Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 10 May 1929

Vol. 29 No. 15

Game Preservation Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

This is a Bill introduced, as its Title shows, for the purpose of preserving game. This country has great natural opportunities for being made a country in which the preservation of game could be carried on successfully, and if game is fully and properly preserved it should prove a great source of profit to the farmers and others who own shooting rights. At present, game in Ireland, I am afraid, is decreasing. Birds like the partridge, which a few years ago were comparatively common, are now in most places few in number, and in some places practically extinct. A country which, in climate and in natural formation, is not altogether unlike this country—that is, Scotland—has developed the preservation of game to a great extent, and it is a source of very large revenue to that country. I was recently given, through the courtesy of a member of the Seanad, some figures as to the value of shooting in Scotland. I have not checked these figures, but the Senator who gave them to me is a very accurate person, and I think the House may take them as being correct. The total value of shooting in Scotland is estimated at £2,540,000. That is divided as follows:—Profits to the owners of shooting rights, £863,600; wages, £899,000; cost of upkeep, such as interest on capital expenditure, rates, taxes, value of keepers' houses, and all that sort of thing, is estimated at £787,400——

Are these per annum figures?

Yes, per annum. Now, that is a very large source of revenue. I have no figures, and no figures as far as I know are at all ascertainable, as to what the value of the shooting rights in this country is at present. But in comparison with those figures I think they are very trifling, and as I have said. I believe that their value could be enormously enhanced. I do not think that we could ever bring shooting quite up to the state of perfection to which it has been brought in Scotland, and even to improve it considerably will take some time. The Scotch conditions are rather different from our conditions. There are large parts of Scotland which are entirely uninhabited except by gamekeepers, and there are other parts of Scotland where scientific game-rearing has been carried on for generations, where heather is burned in the proper rotation, so that necessary cover and at the same time necessary heather for the feeding of the birds is obtained. We have not got the same experience, except in a very few places, and also our moors are, to a large extent, now owned by comparatively small holders, that is, as far as valuation goes. These owners go to them to look after their cattle and sheep, they cut turf there, their children go there accompanied by dogs, and dogs go round and do a great deal of destruction to nests and to young birds. For these reasons I think that not for a very long time, and not until the farmers have completely wakened up to the value of this asset if developed, will we have anything approaching the Scotch conditions.

This Bill, of course, proposes to do what can reasonably be done by legislation to help to preserve game, but the real preservation work must naturally be done by the owners of the shooting rights. It is they who will have to look after the birds. they will have to rear the birds, and also—what is a great difficulty in the way of game preservation in this country—they will have to destroy vermin, because vermin have increased very considerably, and the owners of shooting rights will have to do a great deal in the destruction of vermin if they are to do their part in bringing about a revival of game shooting. Hawks and scald-crows, magpies, and birds of that class, are far too numerous. In addition to that, I have been informed that in parts of the country the larger gulls are doing a considerable amount of damage to game, while all over the country the stoat is a most injurious animal. The stoat, or, as he is more usually called, the weasel, destroys a great number of birds and a great number of young rabbits and other things. He is rather a protected sort of animal in certain parts of the country. I daresay that Deputies know that there are certain not perhaps altogether dead superstitions which hedge round and guard weasels from destruction. They do a very great deal of damage, and they will have to be largely reduced if game is really to increase. Also in non-hunting parts of the country foxes do a certain amount of damage, but I think that is confined to pheasants and is not as serious as the other things which I have mentioned.

I hope this Bill will meet with the approval of the House and with the approval of the farming community, because, of course, the farming community, with few exceptions, are the real owners now all over the country of the game rights. I hope that they will approve of this Bill and will work it. They will find that it will be the means of securing a very considerable source of revenue for themselves, because, as I said, the farmers are the persons who will really be the substantial gainers by a revival of game. Section 2 of the Bill describes what game birds are. Up to this there has been a strange and arbitrary distinction between birds that are game and birds that are not game. How that distinction came to be drawn I do not know. It seems to be largely historic. For instance, grouse and partridge were game, snipe was not game, woodcock was not game, and none of the species of ducks was game. We propose to put all these birds, which I would call shooting birds, if I will be allowed to use the expression, that is to say, birds that sportsmen shoot for pleasure, and that are largely used on the table, in the same category. Accordingly the definition in the Bill is:—

The expression "game birds" means and includes pheasants, partridge, grouse, quail, landrail, plover, snipe and woodcock and also mallard, teal, widgeon, and other species of wild duck.

