Publican shoots hounds

idunnoshur

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

A PUBLICAN at breaking point took the law into his own hands when foxhounds from a harriers club strayed onto his land in Co Cork and he fired at the dogs.
Detective Garda Pat Condon said the club was not hunting on the land but that their pack of over 30 hounds strayed on to it. Fifteen of the dogs were injured, while four others were never found and it was assumed they were shot and died.

Michael O’Connell, aged 51, of Ardnaleac, Ballingully, Co Cork, pleaded guilty at Cork District Court yesterday to charges of cruelty to animals by wounding of dogs by shooting with an air rifle loaded with .22 calibre lead pellets. He also pleaded guilty to a related charge of unlawfully and maliciously wounding dogs.

Defence solicitor Frank Buttimer said O’Connell had complained numerous times about dogs coming on to his lands prior to the incident on February 22, 2009, and that he reached breaking point when he saw the foxhounds that day.

Mr Buttimer described it as a most beautiful location in terms of flora and fauna and that the defendant was trying to let it develop as a safe habitat for badgers and other wildlife. The rural lands overlook the EMC property in the Ovens area.

"He had problems with the ingress of dogs and the amount of destruction they caused. It was probably at breaking point. The charges are confined to wounding and causing damage to animals. Other serious stuff is not levelled against him. His purpose was not to injure the dogs but to protect the habitat," said Mr Buttime.

Judge Leo Malone said he would dismiss the charges under the Probation Act on payment of €2,000 to Marymount Hospice and the vet’s expenses for appearing in court yesterday for what was listed as a trial before O’Connell’s plea of guilty. The judge complimented Waterfall Harrier Club for indicating it would pay its own veterinary costs and forego witness expenses.


Read more: http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/publican-fired-shots-at-hounds-on-his-land-179373.html#ixzz1itVl2uTV

What do you all make of this?

I for one agree with what he did.

nlgbbbblth

idunnoshur wrote: »

I for one agree with what he did.

So do I.

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

Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

kincsem

15 dogs injured. He must have used a lot of ammunition.

Did the dogs do any damage?

idunnoshur

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

So do I.

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

Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

I have no problem with people hunting with hounds but it's when they do so without permission that bugs me.

t1mm

kincsem wrote: »

15 dogs injured. He must have used a lot of ammunition.

Did the dogs do any damage?

He used an air rifle, the ammunition is just lead pellets really.

silverharp

well if the dogs didnt read the "No Trespassing" sign......

skelliser

kincsem wrote: »

15 dogs injured. He must have used a lot of ammunition.

Did the dogs do any damage?

probably used a shotgun.
pellets spread out when fired at distance.

i agree with what he did.

Feeona

I think he did right, seeing as he complained about it numerous times. When I was younger, a dog of ours broke out a few times to go 'rambling' ie worrying sheep. A neighbouring farmer shot at the dog to scare him off, and then rang my father to tell him what he was up to. My father thanked him for the call, and the dog never got out again. I know it's a different scenario in that the sheep were the neighbouring farmer's livelihood. But the dogs shouldn't have been on that man's land in the first place!

kincsem

He was guilty of cruelty to animals. I wouldn't be a supporter.

four others were never found and it was assumed they were shot and died.

arybvtcw0eolkf

idunnoshur wrote: »

What do you all make of this?.

I think he's a stupid bastard.. In fact I'd like to take his shotgun and beat him to a pulp with the blunt end.

Doc Ruby

t1mm wrote: »

He used an air rifle, the ammunition is just lead pellets really.

So he killed four and wounded 15 dogs with an air rifle? I want him on my side in the zombie apocalypse!

Witcher

"air rifle loaded with .22 calibre lead pellets"

It was an air rifle people not a shotgun.

Nodin

idunnoshur wrote: »

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



What do you all make of this?

I for one agree with what he did.

'arsehole takes out anger on animals'.

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

Micky Dolenz

What an idiot. Most reasonable people allow the hound master a certain amount of time to gather the pack together and remove them.

Dogs don't get land right law.

