Article in wicklow times-poachers fined

seoirse1980

Anyone see this article about poachers that were fined in wicklow. Couldn't find it on the net so hope the text in this picture is legible

jwshooter

a great result ,but the fines should have went to the npws or into the gov as this money in important to fund these patrols.
well done to our local ranger who was on the job .

rob308

jwshooter wrote: »

a great result ,but the fines should have went to the npws or into the gov as this money in important to fund these patrols.
well done to our local ranger who was on the job .

+1 on that jw. great to see somebody actually securing prosecutions against the like of this

ivanthehunter

there seems to be no mention of whether or not their firearms where confiscated or their vehicle for that matter..

ivanthehunter

jwshooter wrote: »

a great result ,but the fines should have went to the npws or into the gov as this money in important to fund these patrols.
well done to our local ranger who was on the job .

Sure, none of the cash generated for the deer culls goes to the npws and the real irony of the story is the the ranges are hard pressed to find the time to carry out these culls (and now there is less staff and reduced hours even in the npws) and one can only imagine how much bigger the culls might be if we didn't suffer from poaching!!!

homerhop

Why didn't the papers name these individuals?

jwshooter

the papers have there story a little mixed up there was 3 men poaching and one rifle they were fined 2500 euro each .
what makes this case a land mark is they had no deer ! .
but were on lands that they had no permission on with a loaded firearm in a vehicle , when the rangers stopped them .
the area in question has a large number of deer living on it .
they said they were shooting foxes it did not wash with the judge.

i am delighted with this result as i know how frustrating it is on all involved to secure a prosecution on poaching .
the precedent is now set for other cases like this ,it will make the rangers ,guards and all involved in deer jobs that bit easier.

Deer Hunter DL

nice one, wish there was some success storys like this of pochers being caught up here in donegal

Jonty

jwshooter wrote: »

the papers have there story a little mixed up there was 3 men poaching and one rifle they were fined 2500 euro each .
what makes this case a land mark is they had no deer ! .
but were on lands that they had no permission on with a loaded firearm in a vehicle , when the rangers stopped them .
the area in question has a large number of deer living on it .
they said they were shooting foxes it did not wash with the judge.

i am delighted with this result as i know how frustrating it is on all involved to secure a prosecution on poaching .
the precedent is now set for other cases like this ,it will make the rangers ,guards and all involved in deer jobs that bit easier.

Edit - I see they had no permission.

But what if it is an actual miscarriage of justice, and they were actually lamping foxes. I often lamp areas for foxes where there is deer.

There's an old saying down here, "Nearly never bulled a cow" and that is what this seems to be.

I'm not saying for one second that these fellas were or weren't lamping deer. The judge decided that they were.

It wasn't me!

Jonty wrote: »

I'm not saying for one second that these fellas were or weren't lamping deer. The judge decided that they were.

I'm pretty much on board with you. If they were convicted of poaching, then that's wrong, and a poor judgement, but they committed the offence by having the loaded rifle on land they had no permission on, and I expect that's what they got done for, and fair play to all concerned for that.

cavan shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

the offence by having the loaded rifle on land they had no permission on, and I expect that's what they got done for, and fair play to all concerned for that.

I didnt think that this existed in statute, I thought so called armed trespass only existed in the UK. Can someone shed a light on it.

I think that this one might be a dead cert however I am nervous

I lamp foxes most Fridays, It's scary to think I can be accused of poaching Deer and from recent radio interviews and media reports sure thats what certain people believe regardless.

It wasn't me!

Being on land you have no permission on is trespass in and of itself. I'm off home now, so don't have time to trawl through the statutes, but even if it's not a specific law here, having the gun is not going to go down well.

cavan shooter

I'd say it was because they were in a Coilte Forest. Am I right in saying that Other than control of deer under license, your not permitted to shoot on Coilte lands. Is it not an on going argument with the NARGC.

jwshooter

i would not get to hung up on the fox aspect of it ,if you know the wicklow gap at ballnagee you would under stand .
i shot deer for years from laragh to ballnagee bridge and i dont think i ever seen a fox on it .

one more point to make note of if you shoot foxes at nite using a light from a cigarette lighter in your vehicle. unless you are driving off road how are you going to shoot 50 feet from the road .

