Irish Deer Society "member" convicted of dumping deer carcasses.

Royalred

Sparks wrote: »

You agree with what?
And What was Woods' solicitor trying to argue?
It's hard to follow what you're saying Royalred, when you don't press the Quote button to reply to a post.


Actually, no, it's been revealed already. An unheard appeal does not cast doubt on the outcome of a case, only an appeal which has been heard and upheld does that.

The appeal stays the effect of the conviction until the appeal is heard. No one said the reported was wrong. He reported what he heard in court. <Libel edited out> I agreed with your reference about photographic evidence. The point being that no right to examine/rebuke them was given after the Warden used them. I talked to people present on the day so I have take it on face value.
RR

Sparks

Royalred wrote: »

The appeal stays the effect of the conviction until the appeal is heard.

But it does not alter the verdict unless it is heard and upheld.
Which means that comments made on the basis of the verdict are fair comment (ie. we won't be sued for libel because someone says Woods was out of line).

I agreed with your reference about photographic evidence. The point being that no right to examine/rebuke them was given after the Warden used them. I talked to people present on the day so I have take it on face value.

So you can't say that there was no right to examine or refute them (there would never be a right given to one side in a case to rebuke the evidence of the other side, and you'd have to have been on the legal team or be Woods himself to be able to say there was no right to examine them because of how discovery works in Irish law).

Kramer

Sadly, the WDAI did not condemn the actions of, or distance themselves from Mr.Wood at last week's AGM .
The matter was brought up but quickly shot down (pun intended ) by the chairman who cited "sub judice" :rolleyes:.

Was this an innocent mistake or does Mr. Wood have friends at the top of the WDAI too?

thedragon

Royalred wrote: »

Jeez Dragon. you have a short memory. Read the earlier blogs. Two skins and some bones, ! Remember.
RR

My memory serves me fine,my first findings,before I was later corrected here was that Wood had only dumped a few bones and a bitta grolloch,I would have seen this as no big deal at all and I taught the man was very wrongly chastised.I later found that I was totally wrong on this as Id been very misinformed.I felt very sorry for the man and even took it on myself to post here in his defence.I was put right on it very quickly by people here that had a lot more insight in the incident.

Valmont

Ok. I can't decipher the 12 pages of cryptic posts from a community of hunters who obviously know each other in real life so could someone please answer this question for me:

Did he leave the guts of the deer or the entire carcass? Or what did he say he left versus what the court says he left?

Thanks.

Vegeta

Valmont wrote: »

Ok. I can't decipher the 12 pages of cryptic posts from a community of hunters who obviously know each other in real life so could someone please answer this question for me:

Did he leave the guts of the deer or the entire carcass? Or what did he say he left versus what the court says he left?

Thanks.

It looks like his defenders here are saying he left skin and bones

Others are saying they have seen the photographs (the ones used in court) and it was partial carcasses and plastic bags , near a river.

emcor

Kramer wrote: »

Sadly, the WDAI did not condemn the actions of, or distance themselves from Mr.Wood at last week's AGM .
The matter was brought up but quickly shot down (pun intended ) by the chairman who cited "sub judice" :rolleyes:.

Was this an innocent mistake or does Mr. Wood have friends at the top of the WDAI too?

Kramer - Sub Judice is a legal term that means under judgment, and an appeal is pending in this case; so to be fair to no comment should be made by anybody until this has run the course. If the AGM would not discuss the issue then the chairman of meeting is spot on in my view.

Vegeta

emcor wrote: »

Kramer - Sub Judice is a legal term that means under judgment, and an appeal is pending in this case; so to be fair to no comment should be made by anybody until this has run the course. If the AGM would not discuss the issue then the chairman of meeting is spot on in my view.

Yeah and you and the chairman are incorrect, see Sparks comments on this already.

If all of this conversation was still Sub Judice it would not be here.

emcor

Vegeta wrote: »

Yeah and you and the chairman are incorrect, see Sparks comments on this already.

If all of this conversation was still Sub Judice it would not be here.

