Hare coursing

gumbo1

Hi all, I was on to work this morning, about 3.30am, and happened across a lad with two lurchers laying down eating something. As i got closer I seen the chap had the remains of a hare or 2 in his hand.
Just wondering if hare coursing is legal outside of organised meetings?

hathcock

gumbo1 wrote: »

Hi all, I was on to work this morning, about 3.30am, and happened across a lad with two lurchers laying down eating something. As i got closer I seen the chap had the remains of a hare or 2 in his hand.
Just wondering if hare coursing is legal outside of organised meetings?

it's illegal

gumbo1

gumbo1 wrote: »

Hi all, I was on to work this morning, about 3.30am, and happened across a lad with two lurchers laying down eating something. As i got closer I seen the chap had the remains of a hare or 2 in his hand.
Just wondering if hare coursing is legal outside of organised meetings?

They weren't coursing. They were poaching.

Big Bangstick

Going on everywhere. Authorities don't care

Big Bangstick

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Going on everywhere. Authorities don't care

Shur tis their culture

Eddie B

Might they have been rabbits by any chance?

gumbo1

Eddie B wrote: »

Might they have been rabbits by any chance?

From what I seen of them they had brown and white fur and looked like the dogs had had a go at them.
Would there be a difference if they were rabbits?

arrowloopboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur tis their culture

ya forgot the ''boss'' at the end

Cass

gumbo1 wrote: »

From what I seen of them they had brown and white fur and looked like the dogs had had a go at them.
Would there be a difference if they were rabbits?

Not much.

I've seen experienced hunters get them confused. They look the same in terms of color and some markings, especially at a distance. A Hare will be bigger than a rabbit, longer legs, and generally black markings on the larger ears. Also Hares are protected, and have a season that they can be hunted in, and ONLY in that season.

Deleted User wrote: »

They weren't coursing. They were poaching.

You don't know that. Even the OP doesn't know if what s/he saw was a Rabbit or Hare. The post above shows that s/he doesn't know the difference between the two. So lets hold off on making assumptions and accusations without knowing the facts.

arrowloopboy

.....and you can also pull a hair outa you arse ,but not a rabbit :eek:.

mike2015

gumbo1 wrote: »

Hi all, I was on to work this morning, about 3.30am, and happened across a lad with two lurchers laying down eating something. As i got closer I seen the chap had the remains of a hare or 2 in his hand.
Just wondering if hare coursing is legal outside of organised meetings?

Didn't no it was illegal, but my personal experience of them is that they don't give a f--k about gates, walls or fencing in the lands they walk over.I'm not anti hunting as I shoot and fish myself.

arrowloopboy

mike2015 wrote: »

Didn't no it was illegal, but my personal experience of them is that they don't give a f--k about gates, walls or fencing in the lands they walk over.I'm not anti hunting as I shoot and fish myself.

No ,your just anti skumbag ,like most of us !

riffmongous

gumbo1 wrote: »

From what I seen of them they had brown and white fur and looked like the dogs had had a go at them.
Would there be a difference if they were rabbits?

A hare would be a decent bit bigger and it's got a different looking head and ears, but unless you know how big one of them is in the first place it might be hard to judge

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

Not much.

I've seen experienced hunters get them confused. They look the same in terms of color and some markings, especially at a distance. A Hare will be bigger than a rabbit, longer legs, and generally black markings on the larger ears. Also Hares are protected, and have a season that they can be hunted in, and ONLY in that season.




You don't know that. Even the OP doesn't know if what s/he saw was a Rabbit or Hare. The post above shows that s/he doesn't know the difference between the two. So lets hold off on making assumptions and accusations without knowing the facts.

Probably out lamping, so probably a rabbit (hopefully). Plenty of people both hunters/general public frequently misidentify species. On a thread in N&B recently a person who shoots deer did not know the difference between a sika from a fallow from a photo. Post was deleted.

riffmongous

Capercaillie wrote: »

Probably out lamping, so probably a rabbit (hopefully). Plenty of people both hunters/general public frequently misidentify species. On a thread in N&B recently a person who shoots deer did not know the difference between a sika from a fallow from a photo. Post was deleted.

Ireland has no education requirements to be a hunter right? Even for a deer license?

gumbo1

Cass wrote: »

Not much.



The post above shows that s/he doesn't know the difference between the two. So lets hold off on making assumptions and accusations without knowing the facts.