IRLConor

cavan shooter wrote: »

I didnt think that this existed in statute, I thought so called armed trespass only existed in the UK. Can someone shed a light on it.

Section 44 of the Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended by the Wildlife Act 2000) makes it an offence to carry a firearm onto any land without the permission of the owner or occupier of the land.

cavan shooter

IRLConor wrote: »

Section 44 of the Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended by the Wildlife Act 2000) makes it an offence to carry a firearm onto any land without the permission of the owner or occupier of the land.

Thanks for that, dont see it used that often

cavan shooter

jwshooter wrote: »

i would not get to hung up on the fox aspect of it ,if you know the wicklow gap at ballnagee you would under stand .
i shot deer for years from laragh to ballnagee bridge and i dont think i ever seen a fox on it.

one more point to make note of if you shoot foxes at nite using a light from a cigarette lighter in your vehicle. unless you are driving off road how are you going to shoot 50 feet from the road .

Thanks for the info on the area, I do use a lamp that uses the lighter in the car but also have a battery pack I use when I go walking after them.

jwshooter

CS 20 years ago i would get into the car and shoot foxes from dark till dawn ,we went we pleased and shot foxes all over leinster .
times have changed now things are tighter and there is more muppets with guns now .

cavan shooter

jwshooter wrote: »

CS 20 years ago i would get into the car and shoot foxes from dark till dawn ,we went we pleased and shot foxes all over leinster .
times have changed now things are tighter and there is more muppets with guns now .

Agree, and they have to have bigger guns than anyone else, My lamping partner and myself only discussed that last week. Its going to ruin it for all of us......

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

one more point to make note of if you shoot foxes at nite using a light from a cigarette lighter in your vehicle. unless you are driving off road how are you going to shoot 50 feet from the road .

Technically, powering the light from the car is fine; it's the shooting from the car that isn't. So one guy works the lamp from the car, the other works the rifle in the field I suppose.

jwshooter

you reckon ,guess you never shot at night with a lamp behind you, i suppose

IRLConor

cavan shooter wrote: »

Thanks for that, dont see it used that often

That's both a good thing and a bad thing.

A good thing because the clause further down says:

In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary for the prosecutor to prove that a defendant was on the land without lawful authority and, in case a defendant claims that he was on the land with lawful authority, the onus of proving such authority shall be on the defendant.

and those kinds of clauses make me jumpy.

A bad thing because it's exactly the kind of section that should be used on all the yahoos that give the rest of us a bad name.

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

you reckon ,guess you never shot at night with a lamp behind you, i suppose

Nope, never have. I'm just quoting from the NARGC website:

However, please note that while it is not illegal to lamp a fox or rabbit from a public road for the purposes of shooting, it most definitely is illegal to shoot from a road. This has always been the case and this distinction needs to be emphasised here. The shot should be taken from inside the field and then at a distance of not less than 60 yards (measured in meters now) from the road and shooting away from the direction of the road. Legally, lamping and shooting are two distinctly different acts.

jwshooter

agreed ,thats why the lamp should be portable .
i know what it says on the nargc site but in theory this does not work as it is best to have the lamp beside or at arms length in front of the scope to give the best clarity.

Sparks

Won't argue with someone who's done it when I haven't!

Vegeta

2 lamps ftw

kakashka

These ppl were caught on public road,lamping Coilte land.
Shooter admitted UNDER CAUTION that he would have shot a deer had they got the opportunity to do so.

ivanthehunter

IRLConor wrote: »

Section 44 of the Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended by the Wildlife Act 2000) makes it an offence to carry a firearm onto any land without the permission of the owner or occupier of the land.

