.

Grizzly 45

Dammed if you do or dammed if you dont situation really.
Be done for tresspass or be done for animal cruelty.
Even the best laid plans/shots of mice and men oft gan arwy.You can never grauentee a 100% clean kill in the field.
Understand where you are coming from with the getthereitis.However it is argueable as a defence.What was the greater of two evils?Let an animal suffer..or discommode somone for a short period of time by trespass without intent of harm to rectify a mistake?You are not tresspassing on their property with intent to cause them mischeif,nor are you tresspassing willingly armed[IE you cant leave down your gun on the other property for risk of theft and prosecution as well].There is the old adage justice must be temperd with common sense.
If say the animal dropped within seeing distance of the boundary and you can retrive with no one around ,and not demolishing the neighbours place <advising people to do illegal things deleted>.If however it is gone over hill and dale and you have to treck well into the other property,thats a different story.
All in all an intresting one to puzzle on.

thelurcher

I get what you're saying now Sparks.

I always go when I'm told by a farmer - unless there's a good reason why I can't e.g. terrier in ground.
Would I leave if asked if I'm put in the same situation as described here? Yes - i'd probably go easy enough.

Sparks

Really, it's more a damned if you do scenario. You can't get into trouble at all if you don't pull the trigger

As to whether it's a greater evil to trespass on someone else's property while armed with a deadly weapon (and yes, you're willingly armed Grizzly, no-one forced you to go hunting that day), or let an animal suffer a wound you inflicted on it, let's just say it's a question I'd rather not have to answer in court in front of a judge. I don't see any answer to the question that I'd like to live with.

What I will say though, is that I'm editing out your advice to people to break the law from your post - seriously, what if someone read that here, did it, got in trouble and then sued boards for giving them "improper legal advice"?

Grizzly 45

Well then maybe Sparks a sticky Disclaimer on Boards .That all advice here has no legal bearing whatsoever and they are opinions only.and that proper lega l advice should be aquired before attempting any opinions expressed here.Boards.ie is not responsible...etc etc etc.
Should sort that out...Non?

As for the rest.Well you pulled the trigger in what you belived to be a safe manner,well within yor shooting ground God or Devil wont get the bullet back and they threw you a curved ball as well.You cannot forsee the future in nano seconds.So you are now into Act of God country here.
So you are going off to go poaching or shoot the neighbour and use your Deadly WEAPON[thought there was somthing about that terminology here?] to corece him to do somthing??
Armed tresspass has to do with intent to comitt harm or corecion

Quoting from principles of Irish Law B Doolan page 139

Necessity affords a good defence where through an emergency the defendant enters the land or premisis of another.The law would be strange if a person who risked his life by entering a premisis to attempt a rescue of another or to quench the fire,should be later sued for tresspass.

There is also Actions of third parties ;If the action of a third party causes the tresspass it exeronates the defendant.The example of a man sitting on a wall and being pushed onto the land of another.

The Nature of Tresspass to Land is defined as
The direct and forceible interferance with the land or premisison of another.The entering of,or the remaining on,or the removal of soil or vegatation from the land ,or premisis of another is a tresspass. [page136]

Tresspass is actionable per se,which means the owner is entitled to suceedin the absence ofdamage to the land or premisis.The defendant is punished for infringing the plantiffs right.it the owner can prove tangible loss he may be entitled to substantial damage

It could also be argued that as wild deer are not owned per se by anyone.That by shooting it you have laid claim to it,and that you are going to recover your property.If the owner insists on denying you permission you could counter sue for proably theft of property.

All in all it is one that will be weighed up on it's pros and cons.We can argue this till judgement day,but it will be still a court decision to get a clear judgement on this.

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well then maybe Sparks a sticky Disclaimer on Boards .That all advice here has no legal bearing whatsoever and they are opinions only.and that proper lega l advice should be aquired before attempting any opinions expressed here.Boards.ie is not responsible...etc etc etc.
Should sort that out...Non?

Nope. The Legal Discussion forum charter is written the way it is precisely because of that.

