Stopping trespassers

Pop down with a gun over your shoulder if you hold a licence and tell them next time you'll be firing it.

Good way of getting the guards interested in your case, for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe have the gun taken off you too.

Any chance of putting some farm animals in there temporarily or is the ground too unsuitable in it's current state?

Mountain bikers definitely won't want to cycle around a field covered in cow shite. Even if you just had a few animals for a bit to turn them off they might just move on somewhere else and then forget about your field.

The only thing those sort of veiled threats will achieve is the Gardai on your doorstep and forfeiture of your gun and licence.

There really is limited list of things you can do.

1. Fence off the land with palisade fencing, with you and that chap having the keys.
2. reclaim the land and plant it with forestry, with a more modest fence

At the end of the day the field is now seen as a borderline public amenity with people going in and out willy nilly. The only thing that will stop them is to fundamentally change the perception of the place.

No they don't, unless that trespasser is a dog. Guards take a very dim view of using guns to threaten a person, even in in jest.

Make sure you have public liability insurance anyway. Stick away up signs if you want but they have feckall legal defense afaik. Best prob to put up a decent fence and reclaim the field for some form of use of your own.

Finally, the voice of reason and sense. Take good heed of that post above OP.

And ignore the juvenile nonsense of swaggering around with a shotgun under your arm 'Murica style. If you did that, a few lads making ramps for mountain bikes would be the least of your worried while you are up in front of a judge for using your gun to intimidate someone.

I somehow think this is am unused field at the edge of a large urban area. It's has been used as a dumping ground historically for builders rubble. This type of neglected land always attracts near do wells. A couple of the rough boys with horses are your best bet.

PS there is one other options, 10 -12 JE or JEx 2year old bulls. Nobody will go into a field with them

Again, an electric fence and gate during like that will have you up in front of a judge when the wrong person gets a rap off it and sees that it was deliberately wired up to hurt someone. That's assault you could be up for. And if you're very very unlucky someone with a weak heart or pacemaker could die from a shock like that that would be nothing to you or I.

Op ignore ludicrously bad and dangerous advice like this. It'll only get you into trouble. Potentially very serious trouble.

It's a shame and, this coming from a landowner, it's also a shame that there's no right to roam like some of Scandinavian countries where people actually behave themselves and respect property. Cleaning up after them that you'd never know anyone camped there.

We can't have that here because our arseholes do whatever they feel like and sue you if they so much as stub their toe.

putting a bull in the field is stupid advice. A bull breed known to be aggressive even moreso. It is in the same league as confronting tresspassers with a gun under your arm, and wiring up the gate to an electric fence.

If someone gets hurt or killed by that bull then you are up in front of a judge with a barrister questioning you......

You were aware that the field was often tresspassed upon by walkers and mountain bikers? And that they tended to disobey signs warning them to keep out?

Would you consider that type of bull to be dangerous to a person walking in the field who is not familiar with handling bulls.

Do you normally keep such bulls? When did you get him and for what reason did you get that particular breed?

But yet you decided to put a bull in that field, and not just any bull, a bull breed known to be more volatile than average.

And why did you choose to put that particular bull in that particular field? You have a a large farm with many other fields, some of them farther away from this area, and which were not frequented by tresspassers. Why did you put him in that field, and not in another field that didn't have a tresspassing problem?

Judge, it is the prosecutions opinion that Op deliberately put a volatile breed of bull into a field that was frequently tresspassed upon in an effort to deter would be tresspassers from entering the land, and he did so knowing full well that the bull would be a grave danger to any person who did enter the field. And the sad result was the death of a young man who was not accustomed to being around large farm animals and was unaware of the severe danger in the field.

Good luck coming out the right side of that in court.

Can people please stop suggesting that the op do things that are going to get him in trouble and put other people at risk of injury.

As I said, a bull is asking for serious trouble.

You won't be able to defend putting a lethal animal into a field known to be popular with tresspassers. The judge will see through it straight away that you did it deliberately as a deterrent.

Putting a lethal hazard like a bull in is grossly inadvisable. It is the equivalent of lacing the place with land mines. A deliberate action done to put tresspassers in danger of serious injury or death.

If it is on the verge of an urban area, you cannot reasonably expect teenagers and the like to be aware of the dangers of bulls, especially when it appears overnight in a field that is regularly tresspassed on and that did not have a bull until one random morning.

You won't be able to defend that in court. It'll be manslaughter.

Whether we like or not, any landowner has a duty of care to anyone who might be on a premises, whether they be an employee or a tresspasser or a friend with permission. And that goes for whether it is a business premises, a field, a construction site, a hotel, anywhere. No amount of moaning or bitching is going to change that. it is a fact of life. And farmers are not immune to that principle of law.