I have no problem telling the 2 apart when their alive but when half eaten it makes it a little harder to tell!

gumbo1

I ment would there be a difference in the legality of it between rabbits and hares, I can tell the difference between the 2 animals!!

Burning Bridges

gumbo1 wrote: »

I ment would there be a difference in the legality of it between rabbits and hares, I can tell the difference between the 2 animals!!

at 3 am?

Eddie B

gumbo1 wrote: »

From what I seen of them they had brown and white fur and looked like the dogs had had a go at them.
Would there be a difference if they were rabbits?

yes! Its perfectly legal to lamp rabbits with dogs , but not hares!

I'd put my money on it being rabbits to be honest, especially the fact that their was more than one!

gumbo1

Eddie B wrote: »

I'd put my money on it being rabbits to be honest, especially the fact that their was more than one!

I work I the airport and seen this guy at the ballymun exit ramp of M50. Very very few rabbits around here but thousands of hares!

ComfortKid

I don't know anyone that ever lamps hares! You get a good spin off em during the day but they're too soft at night, boss.

blindside88

If he had lurches you'd imagine they were rabbits. Surely a lurched that would catch a hare would need to have a very large amout of running dog in the breeding to catch a hare, especially if it was able to catch more than one

ComfortKid

blindside88 wrote:

If he had lurches you'd imagine they were rabbits. Surely a lurched that would catch a hare would need to have a very large amout of running dog in the breeding to catch a hare, especially if it was able to catch more than one

No, it's actually easier to catch a hare on a lamp than a rabbit. They get dazed for alot longer for some reason.

blindside88

ComfortKid wrote: »

No, it's actually easier to catch a hare on a lamp than a rabbit. They get dazed for alot longer for some reason.

Ah right. I had forgotten he would have been using a lamp at that hour. It's a long time since I was up that early

Eddie B

gumbo1 wrote: »

I work I the airport and seen this guy at the ballymun exit ramp of M50. Very very few rabbits around here but thousands of hares!

O.k! Well in that case, you may well be right, and therfore poaching might be taking place!

ComfortKid

Can anyone tell me why it is illegal to hunt hares but not rabbits? In my opinion it should be the other way around, because people often kill 20 or 30 rabbits on one hunt where as your not going to catch more than 1 or 2 hares. Hares aren't scarce either are they?

Cass

gumbo1 wrote: »

I have no problem telling the 2 apart when their alive but when half eaten it makes it a little harder to tell!

So, and according to your own post, they were "half eaten" so it's hard to tell.

gumbo1 wrote: »

I ment would there be a difference in the legality of it between rabbits and hares, I can tell the difference between the 2 animals!!

As i said above Hares are a protected game species and can only be shot during the appropriate season.

I'm not making excuses. If the chap was illegally hunting Hares then it's poaching, but too often we get people making accusations against a person which reflects badly on the hunting community and 9 times out of ten they are baseless or mistaken. Hence the reason i don't like rushed judgments or people jumping to conclusions.

ComfortKid wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why it is illegal to hunt hares but not rabbits? In my opinion it should be the other way around, because people often kill 20 or 30 rabbits on one hunt where as your not going to catch more than 1 or 2 hares. Hares aren't scarce either are they?

Hares are an indigenous species, rabbits are not. Its similar to why you cannot shot Kerry Red deer. They are an indigenous species and as such we work harder to protect them.

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

Hares are an indigenous species, rabbits are not. Its similar to why you cannot shot Kerry Red deer. They are an indigenous species and as such we work harder to protect them.

Irish Hare is indigenous, brown hare is not.

Cass

There is no distinction made under the Wildlife Act between the two so there is no point in me making such a distinction.

riffmongous

ComfortKid wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why it is illegal to hunt hares but not rabbits? In my opinion it should be the other way around, because people often kill 20 or 30 rabbits on one hunt where as your not going to catch more than 1 or 2 hares. Hares aren't scarce either are they?

Rabbits have a much higher reproduction rate, 3-5 times x 5-9 young per year, while a hare has 3x 2-4 young. Rabbits also reach sexual maturity after 7 months, a hare takes almost a year

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

There is no distinction made under the Wildlife Act between the two so there is no point in me making such a distinction.

One is a valued native species the other is not. There is a big distinction.

Cass

Capercaillie wrote: »

One is a valued native species the other is not. There is a big distinction.

Seeing as how you quoted my post i assume you read it, but in case i've missed something please show me where in the Wildife Act that it makes a distinction between the two.

