Seriuosly piddled off

Vegeta

Well I think EGAR had every right to be annoyed at the events of the OP. It was very amateur and silly behaviour on behalf of those hunters.

I don't think anyone will stand up for the actions (if true) of the hunters in the original post.

A lot of details not known though

stevoman

lightening wrote: »

No trees = no wildlife.



Nobodys calling you a barbarian. They are just pointing out the amatureness of the people in the first post. Surely you agree that they are fools?

Go back to the shooting forum and read what your moderator says...

I have been shooting lots of times (without the need of face paint :rolleyes:) There are certain precautions you have to take, surely you agree with me?

I do agree 100% about taking precauitions. But there are also 2 side to every story..... I choose to beleive nothing about face paint or anything else really until i hear those lads story... which i probobly never will.

I mean i could see a few lads out hunting with a couple of springer spaniels in a field one day and if i happened to be somebody who was anti hunting, then i would be watching a few "cruel" men walking through a field with a couple of bloodthirsty hounds.

Beleive half of what you see, and none of what you hear

Sparks

Not to mention that the number of incidents where the special branch have been called in to deal with "armed men in the back garden", only to find a single hunter a mile from the house firing in the opposite direction, with all his permissions and paperwork correct, is really quite extraordinarily high owing to unfamiliarity with firearms on the part of the general public and an attendant inability to accurately estimate how far away someone is while firing a shot.

stevoman

Sparks wrote: »

Not to mention that the number of incidents where the special branch have been called in to deal with "armed men in the back garden", only to find a single hunter a mile from the house firing in the opposite direction, with all his permissions and paperwork correct, is really quite extraordinarily high owing to unfamiliarity with firearms on the part of the general public and an attendant inability to accurately estimate how far away someone is while firing a shot.

Well said...

lightening

stevoman wrote: »

I choose to beleive nothing about face paint or anything else really

Well, if you simply think the girls lying you may as well choose to believe she made up the whole thing!

stevoman wrote: »

a few "cruel" men walking through a field with a couple of bloodthirsty hounds

Your choice of language, again, nobody here is using that type of language except you. A lot of people that post here are pro hunt.

fits

stevoman wrote: »

I do agree 100% about taking precauitions. But there are also 2 side to every story..... I choose to beleive nothing about face paint or anything else really until i hear those lads story... which i probobly never will.

Beleive half of what you see, and none of what you hear

Well that kind of attitude will not do anything for hunters here.

If some hunter posted a story on boards about how some lady went crazy at him for endangering her son while he was miles away, would you employ the same attitude?

And yes I am pro hunting too (and culling where necessary).

Rowley Birkin QC

We have about 90 acres of forestry in Waterford. I think it was in the second year after planting many thousands of trees (up to 15% IIRC) had to be replanted because they had been eaten by goats and deer.

Coillte now send out a local guy who is highly professional to control the populations of both and the problem is under control.

Needless to say I'm all in favour of the highest precautions when it comes to shooting, I have a .22 myself and I am very careful where I use it, but this argument that culling is not needed is nonsense.

stevoman

lightening wrote: »

Well, if you simply think the girls lying you may as well choose to believe she made up the whole thing!


QUOTE]

well do you beleive the story without hearing the other side of it?

stevoman

fits wrote: »

Well that kind of attitude will not do anything for hunters here.

If some hunter posted a story on boards about how some lady went crazy at him for endangering her son while he was miles away, would you employ the same attitude?

And yes I am pro hunting too (and culling where necessary).

#

Fits i am not taking on any kind of attitude. I have every right to beleive and not believe what i want to. I am simply making the point that i CHOOSE not to believe the facts of the situation until such a time as the other party has had their chance to have their say.

lightening

stevoman wrote: »

well do you beleive the story without hearing the other side of it?

It seems a reasonable enough story, the girl is resposible enough from what I have read of her other posts, takes on mutilated dogs, not one for hysterics, country person... I have no reason, nor do you to assume she made it up. Your not really painting the hunting fraternity in a good light here to be honest.

"Bloodthirsty hounds, Cruel men, Choosing not to believe people..." give me a break, these are animal people on this board, not a pack of wallys.

Sparks

the girl is resposible enough from what I have read of her other posts

Thing is, it's not the lady's character or intent which introduces doubt, but her experience with firearms and hunting. Most people, despite their belief on the matter, are simply not able to determine how far away a shot was fired or in what direction simply from hearing the sound of the gunshot. Most people can tell deerhunter from DRM but not which is which. Most people, believing they've just been shot at, become agitated and thus less accurate observers. It's not in any way a character judgement, it's simply a factual observation of human nature.