This is very true but AFAIK the offence of armed trespass is one that is used on thieves and robbers who carry a weapon on to a property to use against other people, it is not suitable to tar any poacher with this offence (TBH is does nothing good for the shooting image by such association's)

These convicted poachers AFAIK never intended to use there firearms as weapons to intimidate the ranger. Although they are guilty of illegal shooting they are not hard line criminals and this very suggestion should not be tollerated...

jwshooter

ivanthehunter wrote: »

This is very true but AFAIK the offence of armed trespass is one that is used on thieves and robbers who carry a weapon on to a property to use against other people, it is not suitable to tar any poacher with this offence (TBH is does nothing good for the shooting image by such association's)

These convicted poachers AFAIK never intended to use there firearms as weapons to intimidate the ranger. Although they are guilty of illegal shooting they are not hard line criminals and this very suggestion should not be tollerated...

how do you the two ranger s were not intimidated by 3 man and a firearm in the middle of the nite .
i know i would be and have been .

ivanthehunter

jwshooter wrote: »

how do you the two ranger s were not intimidated by 3 man and a firearm in the middle of the nite .
i know i would be and have been .

well without first hand information we're both in the dark but reading between the lines and reading the wicklow times article would suggest that the three men were only charged with illegal hunting- I would like to think that if any attempts at intimidation were made then the men would be facing a custodial sentence but for there part a fine was deemed sufficient.

I sure the rangers are naturally intimidated and cautious but that the nature of the job! Also i have great faith in the Garda vetting system that checks out peoples background's and i am fairly confident that only descent folk are allowed own firearms.

I would bet by bottom dollar that these chaps co-operated with the law and or the range when confronted and being caught red handed. As the story has been told to me they firstly insisted that they were fox shooting, i fail to see at what point they might have become threating towards the power that be!

Regards Ivan

PS We can rest easy as the only people with legally held firearms are all good people at the end of the day and we often fail to emphasis the great job the the Garda have do in insuring this.

jwshooter

i think ivan you have to see first hand to see whats going on .
there is a lot of people that should not have the right to own a firearm and you have to undersrand how bad the problem really is.
there was two more caught poaching last week in the same area.
also the papers from around the country are full of reports of poaching -gun crime .
whats going to be done about it,is mr gormally only interested in eagles.
i believe new laws are on way on the use of baits ,as a form of vermin control after the poisoning of the eagle in donegal.

ivanthehunter

jwshooter wrote: »

i think ivan you have to see first hand to see whats going on .
there is a lot of people that should not have the right to own a firearm and you have to undersrand how bad the problem really is.
there was two more caught poaching last week in the same area.
also the papers from around the country are full of reports of poaching -gun crime .
whats going to be done about it,is mr gormally only interested in eagles.
i believe new laws are on way on the use of baits ,as a form of vermin control after the poisoning of the eagle in donegal.

AFAIK those law as with regard to baits are already in place..

jwshooter

ivanthehunter wrote: »

AFAIK those law as with regard to baits are already in place..

i know there is laws there but there been revised most lightly bigger fines .
as it was not alfa that killed the eagle

NoNameRanger

jwshooter wrote: »

i believe new laws are on way on the use of baits ,as a form of vermin control after the poisoning of the eagle in donegal.

jwshooter wrote: »

i know there is laws there but there been revised most lightly bigger fines .
as it was not alfa that killed the eagle

I saw that on the news too, the law is in place, the loophole in law is the defence of poison being laid for a fox. It is an offence to put any poison on meat baits to poison birds of any species. The penalty is the same as all other Wildlife act offences.

kakashka wrote: »

These ppl were caught on public road,lamping Coilte land.
Shooter admitted UNDER CAUTION that he would have shot a deer had they got the opportunity to do so.

I believe you are right

Ivanthehunter wrote:

Also i have great faith in the Garda vetting system that checks out peoples background's and i am fairly confident that only descent folk are allowed own firearms.

Really????:eek: The gun owner had spent 2 and a half years in jail for drug dealing from what i've heard.


They were prosecuted under

Section44.—(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,

The definition of the word "Hunt" as defined in the act was critical, to search for or lie in wait for. Shining a lamp onto land is searching for.