Grizzly 45

Talking about here on the shooting boards.

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Talking about here on the shooting boards.

Yeah, but the reason they don't allow anything even approaching legal advice in the Legal Discussion forum is because it opens boards.ie the company to potential litigation. I don't see how it would be different here.

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Really, it's more a damned if you do scenario. You can't get into trouble at all if you don't pull the trigger

As to whether it's a greater evil to trespass on someone else's property while armed with a deadly weapon (and yes, you're willingly armed Grizzly, no-one forced you to go hunting that day), or let an animal suffer a wound you inflicted on it, let's just say it's a question I'd rather not have to answer in court in front of a judge. I don't see any answer to the question that I'd like to live with.

What I will say though, is that I'm editing out your advice to people to break the law from your post - seriously, what if someone read that here, did it, got in trouble and then sued boards for giving them "improper legal advice"?

while armed with a deadly weapon ,,QUOTE , its a firearm ,irish hunters do not have weapons nor are they deadly only when a shot is on is the round chambered .you must have not done the hcap it is one of the questions in it ,about following up a injured deer on to some one s ground ,Thats the answer i gave in my first post ,the hcap was drawn up by on garda ,coillte ,npws...there has been times over the years i have followed deer on to the park or other ground that have been clipped ,i have often met the local ranger on the hill with no problems ,there not fools nor are land owners if your straight and have a problem on your hands most likely they will help you look for it .keep a list of relevant phone numbers with you

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well then maybe Sparks a sticky Disclaimer on Boards .That all advice here has no legal bearing whatsoever and they are opinions only.and that proper lega l advice should be aquired before attempting any opinions expressed here.Boards.ie is not responsible...etc etc etc.
Should sort that out...Non?

Non. Wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't printed on.

As for the rest.Well you pulled the trigger in what you belived to be a safe manner

Not a defence against a negligence charge y'know...

So you are now into Act of God country here.

Yes, but the law then says you have no right to enter the other guy's land without permission, and that's not an Act of God, that'd be an Act of Grizzly, and you can be dragged through the courts on that one. I mean, ffs, we've seen successful trespass cases brought in the most ridiculous of cases - like where someone has a 1/17th part share in land, refuses to let a water pipe go across the land from the only well for miles unless all 16 other landowners agree (knowing one is too ill to agree), and then off to court when the pipe is laid. And wins.
Law and common sense aren't always on the same page Grizzly, but Law is at least defined and an avoidable risk...

So you are going off to go poaching or shoot the neighbour and use your Deadly WEAPON[thought there was somthing about that terminology here?]

Yup. And in this case, you've broken the law with it and that's what they'll call it.

Necessity affords a good defence where through an emergency the defendant enters the land or premisis of another.The law would be strange if a person who risked his life by entering a premisis to attempt a rescue of another or to quench the fire,should be later sued for tresspass.

That doesn't apply here because you're assuming that it's an emergency to kill the deer you just wounded. It's not. No life is at risk, and the other landowner may well own an implement that will facilitate the dispatch. This is your own personal ethics provoking the chase, not any threat to life - and the courts don't agree with your own personal ethics overruling the law.

All in all it is one that will be weighed up on it's pros and cons.We can argue this till judgement day,but it will be still a court decision to get a clear judgement on this.

Agreed - but I don't want to be the one in court with an enormous bill to pay to my solicitor before anyone even opens the case!

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

if your straight and have a problem on your hands most likely they will help you look for it

most likely is not will. Even if 99 times out of 100 no problem arose, that last poor sod in the crosshairs is going to be done for armed trespass. That's why we can't say "go ahead, break the law, no-one will mind". Because eventually someone will, and the consequences will be serious for the poor schmuck who's caught.

Grizzly 45

IRLConor wrote: »

Yeah, but the reason they don't allow anything even approaching legal advice in the Legal Discussion forum is because it opens boards.ie the company to potential litigation. I don't see how it would be different here.