It also does not disclude the alternative - that the OP was in fact wholly accurate in her description of the events and that the hunters were wholly in the wrong. It's just that it's not possible to determine whether or not they should be spending the next five years in jail based on one post on an internet forum.

Vegeta

lightening wrote: »

Your choice of language, again, nobody here is using that type of language except you. .

You have to be joking right?

The amount of negative language towards hunters here is laughable and for you to dismiss it is even funnier.

I am all for un-safe shooters to be weeded out

The hunters mentioned in the op could have been a safe and legal distance from the road, shooting into a safe backstop, with all the paper work and permissions above board. We just don't know, does the OP herself/himself??

lightening

Sparks wrote: »

it's simply a factual observation of human nature.

Yeah, I got you... understood.

lightening

Vegeta wrote: »

You have to be joking right?

The amount of negative language towards hunters here is laughable and for you to dismiss it is even funnier.

Your post is laughable. There is only one negative post towards hunters. The other negative posts is against the ones in the OP's post.

All the other drama is from pro-hunt people. I am pro-hunt and would rather you stopped with the emotive language like:

Cruel, barbaric, Bloodthirsty...etc.

GreeBo

Sparks wrote: »

Most people, despite their belief on the matter, are simply not able to determine how far away a shot was fired or in what direction simply from hearing the sound of the gunshot. Most people can tell deerhunter from DRM but not which is which.

Well I think what we can safely tell from the OP is that there were people letting off firearms in the same forest as she was.
The shots were from behind her as she started her walk, so between her and the entrance/exit.
Not only this but they used the same entrance that she did and they were close enough to hear her shout. They also appeared quickly after this shout.

I dont see how this could be safe.

The Artist

bigkev49 wrote: »

We have about 90 acres of forestry in Waterford. I think it was in the second year after planting many thousands of trees (up to 15% IIRC) had to be replanted because they had been eaten by goats and deer.

Coillte now send out a local guy who is highly professional to control the populations of both and the problem is under control.

Needless to say I'm all in favour of the highest precautions when it comes to shooting, I have a .22 myself and I am very careful where I use it, but this argument that culling is not needed is nonsense.

is you r forrestery area fenced of some sort that will solve the problem of deers and goats as for shooting i dont know if im right you must be at least a mile from built up area or road nearby?

The Artist

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is, it's not the lady's character or intent which introduces doubt, but her experience with firearms and hunting. Most people, despite their belief on the matter, are simply not able to determine how far away a shot was fired or in what direction simply from hearing the sound of the gunshot. Most people can tell deerhunter from DRM but not which is which. Most people, believing they've just been shot at, become agitated and thus less accurate observers. It's not in any way a character judgement, it's simply a factual observation of human nature.

It also does not disclude the alternative - that the OP was in fact wholly accurate in her description of the events and that the hunters were wholly in the wrong. It's just that it's not possible to determine whether or not they should be spending the next five years in jail based on one post on an internet forum.

well said

sidneyreilly

First off, I would like to say that I have the height of respect for the OP and her work with dogs.

I have to agree with Sparks, more information is required. A centrefire rifle discharge is very loud and could be very frightening even if you are behind the shooter.

maglite

davey180 wrote: »

is you r forrestery area fenced of some sort that will solve the problem of deers and goats as for shooting i dont know if im right you must be at least a mile from built up area or road nearby?

Go look up the price of a 8ft hight fence per meter, then you will see the clear cost effectiveness off culling

Was it these people who fired the shot, or was it another group 100's of yards away that fired the shot and then these people concerned for you safety reminded you that there was a cull in process,

Were their faces just dirty?

When you say LOTS of guns do you mean 2???

Indeed they sound impolite but with out their side of the story all we have is you word, not stating it is incorrect but if i was put into a situation where i am immediately uncomfortable i would not take in all the details but merely a general picture and then think i remembered stuff that did't happen,

may i propose it from their point of view, they saw a crazy woman bring dogs and children into an area where they were shooting thus putting them in immense danger,, now i sure this did't happen but you could see that they may see it this way,



All that said i would support your decision to contact the gardai, if you felt uncomfortable and they acted like gobsheens

Rowley Birkin QC

davey180 wrote: »

is you r forrestery area fenced of some sort that will solve the problem of deers and goats as for shooting i dont know if im right you must be at least a mile from built up area or road nearby?

