Can you shoot from a moving boat(Rowing)

warehouse1

Can someone clear up for me if you can shoot from a moving boat that is being rowed. I have looked at other threads and some people say you can while others say you can't. I have also looked at the law and it is not fully clear.

djflawless

AFAIK its any propelled vehicle/boat.so I'd imagine its anything that moves
Open to correction

Cass

Section 36 1976 Wildlife Act.

Refers only to mechanically propelled vehicles. Nothing about manual or rowing boats so if it's not mentioned i'd say it's legal.

deerhunter1

warehouse1 wrote: »

Can someone clear up for me if you can shoot from a moving boat that is being rowed. I have looked at other threads and some people say you can while others say you can't. I have also looked at the law and it is not fully clear.

Yes you can row and shoot from a boat, but dont even have the engine running,

Cass

Don't have an engine.

The section says it's an offence to shoot from a mechanically propelled vehicle whether it's moving or stationary. Meaning not at all.

deerhunter1

Cass wrote: »

Don't have an engine.

The section says it's an offence to shoot from a mechanically propelled vehicle whether it's moving or stationary. Meaning not at all.

If it is not mechanically propelled then it is ok

tomtucker81

sec 36 of the wildlife act of 76, this specific section relates to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles/vessels while hunting.

sec 44 of the wildlife amendment act 2000, covers the use of a mechanically propelled vessel/vehicle for hunting. Amended to include electrical engines which are still classed as mechanically propelled. It amends sec 36 of the principle act of 76.

It would seem that there's no mention of whether the engine is on or off at the time, just that it is a mechanically propelled vehicle by virtue of an engine being there. the onus to prove it isn't mechanically propelled at the time of use lies with the person being prosecuted. (Read that further in the 2000 act.) Of course thats just my reading of it, or my interpretation anyway.

The sensible approach is that if you're in a boat thats clearly stopped and somewhat hidden near reeds or by camouflage net then its not in use and should be ok. However thats relying on the ranger/garda thats talking to you seeing it that way.

Eddie B

If there is no engine on the boat, then its within the law to shoot from the boat, whether moving, or stationary!

Saying that, it is dangerous IMO, to shoot from a moving boat!

Cass

tomtucker81 wrote: »

sec 36 of the wildlife act of 76, this specific section relates to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles/vessels while hunting.

sec 44 of the wildlife amendment act 2000, covers the use of a mechanically propelled vessel/vehicle for hunting. Amended to include electrical engines which are still classed as mechanically propelled. It amends sec 36 of the principle act of 76.

Amends, but does not void the principle Act.

the onus to prove it isn't mechanically propelled at the time of use lies with the person being prosecuted

The key part being this:

......... whether it is being so propelled or is stationary

IOW whether the vessel is in motion or whether it is stationary it is an offence to shoot from it if it has a mechanically/electrically propelled engine.

Much like shooting from a car. It doesn't matter whether the car is stopped or at full speed. The offence is shooting from it because it's a mechanically propelled. IOW in a car you put both feet on the ground and exit the vehicle, and in a boat you don't have an engine and shoot from it.

tomtucker81

And just for peoples info, it is these sections (36/76 + 44/00) that also cover cars jeeps etc. The key words being Mechanically Propelled and Vessel/Vehicle.

deerhunter1

Eddie B wrote: »

If there is no engine on the boat, then its within the law to shoot from the boat, whether moving, or stationary!

Saying that, it is dangerous IMO, to shoot from a moving boat!

You can have the engine lifted like we do, was stopped twice over the years with an engine attached but not being used as in the lift position, and there was no issues with the garda or ranger

tomtucker81

As I said earlier, that's pending the ranger / garda being sensible, or applying the law in such a manner.
You could always meet a different ranger / garda who might not be as such. And the law as it is will back them, even if that seems a bit harsh.

deerhunter1

tomtucker81 wrote: »

As I said earlier, that's pending the ranger / garda being sensible, or applying the law in such a manner.
You could always meet a different ranger / garda who might not be as such. And the law as it is will back them, even if that seems a bit harsh.

