Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Publican shoots hounds

24

Comments

  • #32
    bonzodog2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,309 ✭✭✭bonzodog2


    johngalway wrote: »
    3. If he was that bothered he could have made his lands inaccessible to the hounds.

    Why should he have to go to that expense and trouble ?


  • #33
    idunnoshur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭idunnoshur


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    So he had a rifle or shotgun and was able to kill the hounds instead of wounding them would he have not been charged with animal cruelty?

    Excellent point and one i hadn't considered previously, thank you!


  • #34
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    Kash wrote: »
    His issue was with the hunt master, so why shoot the dogs?
    They did nothing wrong, they were going where they were led/sent.
    They don't recognize human boundaries.

    Unfortunately they are the ones who suffer in this. Because of an irresponsible hunt master. He was more than likely warned too.


  • #35
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,971 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    The_Thing wrote: »
    Cruelty to animals....?

    What about the pricks out with their pack of hounds for a day's "sport", it's a pity some of them weren't shot as well.

    but the dogs are innocent
    this isn't an argument about the hunt


  • #36
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,079 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    idunnoshur wrote: »
    Hilarious, by "them" I meant the men in control of the hounds.


    So why not shoot at them?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    idunnoshur wrote: »
    Hilarious, by "them" I meant the men in control of the hounds.
    So your problem is with the men in ownership and control of the hounds, but you would shoot their... dogs.


  • #38
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    bonzodog2 wrote: »
    Why should he have to go to that expense and trouble ?

    Where did I say he had to?

    I said he could have.


  • #39
    Bubblefett
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,032 ✭✭✭Bubblefett


    A man who thinks it's justifiable to grab a gun because he's reached "breaking point" should not be allowed to own a gun, now or ever.


  • #40
    moceri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 459 ✭✭moceri


    It was unfair to the dogs. They cannot be held responsible. The hound-master should be made responsible for where the dogs wander. There have been so many instances of hounds and horses wandering onto private land, damaging fences and leaving gates open, in effect giving the two fingers to the landowner. There should be stiffer penalties for houndmasters who fail to control their dogs and treat landowners with disrespect. I recommend putting up signs and prosecuting for Trespass but you cannot take it out on the dogs. I am ok with a few lead pellets in the hound-master's ass.


  • #41
    idunnoshur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 185 ✭✭idunnoshur


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    So why not shoot at them?

    That would be murder and would most likely lead to several years in jail for him.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    The_Thing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭The_Thing


    bubblefett wrote: »
    A man who thinks it's justifiable to grab a gun because he's reached "breaking point" should not be allowed to own a gun, now or ever.

    Try telling that to Padraig Nally.


  • #43
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    idunnoshur wrote: »
    http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/publican-fired-shots-at-hounds-on-his-land-179373.html



    What do you all make of this?

    I for one agree with what he did.
    nlgbbbblth wrote: »
    So do I.

    Those vicious hounds were probably guilty of terrorising foxes and tearing them to pieces.

    Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

    so some times its ok to be cruel to animals. glad we cleared that up.
    Feeona wrote: »
    I think he did right, seeing as he complained about it numerous times. When I was younger, a dog of ours broke out a few times to go 'rambling' ie worrying sheep. A neighbouring farmer shot at the dog to scare him off, and then rang my father to tell him what he was up to. My father thanked him for the call, and the dog never got out again. I know it's a different scenario in that the sheep were the neighbouring farmer's livelihood. But the dogs shouldn't have been on that man's land in the first place!



    ok if you are rich and on a horse its really,really bad to be cruel to animals
    but if you are angry and rich enough to have your own nature reserve and not on a horse its ok to be cruel to animals is that it???


  • #44
    Big Nasty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,080 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    Dey tuk are badgers!!!! :mad::mad::mad:


  • #45
    BunShopVoyeur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭BunShopVoyeur


    I certainly have no problem with what he did.

    Seems harsh to prosecute him.


  • #46
    Traonach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Traonach


    Those west Brit hunts think they own the countryside. He shouldn't have shot the dogs though.


  • #47
    slavetothegrind
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,790 ✭✭✭slavetothegrind


    Coward,

    Should have attacked the hunters not the hounds


  • #48
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    30 animals went in only 26 came out of those 26 15 had been hit by pellets.

    We are definitely in the realms of what could be refered to as a 'shooting spree'


    :D


  • #49
    ringadingding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ringadingding


    Have the feeling he used a shotgun, but somehow twisted his story to an air rifle, 19 dogs shot is a serious amount of reloading, I would have imagined after a few shots the dogs would have ran ?

    Could the vets have known if it was shotgun pellets or air rifle pellets ? Or maybe not really looked into, especially with the guilty plea.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,518 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I agree that the dogs shouldn't have been in there and the huntsman is in the wrong but he had no right to shoot the dogs. If he'd livestock it's a different story but he doesn't.

    I hunt and fish myself but with a spaniel. If a farmer shot her for going onto his land and there was no livestock to be seen I'd beat him to death with his gun.

    The blame is shared but he obviously went overboard in his "breaking point".

    p.s It couldn't have been a shotgun if it said .22 caliber shot as these are 10 times bigger than an average shotgun pellet.
    These would be common enough .22 air rifle pellets.
    Link

    And these are shotgun pellets in different sizes most common would be 5-7 1/2 for game.
    Link


  • #51
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    This man is a.................


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sounds like some JFK style conspiracy. 26 shots fired an' no one seen nothin'. Would have taken an age to follow the dogs, reload, aim, rum after the other dogs etc....

    It would have taken seconds for the riders to call the gards or do something about the hounds.


  • #53
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Landscape wrote: »
    Remember this mans name

    Fame!


  • #54
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    Traonach wrote: »
    Those west Brit hunts think they own the countryside. He shouldn't have shot the dogs though.
    They tried to stay off the land. They were going to take the hound off it straight away before he shoot them.


  • #55
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Landscape wrote: »
    Remember this mans name

    Fame!
    Criminal!


  • #56
    Nodster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 953 ✭✭✭Nodster


    Landscape - his land, so fair play to him


  • #57
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,079 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Landscape wrote: »
    This man is a.................


    Landscape.

    We are not interested in rumour. Start a blog if you want to smear the guy. you won't be doing it here.


  • #58
    JONJO THE MISER
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12,333 ✭✭✭✭JONJO THE MISER


    Who let the dogs out?


  • #59
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    Nodster wrote: »
    Landscape - his land, so fair play to him
    The huntsman was going to take the hounds off straight away before he shoot them. He gave them no chance


  • #60
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Landscape wrote: »
    This man is a.................


    Landscape.

    We are not interested in rumour. Start a blog if you want to smear the guy. you won't be doing it here.
    He previous conviction is no rumour it was even brought up in court


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Landscape
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭Landscape


    idunnoshur wrote: »
    nlgbbbblth wrote: »
    So do I.

    Those vicious hounds were probably guilty of terrorising foxes and tearing them to pieces.

    Nice to see the f*ckers get taken out.

    I have no problem with people hunting with hounds but it's when they do so without permission that bugs me.
    They new they had no permission. As it said in the article the hounds strayed onto the land they were going to be taken off straight away!


Advertisement