Section 38_
(1) Any person who uses
(a) any lamp. light, torch mirror or other artificial light reflecting or dazzling device or appliance, or
(b) any device for illuminating, image intensifying or heat seeking a target, or
(c) any sighting device for night shooting, or
(d) any device or appliance which is of a type, class or description specified in an order under subsection (2) of this section,
in hunting any protected wild bird or protected wild animal otherwise than while either—
(i) attaching thereto any band, ring, tag or other marking device, or
(ii) hunting for educational or scientific purposes or for any other purpose,
pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted under this Act by the Minister, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) (a) The Minister may by order declare a device or appliance which is of a type, class or description specified in the order to be a device or appliance to which subsection (1) of this section applies.
(b) The Minister may amend or revoke an order made under this subsection.

As kakashka said already. They admitted under caution that they would shoot a deer and they had all their deer hunting and butchering equipment with them.

37.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section but subject to section 42, a person shall not hunt— ( a )a woodcock at any time between sunset and sunrise,
( b )any other protected wild bird, other than a wild duck or a wild goose, or any protected wild animal at any time during any period beginning one hour after sunset and ending one hour before sunrise.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to—
( a )hunting protected wild birds pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister under section 22 (9) of this Act for a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) or (d) of that section, or ( b )hunting protected wild animals pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister under section 23 (6) of this Act.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

Same reason as Section 38 and it was 1am.

36.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, a person shall not hunt or disturb for the purpose of hunting—
(a) any wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,
(b) any wild bird by means of such a vehicle, vessel or aircraft while it is being so propelled.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection t I) of this section, a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft may be used to capture or kill, pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted in that behalf by the Minister and for such educational, scientific or other purposes as are specified in the licence, wild birds or wild animals of a species so specified.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not make unlawful anything which section 3 (3) of the Whale Fisheries Act, 1937, permits to be done.
(4) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) In this section, 'mechanically-propelled' includes propulsion which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical.

They were lamping from the vehicle. If they were lamping foxes they still would have been prosecuted because it says any wild animal not protected wild animal.


Well done to the Rangers JG&IOB;), I heard it lasted 4-5 days in court and they were very professional under severe pressure and cross examination. A case like this takes a lot of work. It was a difficult case and a good one to win. The defendants fought hard and lost and had a solicitor to pay along with the €7500. Probably the most costly case of its kind.

Sparks

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Really????:eek: The gun owner had spent 2 and a half years in jail for drug dealing from what i've heard.

Technically, you could still get a licence at that point; but (a) it would have to have been five years since your custodial sentence ended (and it would have to have been a conviction for an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006, the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005), and (b) you'd still have to get the superintendent to sign off on it. The thinking being that if people can't change, why wouldn't we just have life in prison as the sentence for every crime?

Well done to the Rangers JG&IOB;), I heard it lasted 4-5 days in court and they were very professional under severe pressure and cross examination. A case like this takes a lot of work. It was a difficult case and a good one to win. The defendants fought hard and lost and had a solicitor to pay along with the €7500. Probably the most costly case of its kind.

It is downright refreshing to see people hauled up for acting the gombeen allright.

Valmont

Hi guys maybe you could explain this to me. Perhaps the lamping excuse didn't fly because they had a 30.06 or a .308 with them which is hardly appropriate for hunting foxes I would have thought? If they had a .22 or a shotgun chances are they were actually lamping foxes?

jwshooter

Valmont wrote: »

Hi guys maybe you could explain this to me. Perhaps the lamping excuse didn't fly because they had a 30.06 or a .308 with them which is hardly appropriate for hunting foxes I would have thought? If they had a .22 or a shotgun chances are they were actually lamping foxes?

no a lot of deer and poacher with shotguns and .22 s .if i was going to poach deer i would use a silenced .22 hornet cut down to 16 inchs and head shoot them .

Valmont

jwshooter wrote: »

if i was going to poach deer i would use a silenced .22 hornet cut down to 16 inchs and head shoot them .

