Seriuosly piddled off

lightening

Telling us what she saw isn't emotive language. She said they had lots of guns, what if they did?

stevoman wrote: »

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.

That's what I mean by emotive language.

Rowley Birkin QC

As I said the issue with the removal of fencing exacerbated an already existing problem. Sorry davey but culling of deer and goats is neccessary on our land and as a previous poster said it is the most economical solution.

If its any consolation all the lands at our homeplace are preserved from fox/game hunting, the only things that have ever been shot here are rabbits and crows.

stevoman

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!

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

C'Mon now lightening. He makes a good point to be quite honest. And asking him to calm down and pipe down??? Why should he, he has not insulted anybody or shown any sign on his posts that he is angry. So please show a little respect there when people are trying to make a point. nobody is telling you to calm down and pipe down

lightening

stevoman wrote: »

nobody is telling you to calm down and pipe down

Yeah, your right... sorry Vegata, didn't mean to be condascending (well I did, but regret it now!!):D No offence dude.

stevoman

wibblebee wrote: »

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. :mad:
You are very lucky they didnt injure you and your family.

Sorry, there is no excuse to do this

Lightening.................


Please read above post - is this Emotive??????????????

lightening

Yeah, Stevo, I said there was one post, come on...

coffeepot

Well whoever put up the sign was planning on shooting in that area, right?

Possibly, but I dont know for sure.

So, if it wasnt these hunters

...then these hunters did nothing wrong, end of story.

(which I really doubt based on their reaction)

So do I, but it is beside the point. Neither of us know for sure.

then somoene was shooting in that area

Maybe not. As you said:

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

So either the group that the OP met were there before the people who put the sign up and had no sign of their

If they were not shooting there they did not need a sign. If they were "airsofters" they did not need a sign. They were dressed like airsofters after all. I have been shooting a long time and I would find it hard to spot the difference.

or they arrived afterwards and ignored the sign.

Or they came from another direction having left from a distant road and passed the sign for the first time.

BTW I am a target shooter and have never hunted deer or goats. It sounds like these hunters were in the wrong, but none of us know for sure.

Sparks

GreeBo wrote: »

I never mentioned breaking the law.

Yes, you did. The OP posted that someone discharged a firearm close to her; this is an offence under the firearms act.

Im saying that going shooting in an area that already has people in it is dangerous.

Indeed. That's why it contravenes section 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990, where the penalty (as amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2006) is a fine of 7000 euro and imprisonment for up to 5 years.

If these people were in fact checking the forest they more than likely would have mentioned that to the OP, no?

Ever come across a scared and distressed and angry mother under such circumstances? I would submit that it is likely they were not given an enormous chance to explain what they were doing.

Well whoever put up the sign was planning on shooting in that area, right?

Presumably. But you can't show it was the people the OP saw, nor that they weren't checking before commencing shooting (there'd be little point in going through the area and then putting up the sign, because someone might come in behind you - instead, putting up the signs, then going through the area would be more logical).

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)

You did not observe their reaction, nor do you have an impartial witness to it, so you can't make judgements based on it.
And if there were two unrelated groups of hunters in the area, and one heard the other shooting, they'd leave in a hurry. Which would tally with with the OP observed just as well as your assertion that it was them doing the shooting.

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?

No, because you miss the third option - that they arrived, put up the signs, proceeded to check the area, heard another hunting party fire, left the area, ran into the OP. You also miss the fourth option - that they weren't hunters, but airsofters (hence the "lots of guns", military dress and facepaint that the OP mentions), they heard the shots and left the area in a hurry, ran into the OP. And there may be other explanations that we can't see because the OP forgot some minor detail or missed it herself because of the distressing nature of the incident.

Not sufficiently good evidence to imprison someone for five years, in my opinion.

Whispered

Come on guys, cant we agree to disagree

Really though, I can understand why the "hunters" might be feeling a bit p'd off over this thread. Anybody who knows me will know I'm an animal lover but there are some sensationalist comments on this thread which could be seen as an insult by people who know what they are doing and do a professional job.