Also if i were to shoot a brown Hare out of season would i be any less guilty of an offence under the Act because it's not indigenous?

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

Seeing as how you quoted my post i assume you read it, but in case i've missed something please show me where in the Wildife Act that it makes a distinction between the two.

Also if i were to shoot a brown Hare out of season would i be any less guilty of an offence under the Act because it's not indigenous?

No distinction made under Wildlife act. Does that mean it doesn't matter if you are unaware/anable to distinguish the two different species. Every good hunter should be able to know what they are hunting. Is it advisable to know whether you are shooting a sika or a fallow?

Cass

Capercaillie wrote: »

No distinction made under Wildlife act.

So what i said originally is still the correct legal stance and what you said is merely you're opinion. Thanks.

Does that mean it doesn't matter if you are unaware/anable to distinguish the two different species.

The OP has admitted that s/he could not tell the difference. Some seem to be taking his/her word that they were Hares when s/he does not know. While the OP says they can tell the difference when alive these were not and at 3 am when it's dark would not help.

Every good hunter should be able to know what they are hunting. Is it advisable to know whether you are shooting a sika or a fallow?

Every good hunter should, but not all hunters are good (no point in being naive and thinking they are all good in ability or intent). However much like my point with the Hares if it's deer season then it doesn't matter (legally) if you're shooting a Sika or Fallow as long as it's in season, you have a deer legal rifle, and the appropriate license. Same with a Hare. If one were so inclined to hunt them, then as long as they are hunted/shot legally, and in season why should that person make a distinction when the law does not?

Birdnuts

Capercaillie wrote: »

One is a valued native species the other is not. There is a big distinction.

There is no evidence of an established Brown Hare population in the Republic so there really is no issue here.

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

You don't know that. Even the OP doesn't know if what s/he saw was a Rabbit or Hare. The post above shows that s/he doesn't know the difference between the two. So lets hold off on making assumptions and accusations without knowing the facts.

What species of Hare did you post up?

Cass wrote: »

The OP has admitted that s/he could not tell the difference. Some seem to be taking his/her word that they were Hares when s/he does not know. While the OP says they can tell the difference when alive these were not and at 3 am when it's dark would not help.

Every good hunter should, but not all hunters are good (no point in being naive and thinking they are all good in ability or intent). However much like my point with the Hares if it's deer season then it doesn't matter (legally) if you're shooting a Sika or Fallow as long as it's in season, you have a deer legal rifle, and the appropriate license. Same with a Hare. If one were so inclined to hunt them, then as long as they are hunted/shot legally, and in season why should that person make a distinction when the law does not?

If people are incapable of distinguishing between sika/fallow, how could you trust them not to be able to recognize a Red Deer?

Capercaillie

Cass wrote: »

So what i said originally is still the correct legal stance and what you said is merely you're opinion. Thanks.

Legal stance correct but factually incorrect.

Birdnuts

Capercaillie wrote: »

If people are incapable of distinguishing between sika/fallow, how could you trust them not to be able to recognize a Red Deer?

Red Deer can be hunted on the same basis as any other deer in the country(bar stags in Kerry)

http://www.gohuntingireland.com/locations/huntingd.html

Capercaillie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Red Deer can be hunted on the same basis as any other deer in the country(bar stags in Kerry)

http://www.gohuntingireland.com/locations/huntingd.html

Illegal to hunt red deer in Kerry

Birdnuts

Capercaillie wrote: »

Illegal to hunt red deer in Kerry

Re-read my post - It mentioned the fact that Red Stags in Kerry are protected.

Capercaillie

Birdnuts wrote: »

Re-read my post - It mentioned the fact that Red Stags in Kerry are protected.

The link you put up is incorrect, it states that female Irish red deer can be shot throughout the Republic of Ireland. You post says that only Irish Red Deer Stags are protected in Kerry.

Cass

Capercaillie, you have a history of distrupting threads in the hunting forum by turning them into debates on hunting wildlife and to some extent the morality of hunting itself.

I have posted that the law makes no distinction between species of Hare only that they are a Hare. You still argue your point over the legal stance as though your moral position supercedes the law.

When your position on Hares becomes untenable you turn to deer. It is clear you have an agenda here but you will not be granted the platform to disrupt the forum further.

I'm closing this thread as the OP has made assumptions without having all the facts (not a fault in itself) but people have piled on the issue based solely on hearsay and supposition.