Am i missing something?

Cass

Another story of a chap charged and sentenced for hunting with dogs. This time Rabbits.

I know it's an offence with Hares and other protected wildlife but Rabbits have no such protection. Secondly the Judge, and i've seen a lot of his cases and he is usually fair and unbiased, viewed a horrible level of bias by calling the hunting with dogs a barbaric act then following up with an insult to the man.

All i can see as being an offence, based on the content of the article, is trespassing. Not excusing it, and while being fully aware of the "reporting" previously by said news outlet i know the propensity for sensationalist headlines.

I've read the wildlife act for the salient parts i've needed over the years and i don't, off hand, know of any part of it that prohibits the hunting of "vermin" with a dog.

Can someone else shine some light? Am i missing or have i forgotten a fairly obvious prohibition of hunting with dogs?

pablo128

There's countless threads on here about travellers out lamping for rabbits. Now we have a judge doing something about it. It looks like this lad was told to get off the land and decided to have words with the landowner instead.

You don't get 3 months in jail for nothing.

borrisboy

It says nothing about lamping in that report . Jail for hunting rabbits is a joke !

yubabill

pablo128 wrote: »

There's countless threads on here about travellers out lamping for rabbits. Now we have a judge doing something about it. It looks like this lad was told to get off the land and decided to have words with the landowner instead.

You don't get 3 months in jail for nothing.

Probably some truth in the above.

another angle is the new urban attitude to liberalism.

If you need to know, just read the Sindo letters page any Sunday.

Me, I stick to the sunday times, at least they still have investigative journalists, rather than opinion jocks.

Cass

pablo128 wrote: »

There's countless threads on here about travellers

Says nothing about travellers

out lamping for rabbits.

Says nothing about lamping.

Now we have a judge doing something about it.

About what? not lamping or travellers because neither are mentioned in the article. So a judge doing something about what exactly?

It looks like this lad was told to get off the land and decided to have words with the landowner instead.

That is all i can make out to be the issue so why the headline?

An when was hunting rabbits with dogs made illegal?

If i have hunting dogs, day or night as lamping rabbits is not a crime, and permission to be on the lands i'm on (not talking about the guy in the article) what crime have i committed?

cookimonster

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1976/act/39/revised/en/pdf%3Fannotations%3Dtrue&ved=2ahUKEwjKubDbmovmAhVvRhUIHY3-BlgQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw02rudbs68wHGmnyWEwUHbC

I've just read the article and belive it makes many assumptions based on the contraventions of the Wildlife Act.
It doesn't cleary say what this man was charged with, it makes the assumption that it was a charge of roaming land in contravention of the Wildlife Act.. What was the actual recorded charge before thr courts?

The making of rabbit stew 'illegal' Ha, ha, ha, I wet myself laughing.... but in this case maybe not!

The actual offence is under Section 44 Unlawful hunting or entry on land and other miscellaneous matters.
This then makes anything he did from that point forward illegal. This inculdes the hunting of any fauna and section 72 (?) details items etc that are used in the illegal act, this case dogs.

So as far as I can make out. The man entered onto someone else's property in order to hunt. From that point on what he hunted and how he hunted was illegal. If he had permission the hunting of rabbits with dogs in itself is not illegal.

Still doesn't give the Judge carte blanche to over egg his feelings on the subject.

pablo128

Cass wrote: »

Says nothing about travellers

Says nothing about lamping.

About what? not lamping or travellers because neither are mentioned in the article. So a judge doing something about what exactly?

That is all i can make out to be the issue so why the headline?

An when was hunting rabbits with dogs made illegal?

If i have hunting dogs, day or night as lamping rabbits is not a crime, and permission to be on the lands i'm on (not talking about the guy in the article) what crime have i committed?

With respect, you are being obtuse here. Google his name and address. The article says he was trespassing which is what he was done for. Again, you don't get 3 months for your first offence, although I probably should have made that clearer in my first post.

You need to read between the lines on this one.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

So as far as I can make out. The man entered onto someone else's property in order to hunt. From that point on what he hunted and how he hunted was illegal. If he had permission the hunting of rabbits with dogs in itself is not illegal.

Exactly my point above:

Cass wrote: »

All i can see as being an offence, based on the content of the article, is trespassing. Not excusing it, and while being fully aware of the "reporting" previously by said news outlet i know the propensity for sensationalist headlines.