Coriolanus

I think it was irresponsible of him to shoot the animals with such a low velocity weapon.
He'd made numerous complaints etc, so no issues with the deed otherwise, but it should constitute animal cruelty using the weapon he did. Any hunter I've ever talked to have been quite clear on that issue, use the appropriate calibre to ensure no unnecessary suffering happens.

mikemac1

€2,000 is quite a bit and he has to pay the vet fees

Should appeal


If he had sheep on his land he could have shot every hound and it would be the hunting club in court answering the questions and paying the vet fees

But the publican didn't have sheep and instead he has to pay out

Edit, he realy needs to get a gun and not this air rifle

SeaFields

mikemac1 wrote: »

€2,000 is quite a bit and he has to pay the vet fees

It says at the end of the article the hunting club is paying its own vet fees and were complimented by the judge for doing so.

mikemac1

I read it as both sides were paying vet fees

The club pay for the injured dogs and the publican paid witness expenses to the vet

It's a minor detail anyway

later12

mikemac1 wrote: »

If he had sheep on his land he could have shot every hound and it would be the hunting club in court answering the questions and paying the vet fees

That's reasonably fair, because in such a case either side is going to die or be injured, and a farmer has reasonable cause to try and ensure it's not 'his side' that suffer.

Shooting dogs for wandering off course and onto your property in this manner is just a bit thick really.

SeaFields

mikemac1 wrote: »

I read it as both sides were paying vet fees

The club pay for the injured dogs and the publican paid witness expenses to the vet

It's a minor detail anyway

yep it is.


As for your edit, I think he'll have a hard time convincing his local superintendent he needs a bigger gun after this!

laoch na mona

why shoot the dogs they were just being dogs
the hunt was responsible for where their dogs went

idunnoshur

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

What an idiot. Most reasonable people allow the hound master a certain amount of time to gather the pack together and remove them.

Dogs don't get land right law.

He had told them several times before not to go onto his land and they still did, I would have done the same thing.

Nolanger

Could have been worse, might have been 15 pheasants!

johngalway

idunnoshur wrote: »

What do you all make of this?

I for one agree with what he did.

He, and you, are wrong:

1. Going by what was printed he had no legal reason to shoot the dogs, no livestock were under threat.

2. An air rifle, while at short range may be capable of killing a hound, is completely the wrong firearm to humanely kill a hound.

3. If he was that bothered he could have made his lands inaccessible to the hounds.

There are better and easier ways of resolving that particular conflict. They involve registered letters, solicitors and photographs, and everyone lives.

Micky Dolenz

idunnoshur wrote: »

He had told them several times before not to go onto his land and they still did, I would have done the same thing.

Did he use English or did he bark?

The_Thing

Cruelty to animals....?

What about the pricks out with their pack of hounds for a day's "sport", it's a pity some of them weren't shot as well.

later12

The_Thing wrote: »

What about the pricks out with their pack of hounds for a day's "sport", it's a pity some of them weren't shot as well.

Just because you consider foxhunting cruel, does not mean that this wasn't cruel as well.

idunnoshur

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Did he use English or did he bark?

Hilarious, by "them" I meant the men in control of the hounds.

mikemac1

charges of cruelty to animals by wounding of dogs by shooting with an air rifle loaded with .22 calibre lead pellets.

So if he had a rifle or shotgun and was able to kill the hounds instead of wounding them would he have not been charged with animal cruelty?

Kash

His issue was with the hunt master, so why shoot the dogs?
They did nothing wrong, they were going where they were led/sent.
They don't recognize human boundaries.

Most people who are anti-hunting are against it for cruelty reasons. The publican used a low velocity weapon, which is far more likely to maim than to kill anything much bigger than a rat. I genuinely don't see how this is any less cruel than fox-hunting itself - at least the fox has a fighting chance.

Indubitable

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

So do I.

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

Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

Blame the owners, not the dogs.

bonzodog2

johngalway wrote: »

3. If he was that bothered he could have made his lands inaccessible to the hounds.

Why should he have to go to that expense and trouble ?

idunnoshur

mikemac1 wrote: »

So he had a rifle or shotgun and was able to kill the hounds instead of wounding them would he have not been charged with animal cruelty?

Excellent point and one i hadn't considered previously, thank you!