The word "game" is also made to include hares and leverets. Taking Sections 3 and 4 together, Section 3 sets out a new table, which Deputies will find in the First Schedule of the Bill. The close season for the shooting of pheasant and partridge is from the 1st day of February to the 30th day of September, both days inclusive. That, as far as partridge is concerned, makes a very considerable difference in date. The old period on which partridge shooting commenced in this country was the 20th September. That was altered by the Partridge Shooting (Ireland) Act, 1899, to the 1st September. The 1st September was the date in England, and the Irish date was made to synchronise with the date in England. It is the view of most people that a great deal of the falling off in the number of partridge is due to that alteration in date. The Irish birds were later than the English birds. They were immature birds on the 1st September, and it was then too early to shoot them. The 20th September, the old date, was far and away nearer the correct period. The date which we are putting into this Bill is the 1st October.

The shooting of snipe, woodcock, plover, mallard, teal, widgeon, and other species of wild duck, is from the 1st day of March to the 11th day of August, both days inclusive. This puts back the open season for duck and snipe. Of course, as Deputies know, there are different seasons for snipe in different parts of the country. In some counties the shooting of snipe is not allowed until the 1st of October. That was by regulation made by the Grand Jury or the County Council, as the case might be. In my county, Co. Mayo, snipe could not be shot until the 1st of October. That was rather unhappy, I think, because by that time the home snipe had practically gone, and one had to wait until the foreign snipe came in. In other countries you could shoot them on the 1st August. The date now is to be universally the 11th August, and one of the main reasons for putting the date of the opening of the season for the shooting of this class of bird to the 11th August, is that it is the same date as the date upon which grouse shooting opens, that is to say, that practically all game shooting, with the exception of pheasant and partridge, shall begin on the 12th August.

There was a very objectionable habit amongst certain persons of forestalling the market, that is to say, going out on the 9th, or possibly on the 10th or 11th of August, professing that you are out duck shooting if anybody came on the scene, and at the same time shooting grouse before the season, in order that the grouse might reach good markets, Leadenhall market or some other good market, on 12th August, because naturally on 12th August the grouse fetches a higher price on the market on the day it actually comes in. I submit to the House that that is a very real improvement. The period for grouse begins, as it always began, upon the 11th December.

Would the Minister say what is the close season for jurymen?

I cannot answer the Deputy that question. I am afraid at the moment that there is not one. Section 4 prohibits the killing of any game in the night time except a species of wild duck. Of course, duck are principally shot—I suppose it is some of the most enjoyable shooting a person interested in shooting can have—either in the morning, when adjourning to lakes and rivers, or at night when flying to fields or feeding grounds. Sometimes, if you are young and hardy, you may shoot a duck on a very frosty night if you sit for hours by a spring, but that, as I say requires youth and enthusiasm and hardiness, which, though I possessed perhaps in my youth, I might not possess at the present. It is highly advisable that game birds like partridge should not be shot during the night time. The partridge comes out in the morning and feeds along the stubbles. They feed together in very close order in the stubbles. Somebody may come along, and, with the discharge of one barrel, almost exterminate a covey of sitting partridge. That is not good for game preservation and it is not good for sport. I think, as far as it can be done, that it ought to be put down.

In Section 5 we come to a new section that gives, subject to certain exceptions, the possibility of, in certain parts of the country, a prohibitive period being established for certain classes of birds. In certain areas, for a year or possibly for two years, it may be the wish of the inhabitants in that area generally that birds should not be shot, that they should have a period of rest, a period in which the bird population should increase, and if the persons interested in game preservation and the owners especially, because they are the main persons interested in game preservation, in a particular area come to that conclusion, and if they make out a case that that will increase the number of birds in that particular area, and improve, for future years, shooting generally, an order can be made prohibiting the shooting of a particular class of bird in a particular area. But to that it is pretty obvious that there must be some exceptions. It may be that there might be an individual owner with a very large and fully stocked grouse moor. He may have gone to a great deal of trouble, preserving and importing grouse, looking after grouse, and may have built up a very fine shooting. That shooting would not improve, but it would deteriorate if a certain number of birds were not shot off at any particular season.