Still doesn't give the Judge carte blanche to over egg his feelings on the subject.

You wouldn't think so although they can voice an opinion. I mean we all do it, but then we're not sitting as Judge on the case(s).

Cass

pablo128 wrote: »

With respect, you are being obtuse here...........

Yet you say in the same post:

........ although I probably should have made that clearer in my first post.

Google his name and address.

I don't care for the man's circumstances or his status as some perceived minority group or not. My only concern is the reporting on a legal activity as though it were not.

The article says he was trespassing which is what he was done for.

The article does not simply say "Man caught trespassing given three months". It says "Man jailed at Kildare court after hunting Rabbits with lurcher Dogs".

This gives the impression to anyone and everyone that the act of hunting with dogs, regardless of species or in this case specifically with Lurchers is an offence when it's not. The offence was trespass, and as Cookimonster said everything after that initial offence was an offence in itself, so the headline should read "Man caught trespassing given three months".

You need to read between the lines on this one.

I understand the subtext you are trying to imply, but its not germane to this topic.

Again, you don't get 3 months for your first offence,

The sentence is irrelevant to the topic. I don't care if he got the probation act, a fine, or ten years. Its the sensationalist reporting, misleading headlines, bias article, and once again another hatchet job by the same media that gave us such gems as this, and this.

Eddie B

Its a joke! Bunch of Anti's trespass, and the gardai will do nothing about it

pablo128

Cass wrote: »

Yet you say in the same post:


I don't care for the man's circumstances or his status as some perceived minority group or not. My only concern is the reporting on a legal activity as though it were not.

The article does not simply say "Man caught trespassing given three months". It says "Man jailed at Kildare court after hunting Rabbits with lurcher Dogs".

This gives the impression to anyone and everyone that the act of hunting with dogs, regardless of species or in this case specifically with Lurchers is an offence when it's not. The offence was trespass, and as Cookimonster said everything after that initial offence was an offence in itself, so the headline should read "Man caught trespassing given three months".

I understand the subtext you are trying to imply, but its not germane to this topic.

The sentence is irrelevant to the topic. I don't care if he got the probation act, a fine, or ten years. Its the sensationalist reporting, misleading headlines, bias article, and once again another hatchet job by the same media that gave us such gems as this, and this.

Ok I see where you're coming from now. The headline certainly should have been more accurate. Sensationalism for the sake of it.

Bizarrely they printed a misleading headline while being afraid of their lives to mention his ethnicity.

Cass

I know headlines are used to draw people in, and it works as this thread is proof off, but for the great unwashed that have no clue about hunting or shooting sports they don't take the time to investigate or probe further. They merely go with whatever the "man behind the curtain" tells them. So they read this and go "fecking murderers, killing poor, defenceless, animals". :rolleyes:

As for his "ethnicity"! Less said, easy mended.

Eddie B

The fact that the judge asked for the man's dogs to be removed, shows that he is seeing this as a wildlife crime. He is seeing the act of hunting rabbits with dogs as illegal, or he doesn't agree with it, and using his powers to do whatever he wants to do.

Remember most judges wouldn't have a clue about hunting or what can and can't be hunted. They rely on people from NPWS etc for advise. Between them, they can twist nd turn any vaguely written legislation to suit their own beliefs or agendas.

.243

could it be simply that the journalist reporting on this simply put their own twist on this to make it sound better without actually knowing facts (as it wouldnt be the first time the press bend an issue to sell print)

cookimonster

Eddie B wrote: »

The fact that the judge asked for the man's dogs to be removed, shows that he is seeing this as a wildlife crime. He is seeing the act of hunting rabbits with dogs illegal ...

.....Between them, they can twist nd turn any vaguely written legislation to suit their own beliefs or agendas.

Eddie in regards to the orders of the Judge re the dogs and it being a wildlife crime, the fact is, in this instance, the hunting of those rabbits was a wildlife crime due to the circumstances leading up to the actual hunting activity. Therefore any object or item used to in or to facilitate the crime can be deemed illegal.
A similar 'law' was inacted in relation to taking shellfish while using SCUBA gear, if caught and prosecuted you'd loose everything your dive gear, your boat, your trailer and your car.