I saw them and did not agree completly. I was replying to the charachter called Kramer who was implicit in suggestion that by WDAI not discussing the the case at AGM displayed a favourable bias towards Woods. I feel that the chairman was correct in refusing to discuss it until all facts are available and outcome of the appeal is available; especially in light of the consequenses arising from thsi case. By not doing so would be contrary to the rule of fair play, premature and irresponsible in my view. By the charachter called Kramer demanding discusion/action in absence of full facts in my view raises the question of ulteriator motivation

Lets not forget that it was the charachter called Kramer who started this thread off with some typically sensationlist reporting from the galway independant

Vegeta

emcor wrote: »

I saw them and did not agree completly. I was replying to the charachter called Kramer who was implicit in suggestion that by WDAI not discussing the the case at AGM displayed a favourable bias towards Woods. I feel that the chairman was correct in refusing to discuss it until all facts are available and outcome of the appeal is available; especially in light of the consequenses arising from thsi case. By not doing so would be contrary to the rule of fair play, premature and irresponsible in my view. By the charachter called Kramer demanding discusion/action in absence of full facts in my view raises the question of ulteriator motivation

Lets not forget that it was the charachter called Kramer who started this thread off with some typically sensationlist reporting from the galway independant

I am not commenting one way or the other on the IDS or WDAI.

I am stating that this case is not Sub Judice. We would not allow this discussion to take place if it was, contempt of court etc etc. The thread would have been deleted asap.

That is my point and nothing more.

kakashka

Carcasses.read up.

crowsnightmare

kingfisher77 wrote: »

nature recycles..!! these deer only live to 12 or13.. who cleans there carcasses then??wen they drop dead? mother nature..
do the fox hunters bring them home?? wat about all the birds which arnt picked up?? do u bring home vermin and dispose of it ?? no.. left were it died... dumping??? 3000k fine??:eek:

DEER are not Vermin !!!!!

emcor

crowsnightmare wrote: »

DEER are not Vermin !!!!!

No they are not. And I dont believe anybody has suggested otherwise. Analogy made is corralation between basis of conviction and that of people leaving shot vermin in the field which majority of people tend to do. This could have consequenses for the majority of irish vermin shooters and farmers.

kingfisher77

Sfinn wrote: »

I've no intention in entering a whos right whos wrong scenario or defending any group or individual. All i will say is that i have actively engaged private fisheries for the last 20 years in pursing a common goal which is inclusive of the local population. Once fisheries owners recognise the advantages in having the local club on board the animosity disappears. You will always have those who will abuse it and they need to be dealt with. It is the same in every sport. However, i feel its all about respect and understanding where both parties are comming form.

When it comes to shooting rights/access it has been a different story. Its a legal nightmare, especially along the western sea board and i have found that certain estates are not as accommodating as others. Branding people as poachers instead of engaging them i believe is loutish behaviour. I believe as the saying goes a converted poacher to game keeper is worth two in the bush. :cool:

if you live in the west you know weres the private shooting rights and fisherys are!, and how to get a ticket,
if you give everybody a free go therel b none left for the paying tourist and hows the fisherys or shoots gonna survive with no income to replenish ar upkeep these resourses.

thedragon

I see Mr Wood has his usual column in this months Shooters digest. I intentionally took a look in the newsagents to see was he still writing in it,when I saw that he was, I immediately put it back on the shelf and said to myself, thats it, never going to buy that magazine again. It wasnt a bad read from time to time but if thats what they rely on to fill the pages its sad day for anyone who gets it.

kakashka

Strange!!whats the deal with that?

Deerhunter2

thedragon wrote: »

I see Mr Wood has his usual column in this months Shooters digest. I intentionally took a look in the newsagents to see was he still writing in it,when I saw that he was, I immediately put it back on the shelf and said to myself, thats it, never going to buy that magazine again. It wasnt a bad read from time to time but if thats what they rely on to fill the pages its sad day for anyone who gets it.

thats the last time I'll be buying that rag, talk about showing hunters in a bad light, its not the first time they have had a person convicted for bringing our sport into disrepute writing with authority in their pages, total disrespect for irish hunters and the law. what does this say for irish hunting?

kakashka wrote: »

Strange!!whats the deal with that?

he has no shame :mad:

thedragon

kakashka wrote: »

Strange!!whats the deal with that?