What happened to the OP was wrong, it shouldn't have happened, whether or not the shot was fired from close by or miles away, the hunters were not there when she got there, must have seen the car and still put up a no entry sign. Surely if they were responsible as hunters claim most of them are, they would have waited until the car had left to put up the sign and go in?

As for the camo gear, I've seen that before and it cut the heart out of me!! These guys were wearing balaclavas! I couldn't believe my eyes! Walking down a public road looking like actors in an IRA movie!

stevoman

lightening wrote: »

Yeah, Stevo, I said there was one post, come on...

well can you see my point im trying to make, what i posted about barbarians, you can be sure there's thousands out there that think it!! (not ME!!!)

stevoman

helena.ryan wrote: »

As for the camo gear, I've seen that before and it cut the heart out of me!! These guys were wearing balaclavas! I couldn't believe my eyes! Walking down a public road looking like actors in an IRA movie!

In fairness i keep the camo gear and head nets for the field only. I dont want to look like an extra in a steven seagal movie, but some lads are very passionate about there sport or hobby and just dont see things though the eyes of the average "joe does'nt hunt public"

lightening

stevoman wrote: »

well can you see my point im trying to make, what i posted about barbarians, you can be sure there's thousands out there that think it!! (not ME!!!)

Yeah, maybe there are, but the people on this forum, in the main, aren't really like that. They know culling is a needed and some people feel the need to hunt!

I hope the OP gets things sorted and the incident is investigated properly!!

ztoical

stevoman wrote: »

ztoical wrote: »

Lol let me guess someone posted a link to this thread in the hunting/gun forum and you all rushed over to set the record straight? :rolleyes:

yes of course. all of us who hunt are sick of being seen in a bad light by people who are completly uneducated on the subject and cry about how cruel we are and that we are barbarians.... please.

If only some of this anti hunting rage could be put into some sort of common sense. We hunt and eat the game... whats wrong with that.

If you are all so concerned about animal welfare maybe you should start campaining outside the chicken factory's. You know they only live for a few weeks and never see the light of day or even outside a cage... or what about pork? You know they eletricute them and then their throats are slit when they are supposed to be incapasitated from the shock, but they are not. I can go on about this, but whats the point... thats socially acceptable so it is.

I'm sorry could you please go back and read the other posts I made after this one - firstly I said I understand that culls were needed at certain times not only to protect the land but also for the animals as dieases spreads quickly when their numbers are too high. I also said that it was only a very small group of people who gave hunters a bed rep. My issue with the posting of the link to the hunting forum was that it was under the mocking title "animal lovers" and looked like it was just asking to start a flame war - which it has, we are no longer having a discussion, we are just trading insults now.

To your second point yes I have protested outside of factory chicken farms and have been veggie for nearly 15 years [which is more then half my life]. I have worked for world war three illustrated and got to meet/work with the amazing Sue Coe. I am well aware of the suffering of those animals. I never said there was anything wrong with hunting for conservation its hunting for sport that I would have issue with.

Whispered

stevoman wrote: »

In fairness i keep the camo gear and head nets for the field only. I dont want to look like an extra in a steven seagal movie, but some lads are very passionate about there sport or hobby and just dont see things though the eyes of the average "joe does'nt hunt public"

That was the only time I've ever seen it. We've laughed about it since, I was pretty young at the time and thought it was the army

I dont hunt but i do come from a hunting family. Small game only though, nothing big like deer or goat. I know that technically its that same thing but i think to see such a beautiful animal die would just break my heart. This I know though a personal, girly, emotional reaction and is not reflection on my view of whether culling is needed or not. I remember the mixo (sp? I know ppl will know what I'm talking about) epedemic!!

stevoman

lightening wrote: »

Yeah, maybe there are, but the people on this forum, in the main, aren't really like that. They know culling is a needed and some people feel the need to hunt!