Indeed,it should.So why then is Sparks getting all so het up about it??If we are working on that commonsense premise that we all understand that anything can be published on the Net,and it has no legal standing whatsoever in a COL.Be a pretty poor case to say somone told me it is ok to comitt an illegal act cos I saw it on a Boards group so I thought it was legal.GTFOH!:)

Sparks

Grizzly, you're confusing common sense and rationality with the law again.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Non. Wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't printed on.

Not a defence against a negligence charge y'know...

Negligence has to be proven that you deliberately did not take all reasonable and sensible precautions to prevent an an unwanted outcome.
Since we DO NOT have a factual case to argue here,you and I can throw all sorts of variables into it to make it suit our POVs.we cant prove it wasa negligence case.

Yes, but the law then says you have no right to enter the other guy's land without permission, and that's not an Act of God

And who said it was????

,

that'd be an Act of Grizzly, and you can be dragged through the courts on that one. I mean, ffs, we've seen successful trespass cases brought in the most ridiculous of cases - like where someone has a 1/17th part share in land, refuses to let a water pipe go across the land from the only well for miles unless all 16 other landowners agree (knowing one is too ill to agree), and then off to court when the pipe is laid. And wins.

Kind of a strawman there Sparks...what revelance has laying a pipe and digging up property which DOES fall quite clearly in the tresspass act.Got to do with our hypothecial case here.Apart from being under the same act.

Law and common sense aren't always on the same page Grizzly, but Law is at least defined and an avoidable risk...

Indeed,but the Law is VAUGE on this matter of Animal dispatch..We have two different of laws clashing here Tresspass andAnimal cruelty.What did one old judge once say..where the law is vauge or nonexistant,one must use common sense??

Yup. And in this case, you've broken the law with it and that's what they'll call it.

SIGH!!!!How many more times do I have to say that Armed tresspass has an intent to comitt a more henious crime than just the tresspass???

That doesn't apply here because you're assuming that it's an emergency to kill the deer you just wounded. It's not. No life is at risk, and the other landowner may well own an implement that will facilitate the dispatch.

Debateable,A injured animal is a dangerous animal.Plus Stags have large pointed things on their heads called antlers.They are not for show,and there have been cases of people and livestock being injured by stags even when they have not been shot.Called murderers or murder stags.
So would you like your charge of negligence increased to invol manslaughter?

Well if said landowner isnt a hunter or an anti.I doubt very much that they will have a suitable impliment at hand to deal with the problem.

This is your own personal ethics provoking the chase, not any threat to life - and the courts don't agree with your own personal ethics overruling the law.

you could argue that one intrestingly enough here,since a bunch of hippies damaged a US Navy aircraft down in Shannon,and were declared not guilty in the high court,due to their belif that they were doing somthing "ethical" to prevent thisaircraft taking part in an illegal war in Iraq.Abit more serious than retriving a injured deer methinks.

Agreed - but I don't want to be the one in court with an enormous bill to pay to my solicitor before anyone even opens the case!

[/QUOTE]
Agree with you on that point.BUT it will take this to happen to clarify the law.

meathstevie

Grizzly probably has knowledge of similar rules governing this sort of issues in Germany but the way it works in Belgium ( my stomping ground ) is that all wild animals that are deemed to be game animals ( basicly any animal with an open and closed season ) are the property of the person who holds the sporting rights over the land the animal is on at a particular time. The situation that is being discussed above is also specifically legislated for. A hunter who has wounded an animal has the right to retrieve it outside the boundaries of his/her permission, even stronger: the owner or occupier of the land a wounded animal might end up on is obliged to return the carcass or give access to the hunter to retrieve it.