Dont think so

Cass

At the risk of being snotty it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the law says and the Garda/ranger on the day wants to do.

The law, as outlined numerous times above, says whether in motion or not a vessel which is mechanically propelled cannot be used for shooting. Now whether you believe this/heed it or not is up to you and each person for that matter. So even with the motor lifted it is still fitted and the fact that you used it or not, or are moving or not is irrelevant.

You may continue to doubt this or dismiss it, but that is the law.After that it's up to you.

deerhunter1

Cass wrote: »

At the risk of being snotty it doesn't matter what you think, it's what the law says and the Garda/ranger on the day wants to do.

The law, as outlined numerous times above, says whether in motion or not a vessel which is mechanically propelled cannot be used for shooting. Now whether you believe this/heed it or not is up to you and each person for that matter. So even with the motor lifted it is still fitted and the fact that you used it or not, or are moving or not is irrelevant.

You may continue to doubt this or dismiss it, but that is the law.After that it's up to you.

As it says mechanically propelled, with an engine on the boat not being used and the boat being rowed it is not mechanically propelled, the operate word being propelled as being moved by mechanical means, so you are safe to do so

ecr

I spoke to a ranger about this a few years ago and I was told under no circumstances can you shoot from the boat you have to be standing on the shore line

warehouse1

So basically its going to depend on ranger, whether or not he will prosecute you for it.

deerhunter1

warehouse1 wrote: »

So basically its going to depend on ranger, whether or not he will prosecute you for it.

Can tell you now you will not be prosecuted

Cass

No you cannot.

No more than i can guarantee you will be. While we, and others on this thread, have different interpretations of the law you should never say for definite that an offence is non prosecutable. It's akin to legal advice and should the person do it, then cite you as the source where do you think it leaves you?

There is a difference between a ranger/Garda not prosecuting and it not being a offence.

deerhunter1

Cass wrote: »

No you cannot.

No more than i can guarantee you will be. While we, and others on this thread, have different interpretations of the law you should never say for definite that an offence is non prosecutable. It's akin to legal advice and should the person do it, then cite you as the source where do you think it leaves you?

There is a difference between a ranger/Garda not prosecuting and it not being a offence.

Does not leave me anywhere,we may as well hang up our guns and play tiddly winks if we carry on down that road,has anyone here being prosecuted for having an engine on a boat which was not being used,if you were, stupid you for accepting it

Cass

deerhunter1 wrote: »

.......we may as well hang up our guns and play tiddly winks if we carry on down that road,

Exaggerating does not help.

has anyone here being prosecuted for having an engine on a boat which was not being used,

How many have you heard of being prosecuted and jailed for "zeroing", having displays with different calibers in it, etc. None. Yet they are all offences.

if you were, stupid you for accepting it

As if you have a choice. If you're charged or prosecuted you have no choice. You cannot decide "you know what i don't like this, i'm just not going to accept it". With the caveat being, even if only charged you must declare it on your FCA1 next time you sub or apply for a gun.


I have shown you more than once as have others that the law is black and white in this matter. No grey area and no loopholes. The fact you were let go or not charged does not mean it will be the same for everyone.

So this is a case of people now know the law, and can choose to adhere to it or disregard it as they please. That is their choice. They should not be influenced by your good luck story.

deerhunter1

Cass wrote: »

Exaggerating does not help.

How many have you heard of being prosecuted and jailed for "zeroing", having displays with different calibers in it, etc. None. Yet they are all offences.

As if you have a choice. If you're charged or prosecuted you have no choice. You cannot decide "you know what i don't like this, i'm just not going to accept it". With the caveat being, even if only charged you must declare it on your FCA1 next time you sub or apply for a gun.


I have shown you more than once as have others that the law is black and white in this matter. No grey area and no loopholes. The fact you were let go or not charged does not mean it will be the same for everyone.

So this is a case of people now know the law, and can choose to adhere to it or disregard it as they please. That is their choice. They should not be influenced by your good luck story.