Yakult

Kash wrote: »

His issue was with the hunt master, so why shoot the dogs?
They did nothing wrong, they were going where they were led/sent.
They don't recognize human boundaries.

Unfortunately they are the ones who suffer in this. Because of an irresponsible hunt master. He was more than likely warned too.

laoch na mona

The_Thing wrote: »

Cruelty to animals....?

What about the pricks out with their pack of hounds for a day's "sport", it's a pity some of them weren't shot as well.

but the dogs are innocent
this isn't an argument about the hunt

Micky Dolenz

idunnoshur wrote: »

Hilarious, by "them" I meant the men in control of the hounds.

So why not shoot at them?

later12

idunnoshur wrote: »

Hilarious, by "them" I meant the men in control of the hounds.

So your problem is with the men in ownership and control of the hounds, but you would shoot their... dogs.

johngalway

bonzodog2 wrote: »

Why should he have to go to that expense and trouble ?

Where did I say he had to?

I said he could have.

Bubblefett

A man who thinks it's justifiable to grab a gun because he's reached "breaking point" should not be allowed to own a gun, now or ever.

moceri

It was unfair to the dogs. They cannot be held responsible. The hound-master should be made responsible for where the dogs wander. There have been so many instances of hounds and horses wandering onto private land, damaging fences and leaving gates open, in effect giving the two fingers to the landowner. There should be stiffer penalties for houndmasters who fail to control their dogs and treat landowners with disrespect. I recommend putting up signs and prosecuting for Trespass but you cannot take it out on the dogs. I am ok with a few lead pellets in the hound-master's ass.

idunnoshur

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

So why not shoot at them?

That would be murder and would most likely lead to several years in jail for him.

The_Thing

bubblefett wrote: »

A man who thinks it's justifiable to grab a gun because he's reached "breaking point" should not be allowed to own a gun, now or ever.

Try telling that to Padraig Nally.

sheesh

idunnoshur wrote: »

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



What do you all make of this?

I for one agree with what he did.

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

So do I.

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

Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

so some times its ok to be cruel to animals. glad we cleared that up.

Feeona wrote: »

I think he did right, seeing as he complained about it numerous times. When I was younger, a dog of ours broke out a few times to go 'rambling' ie worrying sheep. A neighbouring farmer shot at the dog to scare him off, and then rang my father to tell him what he was up to. My father thanked him for the call, and the dog never got out again. I know it's a different scenario in that the sheep were the neighbouring farmer's livelihood. But the dogs shouldn't have been on that man's land in the first place!

ok if you are rich and on a horse its really,really bad to be cruel to animals
but if you are angry and rich enough to have your own nature reserve and not on a horse its ok to be cruel to animals is that it???

Big Nasty

Dey tuk are badgers!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

BunShopVoyeur

I certainly have no problem with what he did.

Seems harsh to prosecute him.

Traonach

Those west Brit hunts think they own the countryside. He shouldn't have shot the dogs though.

slavetothegrind

Coward,

Should have attacked the hunters not the hounds

sheesh

30 animals went in only 26 came out of those 26 15 had been hit by pellets.

We are definitely in the realms of what could be refered to as a 'shooting spree'

ringadingding

Have the feeling he used a shotgun, but somehow twisted his story to an air rifle, 19 dogs shot is a serious amount of reloading, I would have imagined after a few shots the dogs would have ran ?

Could the vets have known if it was shotgun pellets or air rifle pellets ? Or maybe not really looked into, especially with the guilty plea.

I agree that the dogs shouldn't have been in there and the huntsman is in the wrong but he had no right to shoot the dogs. If he'd livestock it's a different story but he doesn't.

I hunt and fish myself but with a spaniel. If a farmer shot her for going onto his land and there was no livestock to be seen I'd beat him to death with his gun.

The blame is shared but he obviously went overboard in his "breaking point".

p.s It couldn't have been a shotgun if it said .22 caliber shot as these are 10 times bigger than an average shotgun pellet.
These would be common enough .22 air rifle pellets.
Link

And these are shotgun pellets in different sizes most common would be 5-7 1/2 for game.
Link

Landscape

This man is a.................