I particularly remember an incident that took place when I was about ten years of age. A friend of my old man shot and wounded a hare that ran on into a large back garden of a local well known anti to drop dead in the middle of this particular ladies lawn. My dad's pal being a bit of a stubborn caracter ( and a sollicitor ) climbed the fence separating the garden and the field they were hunting to retrieve his hare and of course the most unholy shouting match started. Anyway, your man tried to explain that he had a legal entitlement to pick up his hare and that the last thing he wanted to do was hunt in her back garden. He just wanted his hare. To cut a long story short, neither did budge and the cops were called. When they arrived the situation was quickly resolved : the hare was recovered and a gobsmacked anti was left behind.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Negligence has to be proven that you deliberately did not take all reasonable and sensible precautions to prevent an an unwanted outcome.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to talk to the guy next door before shooting deer close to his property in case it ran?
"reasonable" and "sensible" are words which should make your blood run cold when it comes to legal cases Grizzly.
You have to stop assuming that the other guy will see your point of view - he's paid not to do so.
It's like that youtube video from the US of a law professor in a lecture (and a police detective agreeing with him) saying that in the US you should never, ever, ever talk to a cop - it's completely counter to all good civics and common sense, but still utterly true (over there).

And who said it was????

You did, when you said that it was an Act of God that you missed the deer and thus had to chase him. Missing deer = Act of God. Chasing him = Act of Grizzly.

Kind of a strawman there Sparks...what revelance has laying a pipe and digging up property which DOES fall quite clearly in the tresspass act.Got to do with our hypothecial case here.Apart from being under the same act.

It's an example to show that the application (and the theory) of the law on trespass is not fair, is not rational, is not equitable, does not follow common sense, is not ethical, nor concerned with community or other moral values, and is in general a complete pain in the fundament - but still must be obeyed (unless you like to pay out damages in which case, would you mind trespassing on the private property of your local club because believe me they could use the money better than a solicitor could).
For a better example, from the Game Preservation Act, if you have permission from the landowner to shoot game on his land, and he's also given permission to a club/association to shoot on his land, you're committing an act of trespass against that club/association if you shoot game on the landowner's land, even though you have his permission. As law goes, the whole area's a mess.

Indeed,but the Law is VAUGE on this matter of Animal dispatch.

And SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE on the matter of trespass.
Guess which one wins in court?

SIGH!!!!How many more times do I have to say that Armed tresspass has an intent to comitt a more henious crime than just the tresspass???

Armed trespass isn't actually the name of the crime in the statutes. NNR has a good explanation of it here. The salient point is that if you go onto someone's land after an animal (wounded or not) and you have a firearm with you (loaded or not), you're guilty. Intent to commit a more heinous crime convicts you of something else entirely (attempted manslaughter or some such).

Debateable

Indeed. And it'll cost you ten grand or more to have that debate in court, to say nothing of how much it'll cost you when folks stop hiring you because of your "dubious past". You can go right ahead if you want, but I'm not going to. Getting into legal arguments in a court of law is a passtime for the very, very wealthy.

So would you like your charge of negligence increased to invol manslaughter?

Ironically, it's not negligence if an animal you wound escapes off the land you can legally go onto and kills someone - you were legally prohibited from assisting, so you can't be held responsible. (Well. Assuming you weren't being completely stupid, and, say, raising a tiger and trying to kill it with your bare hands and it escaped in the process )

you could argue that one intrestingly enough here,since a bunch of hippies damaged a US Navy aircraft down in Shannon,and were declared not guilty in the high court,due to their belif that they were doing somthing "ethical" to prevent thisaircraft taking part in an illegal war in Iraq.Abit more serious than retriving a injured deer methinks.

If you think you can quote the Nuremberg Protocols in your defence at a trespass case in the District and then Circuit courts, let me know when so I can get my seat early and bring popcorn!

Agree with you on that point.BUT it will take this to happen to clarify the law.

And if you want to be the test case, on your head be it - but you can't advise people to take a course of action on boards.ie that isn't already sorted out legally. If they sue, they don't sue you, and they don't sue me, they sue boards.ie. That's not fair or proper, but it's how the law works (seriously, it's horrendous. Don't even go there). DeVore and the others take a significant risk just running this site; the mods strive to limit their exposure, because they're putting their asses on the line so we can have our forums.