I can clearly understand where you are coming from, and what you mean, but it certainly is not a good luck story, rangers/gardai will mostly quote to you the way they want you to interperate it, but if the regulation is not as clear cut as this one,as most are, they wont take it any further

Cass

deerhunter1 wrote: »

....... but if the regulation is not as clear cut as this one,as most are, they wont take it any further

I agree, but as you said in this instance it is.

Look at the zeroing issue. Legally it's classed as target shooting and illegal outside a range. However the Minister himself said this was a mistake, but never changed or amended the legislation. Meaning it's still illegal.

However if you and a mate are out firing a couple of shots to zero your rifle to make is safer to shoot then 99.9% of the time a Garda will not charge you. However, like the above, you are relying on the good will and common sense of the Garda at the time. Hence the reason i said good luck story. On a different day, with a different Gard/ranger and you find yourself being arrested/charged and prosecuted for the same thing.

It's a lottery and an expensive one if it does not go your way.

deerhunter1

Cass wrote: »

I agree, but as you said in this instance it is.

Look at the zeroing issue. Legally it's classed as target shooting and illegal outside a range. However the Minister himself said this was a mistake, but never changed or amended the legislation. Meaning it's still illegal.

However if you and a mate are out firing a couple of shots to zero your rifle to make is safer to shoot then 99.9% of the time a Garda will not charge you. However, like the above, you are relying on the good will and common sense of the Garda at the time. Hence the reason i said good luck story. On a different day, with a different Gard/ranger and you find yourself being arrested/charged and prosecuted for the same thing.

It's a lottery and an expensive one if it does not go your way.

Good point, I willl have to agree to dissagree

garv123

Cass wrote: »

Amends, but does not void the principle Act.

The key part being this:

IOW whether the vessel is in motion or whether it is stationary it is an offence to shoot from it if it has a mechanically/electrically propelled engine.

Much like shooting from a car. It doesn't matter whether the car is stopped or at full speed. The offence is shooting from it because it's a mechanically propelled. IOW in a car you put both feet on the ground and exit the vehicle, and in a boat you don't have an engine and shoot from it.

Since its a boat I assume the Op is referring to ducks...

Its different for animals and birds. an animal is "whether it is being so propelled or is stationary"

Birds are "while it is being so propelled."



(a) any protected wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,

(b) any protected wild bird by means of such a vehicle, vessel or aircraft while it is being so propelled.

Cass

Yup.

Read that and noticed the subtle difference. As you said it most likely is Duck, and its the reason (while it doesn't look/read like it) that i have not held the stance of "you're absolutely wrong" with Deerhunter above.

For animals (wild game) the issue is clear. For fowl it's clear, but annoying vague to a degree. So i would still hold the same opinion. Do as you please/want/like/think, but exercise caution and do not rely on another's experience as the norm.

warehouse1

ya its ducks im talking about. If you look at the law it states that you cant shoot if the boat is being propelled. So if u have the engine lifted and you are rowing you are not breaking any law.

garv123

Cass wrote: »

Yup.

Read that and noticed the subtle difference. As you said it most likely is Duck, and its the reason (while it doesn't look/read like it) that i have not held the stance of "you're absolutely wrong" with Deerhunter above.

For animals (wild game) the issue is clear. For fowl it's clear, but annoying vague to a degree. So i would still hold the same opinion. Do as you please/want/like/think, but exercise caution and do not rely on another's experience as the norm.

the thing is the word propelled..it doesnt specify an engine or anything so rowing a boat probably counts as propelling it.

garv123

warehouse1 wrote: »

ya its ducks im talking about. If you look at the law it states that you cant shoot if the boat is being propelled. So if u have the engine lifted and you are rowing you are not breaking any law.

if you are rowing, you are propelling the boat..

Cass

Seems like i'm debating the opposite side of what i was above, but again it's about wording. The way it says "so propelled" would indicate that they refer to the means referenced in 2(i).

However if it doesn't then rowing as well as the use of a motor is an offence.

This all relates back to what i was saying above. It depends on the Garda/Ranger on the day and how they interpret it. Even if you win any subsequent case you have the cost (financial & mental) of the court and then have to declare any charges, etc in future applications.