Its an outside farm so about 20 miles from our homeplace and yes it is completely fenced off, not with the 8ft fence mentioned above but to a reasonable standard. It is indeed well over a mile from the nearest settlement.

But theres some resentment from a local that the area was forrested so the fences have been cut in the past hence the goat/deer problem was exacerbated

GreeBo

maglite wrote: »

may i propose it from their point of view, they saw a crazy woman bring dogs and children into an area where they were shooting thus putting them in immense danger,, now i sure this did't happen but you could see that they may see it this way,

But the problem is that they brought the immense danger by just deciding to start shooting before checking if there was anyone else there!

Sparks

GreeBo wrote: »

Well I think what we can safely tell from the OP

I believe you may have completely missed my point that we cannot safely tell from the OP where the shots were fired from or where they were fired to with any degree of accuracy. Obviously they were within earshot, but you can hear a centrefire rifle from a very long distance indeed. We can't tell from the OP if the hunters did indeed hear her original shout, or if the timing of their appearance was merely coincidental (fire a shot while hunting and every animal in earshot will run, so a hunting trip that ends on firing a single shot wouldn't be unheard of). We also don't know exactly how long it was between the shot and the appearance of the hunters, and perhaps most tellingly given that noone's mentioned it by now, we don't know if these were the hunters who fired the shot the OP heard. For all we know, there was someone hunting a mile away, and that was the shot heard.

And again, none of this doubt is caused in any way by the OP's character, intent or honesty; but by human nature and the general low levels of experience with firearms that the vast majority of Irish people have; nor is it to say that the opposite wasn't the case.

GreeBo

Sparks wrote: »

I believe you may have completely missed my point that we cannot safely tell from the OP where the shots were fired from or where they were fired to with any degree of accuracy. Obviously they were within earshot, but you can hear a centrefire rifle from a very long distance indeed. We can't tell from the OP if the hunters did indeed hear her original shout, or if the timing of their appearance was merely coincidental (fire a shot while hunting and every animal in earshot will run, so a hunting trip that ends on firing a single shot wouldn't be unheard of). We also don't know exactly how long it was between the shot and the appearance of the hunters, and perhaps most tellingly given that noone's mentioned it by now, we don't know if these were the hunters who fired the shot the OP heard. For all we know, there was someone hunting a mile away, and that was the shot heard.

does it really matter where the shots were fired from?
We know that there were hunters in the same location as the OP.
We know they arrived after the OP and put their "Keep Out" sign up despite the fact that there was already another vehicle there.

I know you can hear a rifle from miles away and it can echo and hide its true location, but the fact remains that the hunters appeared in front of the OP.
I doubt the OP stood around and waited half an hour for them to appear, ergo they were nearby.
Even if it wasnt these hunters who fired (which I severely doubt based on their sheepish reaction) what they were doing was totally unsafe.

coffeepot

does it really matter where the shots were fired from?

Yes this is very important. The sound of some rifles can carry for miles. As you point out:

I know you can hear a rifle from miles away and it can echo and hide its true location,

We know that there were hunters in the same location as the OP.

This is not a crime. Hunters often go through areas that are unsuitable for shooting in without even loading a gun to get to an area that is suitable to shoot in.

Even if it wasnt these hunters who fired (which I severely doubt based on their sheepish reaction) what they were doing was totally unsafe.

Sorry I am confused here.
If these hunters did not shoot then what did they do that was unsafe? They could have been on their way to shoot somewhere that would be safe, possible miles away.

I acccept your point that their reaction implied that they were the ones that fired the shot. I am not saying that the hunters in this case were in the right. I do not know enough facts to say one way or the other.

Sparks

GreeBo wrote: »

does it really matter where the shots were fired from?

Yes. It really, really does, because it's the basis for accusing people of a crime whose penalty goes up to five years in jail.

We know that there were hunters in the same location as the OP.

Indeed. We do not, however, know if any of them fired a shot.

We know they arrived after the OP and put their "Keep Out" sign up despite the fact that there was already another vehicle there.

Indeed. We do not, however, know if they were looking for the driver of the car before they proceeded to hunt.

I doubt the OP stood around and waited half an hour for them to appear, ergo they were nearby.

How near? In what direction?

And do you even know if they were hunters to begin with? Reading the OP's post carefully, it is possible someone in the area was hunting and some others were airsofting, that they left the area in a hurry when the shots were fired and ran into the OP.