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

<very long complete quote snipped>

This not you tube land or the usa listen to the facts log on to the hcap wed site your answer is in FAQ section

Sparks

Or, for the facts, you could read the actual statute linked to in that post where it says things like:

44.—(1) Any person who not being the owner or occupier of land—
( a ) with a firearm or with a device, instrument or missile mentioned in section 72 (7) of this Act hunts a wild bird or wild animal on the land or moves or drives such a bird or such an animal off the land in order so to hunt it,
( b ) enters on the land for the purpose of so hunting wild birds or wild animals,
( c ) carries on the land—
(i) any firearm, or
(ii) any net, or other weapon, instrument or device capable of being used for hunting a wild bird or a wild animal,
or",
( d ) shoots over or into the land,
without the permission either of the person who is the owner or the occupier of the land or, in case some other person is entitled to enjoy sporting rights over the land, that other person, shall be guilty of an offence.

And which then goes on to stack the deck even more against you with this little number:

(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary for the prosecutor to prove that, at the time of the offence, a defendant
(a) was on the land without lawful authority, or
(b) was not the owner or occupier of the land,
and in case a defendant claims that he was on the land with lawful authority or is either the owner or occupier of the land, the onus of proving such authority, or that he is the owner or occupier of the land, shall be on the defendant..

Are you sure the HCAP advises you that you can trespass to dispatch a deer? Because when I read it all I find is this:

Q. What about injured deer found on the road or elsewhere?

Injured deer may be killed by any person, at any time, in or out of season, with or without a licence, using any legal means. It is not necessary to advise the National Parks & Wildlife Service, the Garda Siochana or anybody else, in advance. No further specific permission is required.

And that is not saying you have permission to trespass. It's saying you can kill a wounded deer to put it out of its misery when you come across one. It says NOTHING about being allowed to trespass onto someone else's property to effect the dispatch.

Dvs

1.Wild deer are owned by nobody.

2.Shoot a deer it belongs to the person,
that owns the shooting rights on the land it falls dead on.

Shoot and wound a deer on land that you have permission to shoot on,
before you can fire a follow up shot,
the deer crosses onto land you neither own the shooting rights on or have permission to shoot on? see 2.above

What action you should take?

Go and talk to the land owner explain what happened,
ask can I recover the deer from your land ?

If they say No its my deer now!
Tough.

If they say yes!
say thank you and offer them part of the deer.

They may give you permission to shoot on their land also.

Dvs.

Grizzly 45

[Not quite the German law MS.In Germany it is clearly laid out.If the animal/bird crosses onto another reserve.Your right of pursuit stops at your boundry mark.End of story.To pursue the injured you must either contact your neighbour shooter who holds the sporting rights or the State Forestry.They are at will to hunt the injured animal,as their own game animal,and are under NO obligation to return the dead game.

I particularly remember an incident that took place when I was about ten years of age. A friend of my old man shot and wounded a hare that ran on into a large back garden of a local well known anti to drop dead in the middle of this particular ladies lawn. My dad's pal being a bit of a stubborn caracter ( and a sollicitor ) climbed the fence separating the garden and the field they were hunting to retrieve his hare and of course the most unholy shouting match started. Anyway, your man tried to explain that he had a legal entitlement to pick up his hare and that the last thing he wanted to do was hunt in her back garden. He just wanted his hare. To cut a long story short, neither did budge and the cops were called. When they arrived the situation was quickly resolved : the hare was recovered and a gobsmacked anti was left behind.