I think there hoping this whole thing is just one big bad dream and if they ignore the facts then the whole thing might will just all go away. Id say when they take at look at there sales for the month they may think just differently. Ill never buy it again anyway.

jwshooter

thedragon wrote: »

I think there hoping this whole thing is just one big bad dream and if they ignore the facts then the whole thing might will just all go away. Id say when they take at look at there sales for the month they may think just differently. Ill never buy it again anyway.

have you in your 3 years of hunting ! not sure about deer stalking ever shot a deer ?
you posted that you were only hunting 3 years on the 5-5-09 .
on "what do you get from this forum"

then to add credit ability to your ramblings you posted on this thread 15-6-09 that you were stalking over 25 years.

pretty hard to ignore the facts !

i would think your problem is not with what woods did ,
as his cold room could have stop working and he lost the carcasses this happened to me .there is a number of reasons why this happened but thats not important .

you problem is he is trying to manage a large area and keep the poachers out ,trying to do some good for deer in a small way like IDS,WDI,wildlife rangers etc.

if lads held fire on young stags and learned how to manage our deer they would be in a far better state than they are now.

J.R.

thedragon wrote: »

I see Mr Wood has his usual column in this months Shooters digest. I intentionally took a look in the newsagents to see was he still writing in it,when I saw that he was, I immediately put it back on the shelf and said to myself, thats it, never going to buy that magazine again. It wasnt a bad read from time to time but if thats what they rely on to fill the pages its sad day for anyone who gets it.

Haven't a clue about the deer carcasses incident...only what I've read here...and I don't do deer hunting so am definitely not qualified to comment but I was just wondering, after reading the above post, could the article written have been sent to the publishers prior to the incident being made public?

The matter first came to light here during the first week of June.....would the publishers have to have articles in early to allow editing and publishing of the magazine to have it on the shelves for the beginning of July? .........could this article have been typeset and magazine layout prepared prior to release of this information?............if publishing a magazine can you pull an article at the last minute if matters / information change????.........not sure what the ultimate deadlines are........time factor.........editing.....typesetting.....time needed for printing / distribution etc..........just a thought!

BryanL

you problem is he is trying to manage a large area and keep the poachers out ,trying to do some good for deer in a small way like IDS,WDI,wildlife rangers etc.


No they are only trying to stop people shooting without payment.

The Rangers do very different job and for very different reasons to the ID$ or WD£,
The IDS etc. are managing deer as a cash crop for themselves and their clients.
$orry for the typo'$
maybe thedragon is only shooting 3 years, maybe he's a fast learner? seems a few of the experts like Mr Woods have a lot to learn?
Bryan

kakashka

jwshooter wrote: »

have you in your 3 years of hunting ! not sure about deer stalking ever shot a deer ?
you posted that you were only hunting 3 years on the 5-5-09 .
on "what do you get from this forum"

then to add credit ability to your ramblings you posted on this thread 15-6-09 that you were stalking over 25 years.

pretty hard to ignore the facts !

PPL in glass houses and all that.

Sparks

Wow, a scrap between two posters throwing insults at each other in a thread on a topic that's rather close to the libel line. I wonder how this will end for them if they don't cut it out sharpish?
:rolleyes:

kakashka

If someone is going to preach then they sure as hell better practice it(re Woods)

Length of time or experience with hunting has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong.

kakashka

Pointing out fact is hardly a scrap.

Sparks

kakashka wrote: »

If someone is going to preach then they sure as hell better practice it
Length of time or experience with hunting has nothing to do with knowing right from wrong.

Allow me to explain what I'm saying. I've highlighted your point above. It's not a personal attack, it's not an insult, it's an objective and valid point.
So don't sully it with personal attacks or insults. They're at best irrelevant and add nothing; at worse they totally sabotage your point and make you look daft. So just don't use them.

Same goes for everyone else please.

kakashka

Fair point of course but this post not directed at anyone here(afaik!!)

Grizzly 45

The matter first came to light here during the first week of June.....would the publishers have to have articles in early to allow editing and publishing of the magazine to have it on the shelves for the beginning of July? .........could this article have been typeset and magazine layout prepared prior to release of this information?............if publishing a magazine can you pull an article at the last minute if matters / information change????.........not sure what the ultimate deadlines are........time factor.........editing.....typesetting.....time needed for printing / distribution etc..........just a thought!

[/QUOTE]


More than 80% likely....Small run mags like this have usually got two to three months editions ready to run.So "stopping the Press" so to speak costs them a bomb if a complete mag is already in the publisher.

kakashka

Would it not be on some kind of digital format before printing?or do you mean that it would have been printed before Woods conviction?

Dusty87

A story was in it last months about the writer comin to my area to shoot a few rabbits wit a pick of a neighbour of mine and his kids. The pic was taken in april. You'd think maybe his column could have been removed without too much loss of money though??