IOW be careful.

deerhunter1

garv123 wrote: »

the thing is the word propelled..it doesnt specify an engine or anything so rowing a boat probably counts as propelling it.

No It states Mechanically propelled

garv123

deerhunter1 wrote: »

No It states Mechanically propelled

(b) any protected wild bird by means of such a vehicle,vessel or aircraft while it is being so propelled.


Where?? The OP is talking about birds not animals.

juice1304

(a) any protected wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,

garv123

juice1304 wrote: »

(a) any protected wild animal by means of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, vessel or aircraft, whether it is being so propelled or is stationary,

The op is talking about birds though, not animals.

2 separate parts for both.

Bogwoppit

garv123 wrote: »

The op is talking about birds though, not animals.

2 separate parts for both.

If birds aren't animals then what are they?
Trees?

Eddie B

Bogwoppit wrote: »

If birds aren't animals then what are they?
Trees?

Em, if I asked you to name an animal, would you say Duck?

I think the lad has a point!

Eddie B

garv123 wrote: »

The op is talking about birds though, not animals.

2 separate parts for both.

My reading of it is that, you can shoot birds from a mechanically propelled vehicle, once its stationary, but you can't shoot animals whether vehicle is stationary, or moving!

Bogwoppit

Eddie B wrote: »

Em, if I asked you to name an animal, would you say Duck?

I think the lad has a point!

I might!

I don't think he has a point, a bird is an animal therefore the law applies. You can't get around it by arguing that a duck isn't an animal.

Bogwoppit

Eddie B wrote: »

My reading of it is that, you can shoot birds from a mechanically propelled vehicle, once its stationary, but you can't shoot animals whether vehicle is stationary, or moving!

As before, a duck is an animal.

Eddie B

Bogwoppit wrote: »

I might!

I don't think he has a point, a bird is an animal therefore the law applies. You can't get around it by arguing that a duck isn't an animal.

Just read the section 36 which is on the 1st page of this thread! Might change your mind on your argument! There is an A and B, referring to Animals, and Birds!

Bogwoppit

Maybe one section is referring to birds and the other is referring to animals, i.e. all animals not just birds. When it says animals I don't think it excludes birds.
I'm fairly sure a judge would consider a duck as an animal whether you think so or not.

Duck = Bird

Bird = Animal

Animal = Large group of species including birds.

OED definition of an animal;

noun
1A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli


I think ducks fit in that category.

As has been said before, that is what the law states, like it or not.

Whether you'd get prosecuted for it or not is another story and I don't know the answer to that.

warehouse1

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Maybe one section is referring to birds and the other is referring to animals, i.e. all animals not just birds. When it says animals I don't think it excludes birds.
I'm fairly sure a judge would consider a duck as an animal whether you think so or not.

Duck = Bird

Bird = Animal

Animal = Large group of species including birds.

OED definition of an animal;

noun
1A living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli


I think ducks fit in that category.

As has been said before, that is what the law states, like it or not.

Whether you'd get prosecuted for it or not is another story and I don't know the answer to that.

The law has two rules one for birds and one for animals. If they meant birds when they were talking about animals why didnt they just make one rule.
(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.

Vegeta

A duck is not considered a "wild animal" in the Act.

“‘wild animal’ includes an individual of a population which primarily lives independent of human husbandry but does not include—

(a) wild birds, or

Bogwoppit

Vegeta wrote: »

A duck is not considered a "wild animal" in the Act.

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that section, where is it from?

I still think the rest of it is pretty vague and open to interpretation, a ranger could argue in court that oars are a mechanism and therefore rowing is mechanical propulsion, unlikely but possible under the wording.

Bw

Vegeta

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that section, where is it from?

It's in the definitions section of the 2000 ammendments.

I still think the rest of it is pretty vague and open to interpretation, a ranger could argue in court that oars are a mechanism and therefore rowing is mechanical propulsion, unlikely but possible under the wording.

Bw

I've said similar in the past. I wouldn't take the risk personally.