In addition to that, even in places which were not so fully stocked, it would be necessary to shoot a certain number of the old cock birds. I am sure Deputies who are interested in shooting, and know something about the habits of wild birds know that one of the greatest enemies the young grouse has is the old unmated cock bird. He goes around and kills a great number of the young birds when they are fledged, and just before they are able to escape from him. I am sure Deputies may know that he is also an extremely hard bird to get, because when you get within a hundred yards of him he crows and disappears. He does not wait for the dog to set him, or wait for you to get up to him. He is an extremely hard bird to induce into the bag, and, as I say, he is also a very pestilential enemy to the young of his kind. Permits to persons who it is known will not abuse these rights will be given for the shooting off of these old birds. That is necessary if this period of non-shooting is to take place, this period of complete protection in any area.

Now I come to a part of the Bill, Sections 6 and 7, and some others later on, with which I am not myself as familiar as I am with other parts of the Bill. I may say, perhaps, from a boyhood spent in the Mayo bogs, that I know a little about the habits of some wild birds. Also in the preparation of this Bill I have been fortunate enough to get the advice of a very considerable number of experienced persons, who expressed their views as to the best way of preserving game. I come, however, now to the protecting of hares. On that I have not got myself such clear-cut views as I have where you are simply dealing with birds. Section 6 enables a Hare Protection Order similar to the Bird Protection Order to be made, and in an area in which a Hare Protection Order is made the hare can only be coursed. He cannot be shot or be hunted by a pack of authorised harriers or beagles.

May I ask the Minister did he consult Deputy Gorey in this matter?

I would suggest that that question be put to Deputy Gorey.

He is not here.

It would be hard to get the Minister in a bag?

An Ceann-Comhairle

Is not the Minister rather dealing with Committee points to a large extent? It is not proposed to go through a Bill of 29 Sections. It is one of these Bills which, in Committee, may be subject to all kinds of amendments. It will not, I presume, be a very contentious measure, so that a great deal of the debate could be left to the Committee Stage.

I will run through the general principles of the Bill at briefer length. Hares are protected in certain areas; except in those areas they can only be coursed or hunted by hounds. There is some difficulty about the close season for hares, because I have had perfectly different views put up to me; the hunting men prefer that the close season should end on 31st March, the coursing men earlier, on the 17th March. This is a matter on which there are two different views, and I suppose we will have both views put forward on the Committee Stage.

Section 8 prohibits the netting or trapping of game birds at all, and subsequent provision and allowances are made for the netting or trapping of birds, that is, taking them alive for the purpose of re-stocking.

It is also in this Bill made an offence to destroy the eggs of wild birds, and certain penalties are set out for a breach of the provisions of the Act. Part 2 of the Bill deals with restrictions on the sale and purchase of game. Game-dealers are already licensed. For the future, game dealers will have to keep a register of game, and they will have to set out the names of the persons from whom they purchase game. They will only be able to purchase from persons who hold a two pounds licence. It will be an offence to purchase game except from a game dealer or from the holder of a two pounds licence. For the next two years it will not be lawful, without permit, to export any game birds. Game birds, dead or alive, will not be exported, the object being that for the next two years there will not be what I might call commercial or semi-commercial shooting in this country. The birds will have, so to speak, a rest, in order that the stock of birds in the country may increase.

Section 24 deals with the question of burning of gorse and heather. I have asked the views of a considerable number of persons upon this question. The views vary very widely upon it. Collating all the views, I have concluded that from the 1st of April to 14th July, both days inclusive, would be about the best, but I am not wedded to those days. There are quite different views. Some persons suggest quite different periods, and it is a matter which the House will finally have to make up its mind on. I am only giving this information that experts differ widely on this question. A certain amount of heather, if you are going to scientifically rear grouse, should be burned every year. It should be burned in a long rotation, because the grouse require two classes of heather. They want long heather for cover and short heather for feeding, and the indiscriminate burning of a mountain should be prevented. A great deal of very valuable grouse moors was destroyed in this particularly dry spring that has just passed over. Whole mountains having been burned, there is no cover left for the grouse next year. There may be very admirable feeding for them, but there will be no cover.

Section 25, similarly, gives powers to the Guards and to other authorised persons to enforce the provisions of the Act. Section 26 gives power to the holder of the old three pounds game licence to demand from any other person the production of his game licence.