Granted. Modern Ireland does'nt have that good a view of hunting and shooting anymore. I hope both sides of the arguement can understand members of the hunting/shooting forum being so quick to move over here and support their sports and hobbys, seems that the press and public hav'nt exactly been too kind to us these days.

Vegeta

lightening wrote: »

Telling us what she saw isn't emotive language.

"And guns, lots of guns" is a sensationalist comment designed to paint the men in a bad light as if they were armed heavily and menacing.

She said they had lots of guns, what if they did?

Good point, its not illegal to own or carry lots of guns. But again I ask how many exactly is lots. One each could hardly be described as lots now could it. Two each maybe as its difficult to carry two hunting rifles with ease.

Over the top statement without quantification = sensationalist/emotive.

That's what I mean by emotive language.

So when stevoman gives an example of emotive language its emotive but when someone else uses it, then its not emotive.

People in the know here like Sparks (who is pretty up to speed on firearms legislation) are trying to advise the op that the hunters could have been acting perfectly legal and safely and that her efforts might be wasted. There is a distinct lack of detail in the OP and if the blanks were filled in we may be able to advise on a better course of action.

The shot was fired behind her, she can not know in what direction (away from the road, over the road, parallel with the road etc and how far from her it occured, 100m, 200m etc etc.

How long after the shot before the guys appeared? if it was pretty short space of time then they may have been too close to the road and acting dangerously. If it was anything over 2 minutes they were proably a safe distance from the road (assuming they were firing into a safe backstop away from the road). How many shots were there, how many guns were there?

All I want is an accurate picture of what happened without any emotive language thank you very much.

Vegeta

lightening wrote: »

Yeah, your right... sorry Vegata, didn't mean to be condascending (well I did, but regret it now!!):D No offence dude.

None taken at all my friend I love a good debate.

I just want to help the OP as hunters who behave as accused have no place holding a firearms license.

Vegeta

helena.ryan wrote: »

What happened to the OP was wrong, it shouldn't have happened, whether or not the shot was fired from close by or miles away, the hunters were not there when she got there, must have seen the car and still put up a no entry sign. Surely if they were responsible as hunters claim most of them are, they would have waited until the car had left to put up the sign and go in?

As for the camo gear, I've seen that before and it cut the heart out of me!! These guys were wearing balaclavas! I couldn't believe my eyes! Walking down a public road looking like actors in an IRA movie!

You see that's the crux of it.

If the shot was fired lets say 800 meters away (in a direction away from the road and into a safe backstop) then the hunters were being 100% safe as the OP was never in danger of being hurt. A centerfire rifle (which would be used for deer or goats) is at the 150-160dB noise level, a jet is only at 130dB.

Now if the lads fired 10 meters in off the road then they are knobs and should be nowhere near a firearm.

Just trying to get a little more info from the OP

ztoical

Can I just thanks to the shooting mods for closing the other thread as it was just going to get confusing and end up as flames and name slinging with two threads going.

Perhaps someone from the hunting forum can post a thread or link to one on their forum detailing the rules and regs for hunting in Ireland so that if someone who doesn't hunt does see something that they think is in the wrong they will have some info rather then us continuing this thread yelling back and forth at each other?

stevoman

ztoical wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

ztoical wrote: »

I never said there was anything wrong with hunting for conservation its hunting for sport that I would have issue with.

What would you describe as hunting for sport?

I mean i could walk around with my very well looked after dog ,whom i love to work and play with, for hours of any saturday or sunday and be lucky enough that my dog puts up a pheasent and i shoot it. I bring it home, hand him up to go cold, come back a few days later and pluck and clean him out for my dinner the next day. TBQH i cant see anything wrong with that.

I spend my off season months hunting magpies and greycrows... whom which spend most of their time raiding nests of all breeds of birds from pheasents to ducks and from robin redbreasts to finches throghout the country and eating their eggs.