[/QUOTE]

Had that somwhat as well.But the trouble is on the Continent that we both know,is ownership of land does not entitle you to any of the rights we have here.You do not own the rights to water,minerals,or game on your land.So yes you can go into Ms Antis garden and retrive your hare or whatnot.So long as her house is within your reserve.

jwshooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[Not quite the German law MS.In Germany it is clearly laid out.If the animal/bird crosses onto another reserve.Your right of pursuit stops at your boundry mark.End of story.To pursue the injured you must either contact your neighbour shooter who holds the sporting rights or the State Forestry.They are at will to hunt the injured animal,as their own game animal,and are under NO obligation to return the dead gam,

Had that somwhat as well.But the trouble is on the Continent that we both know,is ownership of land does not entitle you to any of the rights we have here.You do not own the rights to water,minerals,or game on your land.So yes you can go into Ms Antis garden and retrive your hare or whatnot.So long as her house is within your reserve.[/QUOTE] in 1974 a register of handlers and there dogs was made in denmark , the handlers get a id card .the card allows the handler to enter any ones land in possession of a fire arm in pursuit of a wounded deer .the carcase is the property of the person whose land it is found on .i know only five men that have a trained tracking dog at heal when stalking

ivanthehunter

Sparks wrote: »

For a better example, from the Game Preservation Act, if you have permission from the landowner to shoot game on his land, and he's also given permission to a club/association to shoot on his land, you're committing an act of trespass against that club/association if you shoot game on the landowner's land, even though you have his permission. As law goes, the whole area's a mess.

GTFOH what sort of rubbish is that, if thats true i give up.

Sparks wrote: »

That doesn't apply here because you're assuming that it's an emergency to kill the deer you just wounded. It's not. No life is at risk, and the other landowner may well own an implement that will facilitate the dispatch. This is your own personal ethics provoking the chase, not any threat to life - and the courts don't agree with your own personal ethics overruling the law

An implement is not a legal means of dispatch for a wounded deer.
The law states that "any body can dispatch a wounded deer by any legal method" but the law also states that no animal can be injured by a spear, arrow, implement etc etc.

You are quick to point out to others about the legality of Bad Advise but you have turned up a real porker with this lesson 1.1 Death by implement
I have posted this here to alert readers to the error in hand.


In terms of this dilemma, i would be happy to see some solid government guild lines to deal with this outcome as it is not only restricted to deer hunting!

Grizzly 45

Wouldn't it be reasonable to talk to the guy next door before shooting deer close to his property in case it ran?

It would,IF you can find them,knowwho they are,they are willing to talk to you etc.Again many variables to add to the discussion.

"reasonable" and "sensible" are words which should make your blood run cold when it comes to legal cases Grizzly.
You have to stop assuming that the other guy will see your point of view - he's paid not to do so.

I am not assuming anything Sparks.I am stating that all arguements of law and reason[yes does come into it] is put to one person to do his job ...the Judge.He is paid to weigh up the law and thereasons for wrong doing,and the clarity of two conflicting points of view and law.

It's like that youtube video from the US of a law professor in a lecture (and a police detective agreeing with him) saying that in the US you should never, ever, ever talk to a cop - it's completely counter to all good civics and common sense, but still utterly true (over there).

And over here as well,and anywhere else for that matter.

You did, when you said that it was an Act of God that you missed the deer and thus had to chase him. Missing deer = Act of God. Chasing him = Act of Grizzly.

No Sparks.I said that God and the Devil wont and cant get the bullet back and have thrown a curveball! IE now a legal and moral dilemma as what to do.This is now where your point of ethics to the animal comes into the matter as on the Horrendous or Humane thread.

It's an example to show that the application (and the theory) of the law on trespass is not fair, is not rational, is not equitable, does not follow common sense, is not ethical, nor concerned with community or other moral values, and is in general a complete pain in the fundament - but still must be obeyed (unless you like to pay out damages in which case, would you mind trespassing on the private property of your local club because believe me they could use the money better than a solicitor could).

Well it's your take on the pipe case.Wouldnt you have a bit of a problem if somone decided that just because your neighbourhood wants to all paint their houses pink,and you want to leave it white,you have to follow along??

For a better example, from the Game Preservation Act, if you have permission from the landowner to shoot game on his land, and he's also given permission to a club/association to shoot on his land, you're committing an act of trespass against that club/association if you shoot game on the landowner's land, even though you have his permission. As law goes, the whole area's a mess.

No kidding..Thats the problem ,and this it the problem with our hypothecial case.

And SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE on the matter of trespass.
Guess which one wins in court?