Even if it wasnt these hunters who fired (which I severely doubt based on their sheepish reaction) what they were doing was totally unsafe.

If it wasn't the people she saw who fired, then what were they doing that was unsafe? Walking in the woods? Wasn't that what the OP was doing?

You're stating that a group of people (whom you don't know and couldn't identify) were breaking the law (which you can't know from the OP's post) in a way that carries a five year imprisonment penalty, purely on the basis of a post by someone who had a very distressing experience (which has been shown time and again to distort perceptions and encourage assumptions on the part of the observer), and you're being quite cavalier about it.

Vegeta

lightening wrote: »

Your post is laughable. There is only one negative post towards hunters. The other negative posts is against the ones in the OP's post.

I didn't want to post them all but since you doubt me here we go

from the OP wrote:

And guns, lots of guns

How many is lots? Heaven forbid they had one each. Did they have 2 each. Emotive language rather than an actual figure

another from the OP wrote:

urge to kill so strong that they don't give a ****e about WHO might be in the way?

one from yourself wrote:

Blackened faces and military camo... FFS, big kids

No-one even mentioned they were wearing military anything, I think khaki was the term used, also camouflage is common on a lot of hunters. So are all hunters big kids because they wear camo, maybe they find face paint effective at getting closer to the goats for a more humane dispatch.

Alun wrote:

Then they have the cheek to drive past in their 4x4's looking like they've escaped from the set of "Deliverance"

I find it all completely sick. Poor animals and how barbaric how ppl go about it. How on earth do they get their kicks killing and mutilating animals. I wouldnt be surprised they do that to pets too.
I think i will have to shut up about this before i make myself physically sick.
You are very lucky they didnt injure you and your family.

Sorry, there is no excuse to do this

One post eh

All the other drama is from pro-hunt people. I am pro-hunt and would rather you stopped with the emotive language like:

Cruel, barbaric, Bloodthirsty...etc.

Quote me in one place using emotive language! I believe I have been very level headed here

Even then the only emotive language used by a pro hunter was to show how easily the situation could be turned around

lightening

Vegeta wrote: »

Even then the only emotive language used by a pro hunter was to show how easily the situation could be turned around

But the situation wasn't turned around. You have proved me right. The Op said they had lots of guns, I believe her, I have no reason not to!

You are really not doing yourself or other pro-hunt people like myself any favours here. Can you calm down and pipe down please.

The Artist

bigkev49 wrote: »

Its an outside farm so about 20 miles from our homeplace and yes it is completely fenced off, not with the 8ft fence mentioned above but to a reasonable standard. It is indeed well over a mile from the nearest settlement.

But theres some resentment from a local that the area was forrested so the fences have been cut in the past hence the goat/deer problem was exacerbated

maybe a good talk to the locals and adress the problem you are having,eg why the fencing has to be erected they might understand the problem surely the locals wouldnt like the idea of deers and goats getting shot.

Vegeta

lightening wrote: »

But the situation wasn't turned around. You have proved me right. The Op said they had lots of guns, I believe her, I have no reason not to!

Which is emotive language. You said there was only one post with emotive language against hunting. You are wrong and I have pointed out several to highlight this. Would you care to counter this point?

I fail to see how this proves you right.

You are really not doing yourself any favours here.

Sure I'm not :rolleyes:

GreeBo

Sparks wrote: »

You're stating that a group of people (whom you don't know and couldn't identify) were breaking the law (which you can't know from the OP's post) in a way that carries a five year imprisonment penalty, purely on the basis of a post by someone who had a very distressing experience (which has been shown time and again to distort perceptions and encourage assumptions on the part of the observer), and you're being quite cavalier about it.

I never mentioned breaking the law.
Im saying that going shooting in an area that already has people in it is dangerous.
If these people were in fact checking the forest they more than likely would have mentioned that to the OP, no?

coffeepot wrote:

This is not a crime. Hunters often go through areas that are unsuitable for shooting in without even loading a gun to get to an area that is suitable to shoot in.

If these hunters did not shoot then what did they do that was unsafe? They could have been on their way to shoot somewhere that would be safe, possible miles away.

Well whoever put up the sign was planning on shooting in that area, right?
So, if it wasnt these hunters (which I really doubt based on their reaction) then somoene was shooting in that area (or there were at least two totally unrelated hunters in the same place which is even more unsafe)
So either the group that the OP met were there before the people who put the sign up and had no sign of their(maybe the were passing through, but then what about their reaction) or they arrived afterwards and ignored the sign.
Would you agree?