I would not be too quick to call the recent amendments vauge, I would see them as a very clear way of prosecuting persons who unlawfully enter land with the intent of hunting. If I read the act right the burden of proof is not on the landowner nor the prosecution to prove intent.

J.R.

"He makes stew from the caught rabbit, which is illegal."

This is the line that confuses me.

Eddie B

cookimonster wrote: »

Eddie in regards to the orders of the Judge re the dogs and it being a wildlife crime, the fact is, in this instance, the hunting of those rabbits was a wildlife crime due to the circumstances leading up to the actual hunting activity. Therefore any object or item used to in or to facilitate the crime can be deemed illegal.
A similar 'law' was inacted in relation to taking shellfish while using SCUBA gear, if caught and prosecuted you'd loose everything your dive gear, your boat, your trailer and your car.

I would not be too quick to call the recent amendments vauge, I would see them as a very clear way of prosecuting persons who unlawfully enter land with the intent of hunting. If I read the act right the burden of proof is not on the landowner nor the prosecution to prove intent.

This remark from the judge says it all for me.

Judge Zaidan described the activity as a “barbaric practice” and referred to the defendant as a “small fry in a big pond”, adding that it was a widespread practice.

You can make of that what you will. I see it as an judge who is an anti, who us using his powers to put a man in jail, and take his dogs from him, because anti's see us as less than human.

Cass

Eddie B wrote: »

I see it as an judge who is an anti,.........

The reason i posted about this is because Judge Zaidan has, regardless of his personal views, being more than fair and applied the law as it is and not what AGS want it to be in the past.

In another case he overturned the refusal of two shotguns licenses because the Super did not make a sufficient case for why they were refused.

Just seems odd or out of the norm based on his previous cases.

cookimonster

Could it not be said that the Judge is exercising the law and setting a precedence while sending out a message.
So when someone is caught poaching deer and they loose the lot, firearms, equipment, vechiles etc, etc there's no come back because someone else got off leniently.

The man broke the law and there were consequences to this.

Besides we are only looking at this from a badly conceived news paper article, I'd be interested in comparing the court recordings and journalist piece to see how accurate it was.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Could it not be said that the Judge is exercising the law and setting a precedence while sending out a message.

Possibly, and i'm not opposed or critical of the sentence, if its for trespassing.

My complaint is the new article, its content, how it's framed and the implications for such reckless "reporting". So your point:

Besides we are only looking at this from a badly conceived news paper article, I'd be interested in comparing the court recordings and journalist piece to see how accurate it was.

....... is well received and very on point.

garv123

J.R. wrote: »

"He makes stew from the caught rabbit, which is illegal."

This is the line that confuses me.

Section 32 of the wildlife act.

"It shall be an offence for a person to make stew from the caught rabbit"

"The person shall only be allowed use an oven to make rabbit casserole"

Eddie B

cookimonster wrote: »

Could it not be said that the Judge is exercising the law and setting a precedence while sending out a message.
So when someone is caught poaching deer and they loose the lot, firearms, equipment, vechiles etc, etc there's no come back because someone else got off leniently.

The man broke the law and there were consequences to this.

Besides we are only looking at this from a badly conceived news paper article, I'd be interested in comparing the court recordings and journalist piece to see how accurate it was.

If there was no mention of his dogs been taken of him, no one would have bat an eye lid, because such thing has never been heard of reguarding hunting rabbits before.

What does this mean for future cases? If you wing a pheasant, and your dog trails it onto land where you don't have permission. Then you can lose your dog, and end up behind bars. Same if you hit a deer, and he makes it onto land where you don't have permission.

Yes I agree the article may not show the full picture, and maybe the guy had previous convictions, but as of what we know, to send someone to jail for hunting a few rabbits is ridiculous. Even the act of trespassing on a farmers land should not land someone in jail. God, how many of us cross land to get to a river or lake for a bit if duck shooting etc.

Not bothered normally

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/six-arrested-after-men-found-17343361


i am of the view that a jail sentence for this behavior will become the norm. it is a rampant problem.

the individuals/groups with dogs and no permission are doing untold damage to the reputation of the law abiding hunter. reports like this are heaven sent for the anti groups who will push them out with glee.

people need to realize that the world has changed and the old ways are on the way out...............with the obvious exception of clear unbiased reporting