Armed trespass isn't actually the name of the crime in the statutes. NNR has a good explanation of it here. The salient point is that if you go onto someone's land after an animal (wounded or not) and you have a firearm with you (loaded or not), you're guilty. Intent to commit a more heinous crime convicts you of something else entirely (attempted manslaughter or some such).

Read it.However it says NOTHING about retrival,rescue or humane dispatch.It states "to Hunt".
Ok a teneous arguement,bUT laws have been defeated on less.

Indeed. And it'll cost you ten grand or more to have that debate in court, to say nothing of how much it'll cost you when folks stop hiring you because of your "dubious past". You can go right ahead if you want, but I'm not going to. Getting into legal arguments in a court of law is a passtime for the very, very wealthy.

My dear man..A dubious past is a pre requsite in my line of work.. somtimes:D;).Both locally,nationally or internationally. I didnt ask you to,have no great desire to either.BUT it WILL happen to somone out there.Somone who has proably never heard of boards.ie or this discussion.
Or as you said somone who can afford it or has the cojones to do so.

Ironically, it's not negligence if an animal you wound escapes off the land you can legally go onto and kills someone - you were legally prohibited from assisting, so you can't be held responsible. (Well. Assuming you weren't being completely stupid, and, say, raising a tiger and trying to kill it with your bare hands and it escaped in the process )

Well thats at least somthing....:):).But then I suppose you get done for animal cruelty,or the ICABS neighbour gets to crow about evil hunters on Joe Fluffy.:(

If you think you can quote the Nuremberg Protocols in your defence at a trespass case in the District and then Circuit courts, let me know when so I can get my seat early and bring popcorn!

Errr.The 3rd Reich racial hygenic laws????? :eek: How do they work for a tresspass case????THAT I would like to see myself!:D.However I do think that precedent has a valid point in law.

And if you want to be the test case, on your head be it - but you can't advise people to take a course of action on boards.ie that isn't already sorted out legally. If they sue, they don't sue you, and they don't sue me, they sue boards.ie. That's not fair or proper, but it's how the law works (seriously, it's horrendous. Don't even go there). DeVore and the others take a significant risk just running this site; the mods strive to limit their exposure, because they're putting their asses on the line so we can have our forums.

[/QUOTE]
And greatly appreciated by all here inc me.However I can speak from a personal POV?So how does one make that clear,and that it does not get confused with legal advice or advocation to the more simpler souls out there???

jwshooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It would,IF you can find them,knowwho they are,they are willing to talk to you etc.Again many variables to add to the discussion.


I am not assuming anything Sparks.I am stating that all arguements of law and reason[yes does come into it] is put to one person to do his job ...the Judge.He is paid to weigh up the law and thereasons for wrong doing,and the clarity of two conflicting points of view and law.




And over here as well,and anywhere else for that matter.


No Sparks.I said that God and the Devil wont and cant get the bullet back and have thrown a curveball! IE now a legal and moral dilemma as what to do.This is now where your point of ethics to the animal comes into the matter as on the Horrendous or Humane thread.


Well it's your take on the pipe case.Wouldnt you have a bit of a problem if somone decided that just because your neighbourhood wants to all paint their houses pink,and you want to leave it white,you have to follow along??


No kidding..Thats the problem ,and this it the problem with our hypothecial case.

And SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE on the matter of trespass.
Guess which one wins in court?


Armed trespass isn't actually the name of the crime in the statutes. NNR has a good explanation of it here. The salient point is that if you go onto someone's land after an animal (wounded or not) and you have a firearm with you (loaded or not), you're guilty. Intent to commit a more heinous crime convicts you of something else entirely (attempted manslaughter or some such).




My dear man..A dubious past is a pre requsite in my line of work.. somtimes:D;).Both locally,nationally or internationally. I didnt ask you to,have no great desire to either.BUT it WILL happen to somone out there.Somone who has proably never heard of boards.ie or this discussion.
Or as you said somone who can afford it or has the cojones to do so.