If that field is regularly tresspassed on , then any of these dangerous things like diggin big holes, electrifying gates, vicious bulls, walking around with guns etc are, sooner or later, going to end in tears and with the OP up in court for either a civil or criminal case or both. They are irresponsible, immature and dangerous actions.

The way around this is to fence it off securely, clear and re-seed that land, or put it in forestry or a crop or something. None of them are cheap, but it is cheaper than having to pay a solicitor and barrister to defend you in court and pay the inevitable damages claim.

Putting a bull in when you've no business having a bull is just creating mischief though.

Some of the the suggestions here are like a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Yes I get you, but putting a bull in a field as part of your routine farming operation is one thing.

But suddenly putting a bull into a field you know to have tresspassers, and when you never previously put a bull, and when you had other fields that were less risky to have a bull in them, will be seen for what it is - a deliberate act done to install a danger into a place as a deterrent.

If the OP never previously kept a bull, and then all of a sudden aquires a bull and just by chance puts it in that particular field, will only copperfasten that argument. If you never had bulls before, why suddenly get one? And why put it in the place where it is likely to present the greatest danger to other people?

At absolute best, the OP would be seen to have failed to adequately consider the impact of their actions on safety of people on the land, which he knew full well was happening, and failed to reduce the risk. At worst, he could be up for manslaughter.

You absolutely would not have a hope in hell of winning a case like that.

Even in normal circumstances, did you ever hear of someone being killed by a bull and a court or the HSA saying that the farmer did verything 100% right and that they could not have done any more and they they are absolved of all liability and are in the clear.

And another thing, I guess that because there are bike ramps and the like, the field is close to an urban area with estates and children and teenagers. THerefore, anyone with experience would know that it is the last place you should be putting bulls unless you cannot avoid it. If you have other more rural fields farther out, and you need to keep bulls, then the basic principles of prevention woudl tell you that you should put the bulls in the part of the farm where they are least likely to be a danger - ie, fields farther away from houses, farther away from the road etc, and put the less risking activities near the more sensitive neighbours.

All that aside, at the end of the day, if you end up in court for an accident on land, be it because of animals or machinery or whatever, the reality is you are not going to win a case. The reality is that the legal system is biased in favour of the injured party, and the burden of liability is with the owner of the offending animal/machine/building almost by default.

When was the last time someone was killed by an animal or machine, or fell down a hole, and a court ruled that it was the person was liable for their own demise? Yeah, practically never. Not any time in modern times anyway.

I am not a lawyer, nor am i speculating wildly, but I can tell you this , I have enough experience and knowlege through my line of work that tells me that knowingly placing hazards and ignoring or deliberately creating risks is not going to end well when you end up in court.

When you are facing a claim, you are immediately on an uphill battle as the reality is the legal system is biased in favour of the injured party. And if you have done things to exacerbate risks, then you are extremely unlikely to be able to defend it succesfully and to be able to walk away in the clear. Even if you do somehow manage to win, you are still facing what may be very significant legal costs.

I can tell you, putting up a few hundred meters of palisade fencing will look like good value against bills from a solicitor and barrister and a judgement for payment of damages from the court.

This entire post is speculation. Could you direct me to the legal requirement to practice the "basic principals of protection" you're referring to? Noone will end up in court, The op has public liability. This is just scaremongering.

Duty of care towards trespassers is higher under the common law since a famous case in the 70's when a child lost an arm (I think) at an ESB substation.

This was somewhat fixed by the 1995 Occupiers liability act but that does not cover all scenarios. A person classed as "recreational user" would probably be somewhat similar in the circumstances, although if ramps etc. are constructed and left there for a while, the owner might actually become liable for their maintenance.

In relation to the bull suggestions, in general, a scienter action may be taken in respect of a domesticated animal where they can prove you knew it was a dangerous animal. How that would pan out might depend on signage and warnings etc.

It seems to me that when a member of the public has an accident, the person/organisation with insurance tends to be the one to pay for it. Whether that's public policy or not, it's how those things appear to me to be resolved

OP, if I was you I'd make sure to complain to the Gardai a number of times, and take note of when and to who. If there was ever to be trouble, that may work in your favour. It won't do you any harm anyway, and it's free. Same for putting up signage. Cheap, and may go in your favour. At the very least, it would show that you were not implicitely allowing people use your land.

I also disagree with purposely creating dangers on the land. Too much risk that somebody will actually get hurt. And it could come back on you.

I also agree with other posters here saying that increasing the fencing is the most straight-forward way to completely stop the trespassing. But I can imagine it would be expensive.