You see this is what i cant understand. I could shoot 50 Greycrows and Magpies and im doing a great job, because im conseving nature, even though i have to throw them in a ditch to leave as fox food as we dont consume them. But if im lucky after miles and miles of walking that i shoot a pheasent and im going to eat it thats not accerptable.

Whispered

I think eating game (which has be caught/killed humanely) is much more humane than eating chicken which is not free range or pork/mutton, see those poor things in the turcks, their terrified eyes looking out. Gets me evry time I see it! At least game has had a relatively natural life, however short that may be cut by a hunter.

As for the crows/magpies etc. I remember a robin nesting close to our house and if you looked out an upperwindow a certain way you could barely glimpse the nest. She laid in it and one morning we heard a racket, magpie raiding the nest and picking hatched naked chicks from the nest and just dropping them on the ground and the poor mother robin nearly killing herself trying to stop them. There are now about 8 magpies living out my parents garden! They are everywhere.

And i might get ridiculed for saying this but they know the gun when they see it, the garden is an acre, the trees they are in are at the back. If my dad walks out without the gun they stay in the tree, if he walks out with it they fly away. He shot one of them once and they never forgot it (the other ones obviously)

GreeBo

helena.ryan wrote: »

As for the crows/magpies etc. I remember a robin nesting close to our house and if you looked out an upperwindow a certain way you could barely glimpse the nest. She laid in it and one morning we heard a racket, magpie raiding the nest and picking hatched naked chicks from the nest and just dropping them on the ground and the poor mother robin nearly killing herself trying to stop them. There are now about 8 magpies living out my parents garden! They are everywhere.

Serious question. In natures eyes, what makes robins "good" and magpies "bad"?

helena.ryan wrote: »

And i might get ridiculed for saying this but they know the gun when they see it, the garden is an acre, the trees they are in are at the back. If my dad walks out without the gun they stay in the tree, if he walks out with it they fly away. He shot one of them once and they never forgot it (the other ones obviously)

Doesnt work on the golf course, they soon get used to anything you put out to stop the digging up the greens. The will sit 3 feet away from you now and not even bat an eyelid unless you go at them (like I do!)

stevoman

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think eating game (which has be caught/killed humanely) is much more humane than eating chicken which is not free range or pork/mutton, see those poor things in the turcks, their terrified eyes looking out. Gets me evry time I see it! At least game has had a relatively natural life, however short that may be cut by a hunter.

As for the crows/magpies etc. I remember a robin nesting close to our house and if you looked out an upperwindow a certain way you could barely glimpse the nest. She laid in it and one morning we heard a racket, magpie raiding the nest and picking hatched naked chicks from the nest and just dropping them on the ground and the poor mother robin nearly killing herself trying to stop them. There are now about 8 magpies living out my parents garden! They are everywhere.

And i might get ridiculed for saying this but they know the gun when they see it, the garden is an acre, the trees they are in are at the back. If my dad walks out without the gun they stay in the tree, if he walks out with it they fly away. He shot one of them once and they never forgot it (the other ones obviously)

Helena, from a person who does'nt hunt herself thank you very much for making these observations. What you said i agree with 100% and i also seen Magpies come in a raid the nest of a Robin we also had. We hav'nt seen her since the magpies got at her. Its good too see that other people can appreciate that yes as hunters we do hunt... but we do everything humanly and eat the game. and in the off season we pour hours in at the weekend trying to keep numbers of pests like magpies and grey crows down.

Whispered

I'd imagine in "natures eyes" not much makes robins "good and magpies "bad", although I could be wrong. Maybe one of the hunters could answer please?

I know that in Ireland our crows are apparently huge due to our rubbish dumps. Maybe these more "pushy" birds are thriving in our society where as the less brave ones are not. I also know that crows/magpies also carry parvo (as well as rats) so they are like flying rats. In saying that they are very intelligent though. And I must admit to having a soft spot for rats.