Well thats at least somthing....:):).But then I suppose you get done for animal cruelty,or the ICABS neighbour gets to crow about evil hunters on Joe Fluffy.:(



Errr.The 3rd Reich racial hygenic laws????? :eek: How do they work for a tresspass case????THAT I would like to see myself!:D.However I do think that precedent has a valid point in law.

And greatly appreciated by all here inc me.However I can speak from a personal POV?So how does one make that clear,and that it does not get confused with legal advice or advocation to the more simpler souls out there???[/QUOTE]
im off to bed, i have a pain in my head

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

My dear man..A dubious past is a pre requsite in my line of work.. somtimes:D;)

Lucky you. In my line of work, it generally acts more as an impediment.

Errr.The 3rd Reich racial hygenic laws?????

The defence for the people who took a hatchet to the aircraft in shannon was that the nuremberg protocols state that starting a war of aggression is a violation of international law - and thus their actions were in accordance with that law and national law was trumped by international law (the same way EU law trumps Irish law in certain areas).
In other words, I don't think you could use their defence in a trespass case as you suggested.

And greatly appreciated by all here inc me.However I can speak from a personal POV?

Can you?
When we don't know your name?
Or, if you post a name, that that is in fact the person who posted it?
Can we prove that in a court of law?
And, and this one's the doozy, can we then prove that Boards.ie was not a complicit publisher without also deleting your post as soon as we see it?

Basicly, you can't. The law's an ass in this case, but there's naught we can do about it.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

GTFOH what sort of rubbish is that, if thats true i give up.

Game preservation act. Kept on in the act quoted above. Read the link to NNH's post on this from earlier in your original thread.

An implement is not a legal means of dispatch for a wounded deer.
The law states that "any body can dispatch a wounded deer by any legal method" but the law also states that no animal can be injured by a spear, arrow, implement etc etc.

A very good point. I suggest you take it up with the Deer Alliance. You know, the people who actually wrote that bit?

You are quick to point out to others about the legality of Bad Advise but you have turned up a real porker with this lesson 1.1 Death by implement
I have posted this here to alert readers to the error in hand.

I think they're okay Ivan, since by definition, they'll have read what was posted. And since what was posted states that the quote is from the HCAP FAQ page, not any statute, it's not possible to claim it was legal opinion.

In terms of this dilemma, i would be happy to see some solid government guild lines to deal with this outcome as it is not only restricted to deer hunting!

There are. We call them laws. They're quoted above.

Grizzly 45

The defence for the people who took a hatchet to the aircraft in shannon was that the nuremberg protocols state that starting a war of aggression is a violation of international law - and thus their actions were in accordance with that law and national law was trumped by international law (the same way EU law trumps Irish law in certain areas).
In other words, I don't think you could use their defence in a trespass case as you suggested.

Right in that case you should have said the War crimes court of Nurenberg 1945 protocolls,to avoid confusion.However the precedent of being not found guilty to the charge of tresspass,and armed tresspass used in the correct legal sense.[Being armed with axes with intent to committ criminal damage.] under Irish law would have some revelance.

Sparks

I really, really don't think it would Grizzly.

IRLConor

ivanthehunter wrote: »

GTFOH what sort of rubbish is that, if thats true i give up.

That act (Game Preservation Act, 1930) was repealed by the 1976 Wildlife Act.

Sparks

But the actual rule was then enacted by the '76 wildlife act. It's still on the books, they just moved it about. (It's now section 44 of the Wildlife Act, as amended)

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

But the actual rule was then enacted by the '76 wildlife act. It's still on the books, they just moved it about. (It's now section 44 of the Wildlife Act, as amended)

Probably best to quote it as such then, lest others do what I do and say "What? But that act was repealed!".

For anyone curious about this here are the links:

Wildlife Act, 1976, Section 44

which is amended by:

Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000, Section 50

Sparks

To be fair, that is the quote from NNR I've been talking about, it's just that no-one seems to be clicking on the link I gave and actually reading his post...