Giving yourself away there! :eek:

jwshooter

Valmont wrote: »

Giving yourself away there! :eek:

possibly

Valmont

Poaching is stupid and incredibly irresponsible but I'm sure you know that:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

But if you were a SMART poacher,you wouldnt be caught dead with a jack light nowadays,run a tight ship and team and wouldnt even mention or let rumours start about your poaching activities.Or even mention it on a open chat group that is monitored by authorithy types who might jump to the wrong conclusions.So I guess that precludes any of us being poachers here then.;):D:D

jwshooter

dont count on it

kakashka

Well done to the Rangers JG&IOB;), I heard it lasted 4-5 days in court and they were very professional under severe pressure and cross examination. A case like this takes a lot of work. It was a difficult case and a good one to win. The defendants fought hard and lost and had a solicitor to pay along with the €7500. Probably the most costly case of its kind.

And a little mention for BC also.
Poachers in this area are just as likely to shoot sheep as deer,a fact not many ppl seem to be aware of, IMO they should have lost drivers licences also.

jwshooter

BC was there as a employe of the land owner to verify they owned the sporting rights .but none the less its good to see all the local body working together.
no one body will put a stop to poaching ,if we all work together we have a chance .
if we could get the deer groups not naming any to act instead of talk about poaching would be a help .

kakashka

jwshooter wrote: »

BC was there as a employe of the land owner to verify they owned the sporting rights .but none the less its good to see all the local body working together.
no one body will put a stop to poaching ,if we all work together we have a chance .
if we could get the deer groups not naming any to act instead of talk about poaching would be a help .

BC was there for you and i,took quite a lot of abuse on the stand and deserves credit also.
It's up to YOU and I to stop poaching,we all know at least one.
I'm not talking about the bloke who will occasionally lamp his plot but the toe ragg who will poach your front garden just for the "craic"
who will shoot as many head as possible just to be the "big lad".
I should also say that i would find your views on such more credible if you didnt on the other hand supply the where & how to.

jwshooter

i spoke to BC as he left the court that day and got the run down ,i know he is very keen and one of the good guys he does a lot of work he does not get credit for or look for that matter.
but he is only one man .
i and others think poaching is going to be rife this season the way things are .

but out on a nite we will still only see the same very few that give a sxxt .
its just more talk .the weekend hunter is unaware of whats happens 7 nites a week ,maybe they dont care .
a lot of the deer are poacher is with stalking rifles by stalkers on there way home or to there own stalking the handy one .
what area do you stalk yourself .

Trojan911

I also would like to congratulate the Rangears on this successful conviction. Hopefully more will come & be reported in the media.

kakashka

jwshooter wrote: »

i spoke to BC as he left the court that day and got the run down ,i know he is very keen and one of the good guys he does a lot of work he does not get credit for or look for that matter.
but he is only one man .
i and others think poaching is going to be rife this season the way things are .

but out on a nite we will still only see the same very few that give a sxxt .
its just more talk .the weekend hunter is unaware of whats happens 7 nites a week ,maybe they dont care .
a lot of the deer are poacher is with stalking rifles by stalkers on there way home or to there own stalking the handy one .
what area do you stalk yourself .

Mostly Private lands,usually no need to stalk
The area i'll keep to myself,wouldnt like to have an accident with a cut/muffled Hornet wielding boundary hunter!!!

jwshooter

kakashka wrote: »

Mostly Private lands,usually no need to stalk
The area i'll keep to myself,wouldnt like to have an accident with a cut/muffled Hornet wielding boundary hunter!!!

if your referring to me im far from a boundary hunter

Valmont

Is it just me or are a few of you making thinly veiled confession to poaching and that you don't really care? I don't know much about stalking but it was something I was hoping to get into when I have money but this is a pretty poor show from what I though were some responsible hunters.

jwshooter

Valmont wrote: »

Is it just me or are a few of you making thinly veiled confession to poaching and that you don't really care? I don't know much about stalking but it was something I was hoping to get into when I have money but this is a pretty poor show from what I though were some responsible hunters.

its just you ,but i can see how it might read that way .

poaching for profit is a major problem in ireland one that will end in tears for every one .
as i can see the night some one is going to get shot .