Why do magpies and crows smell so bad, you can tell when there is onenear you by the smell alone!!

stevoman

GreeBo wrote: »

Serious question. In natures eyes, what makes robins "good" and magpies "bad"?

You'l find there answer in the same book as has the question "why is it okay to eat chicken, steaks, sausages and rashers, but its cruel to eay pheasent, duck and rabbit?"


seriously though, what would you rather see in winter a nice robin or 8 big dirty rat magpies. Theres no difference in natures eyes, but we have to give the little critters a chance. Remember the magpie and greycrow have no natural enemy. Thats why songbirds numbers are dwindling in this country. In the uk all gun clubs routinely trap magpies to give the smaller wilflife a chance.

ztoical

stevoman wrote: »

ztoical wrote: »

stevoman wrote: »

What would you describe as hunting for sport?

I mean i could walk around with my very well looked after dog ,whom i love to work and play with, for hours of any saturday or sunday and be lucky enough that my dog puts up a pheasent and i shoot it. I bring it home, hand him up to go cold, come back a few days later and pluck and clean him out for my dinner the next day. TBQH i cant see anything wrong with that.

I spend my off season months hunting magpies and greycrows... whom which spend most of their time raiding nests of all breeds of birds from pheasents to ducks and from robin redbreasts to finches throghout the country and eating their eggs.

You see this is what i cant understand. I could shoot 50 Greycrows and Magpies and im doing a great job, because im conseving nature, even though i have to throw them in a ditch to leave as fox food as we dont consume them. But if im lucky after miles and miles of walking that i shoot a pheasent and im going to eat it thats not accerptable.

I don't see fox hunting on horse back as valid forum of hunting. It is not an effective forum of pest control given the amount of man hours that go into taking care of the horses and dogs and they cause more damage then the foxes racing around the country side. They also don't eat the fox when they catch it. In some hunts they let the fox go after which is all fine but you've already scared the **** out of the fox. Thats my view on hunting.

One of the reason I don't eat meat is because I didn't hunt, kill, clean, and cook it myself I have no issue with people who do that and I've never given anyone any grief for eating meat. Like I've already mentioned I have protested outside factory farms but I've never given anyone who has proper training, has respect for the land and animals, and maintains high safety levels grief [and I do know several people who hunt]

My issue with this thread and the one posted to the hunting forum was that it seemed to be just encouraging random name called "ah stupid hippie animal lovers" via "evil animal killers" crap...to many people trying to take the moral high ground. The one on the hunting forum nearly turned into a personnal attack on the OP of this thread by bringing up their website and business information but thankfully the moods were on the ball and locked the thread.

I would welcome people from the hunting forum coming to explain their view point cus as you said its a topic that people aren't so informed on if they are not involved in it. However several of the post have come across as very mocking and condescending to the concerns of some people. Honestly I hope the mods lock this thread as I don't think its going to achieve anything at this point.

Trojan911

ztoical wrote: »

Honestly I hope the mods lock this thread as I don't think its going to achieve anything at this point.

Hear, hear. They never do.

sidneyreilly

I take Ztoical's last point alot of people have gone of like coiled springs suddenly released (note I did not mention shot:D). This dose not serve to to put either point of view accross in a good light.

Some people are never going to understand or agree with hunting or killing in any form. Just as I will never again eat Lemon Meringue (ugh!!!).

maglite

ztoical wrote: »

Honestly I hope the mods lock this thread as I don't think its going to achieve anything at this point.

I hope they don't i believe it is interesting to get the view of the different parties, i think some people are actually learning, on both sides

ztoical

maglite wrote: »

I hope they don't i believe it is interesting to get the view of the different parties, i think some people are actually learning, on both sides

ok as someone who mainly posts in the hunting/shooting forum what have you learned from this thread? - I don't mean that as snarky but genuinely.

lets make this thread mean something other then name calling