That, then, is a broad outline of the general provisions of this Bill. I hope it is a Bill which will commend itself to the House, because I think it is a Bill which will be very valuable to the farming community, and a Bill which, if taken up and worked by the farming community and the owners of game rights, will materially increase the wealth of this country. It should be the aim of every person in this House to increase the material wealth of this country, to develop every potential source of wealth that there is in this country. Here is a potential source of wealth, and it would be a great pity indeed if it were not developed. It must also be borne in mind that just as the improvement which has taken place recently in the inland fisheries has brought a considerable number of persons to this country, has increased the tourist traffic of this country, in the same way the preservation of game and the improving of Irish shooting will increase the number of tourists to this country, with a general spread of money all round amongst the people here.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Minister told us that this is a Bill to preserve game in Ireland. Game in Ireland hitherto was preserved largely, in fact entirely, by large landholders. They took special steps and spent a good deal of money in the preservation of game. Considerable competition took place between large game preserves in this country and large game preserves in England. No doubt, a good deal of employment was given, but as far as the profit to the individual owner was concerned, I do not think it was anything like considerable, nor was the profit that accrued to beef production, lamb production, mutton production, considerable either, because in those days of what they called big shoots the meat markets were considerably affected by grouse. If anybody cares to look over the statistics of years past, before the war, they will find that the price of fowl, meat, eggs, and everything of that description, dropped considerably, and how it dropped was that from a certain day, say, in September, the markets were completely flooded by huge consignments of grouse and other game. They had to be consumed, and they were sold at very low prices, with the result that it caused considerable dislocation from the farmer's point of view, in his market here. It does not follow that it was the beef producer that was affected. The small farmer and the cottier who sold fowl were also affected, because this game was in competition. So far as the farmers' hopes are concerned of getting any considerable profit from the preservation of game, I do not believe it. It is largely sympathetic. The method of preserving game through this Bill, as far as I can see, is through the control of the sale of the game. I do not take it that the Civic Guards or any other authority will be in a position to prevent poaching.

The whole control seems to be in connection with the sale of game. If we really intend to preserve game, it would be necessary to go a step farther than this Bill goes. I believe that it is not altogether poachers that destroy game. Since the war a large number of those people who went in for the preservation of game have left the country, and the capital of those of them who have not left the country has been so curtailed that they are now unable to employ a regular staff of gamekeepers. The preservation of game is not an easy matter. There are considerable difficulties to be overcome. One of the great defects in this Bill is that there is no provision in it for dealing with the enemies of game. This is not a great grouse country, but, in the past, pheasants and partridge were raised in considerable numbers. Pheasants are delicate birds, and when they were raised to any extent they were raised artificially in hatches and coups. The eggs were collected, and the people were paid so much for the eggs handed in. Then the eggs were hatched and the birds raised under special conditions, in the same way as fowl are reared. When the pheasants had become strong they were let out, and were then protected by the lighting of fires and men guarding them at night. That meant considerable expense. Things were cheap then. That is largely impossible under present conditions.

Partridge were also very numerous here. The rearing of partridge depends entirely upon tillage. Partridge will not remain on grass, but will only frequent tillage. They are a shy class of bird, not easy to rear indoors. With the decline of tillage partridge decreased in numbers. In France and in other countries, although they are thickly populated, partridge are very numerous on account of the tillage. They remain there, even though they are shy birds. They cannot, however, be raised in the same way as pheasants. When partridge have been raised, they have to contend with a considerable number of enemies. In years gone by gamekeepers and others destroyed these enemies of game. On large estates you would find magpies after being shot hung up as a deterrent to others. Then there are weasels, stoats, and, above all, the wild cat. In recent years gun licences have been largely curtailed, and guns were not to be had, with the result that the enemies of game largely increased. The wild cat destroys game to a very large extent, and these animals have become very numerous here. Game preservation always implies a large amount of land and a bigger country than we have.

By the wild cat, do you mean the domestic cat gone wild or the marten cat?

Mr. O'Reilly

I mean both, but the tame cat gone wild is the biggest enemy.

I think the marten cat is almost extinct.

Mr. O'Reilly

You will find that the other one does great damage. As I said, the policy that we have adopted in this country in connection with land is not conducive to large game preserves. You have one running against the other, and for that reason I think this Bill is rather a sentimental one. Let us examine for a moment the methods to be adopted. There is to be no bonus given to any small farmer for destroying vermin. I think that if the Minister for Finance would devote the proceeds of this £2 licence to that purpose, it would do a great deal more good than this Bill. At present there is a 5/- licence issued. For that you can keep a gun. You may be able to take it out, but not much more. If part of your farm is on the other side of the road you are not allowed to bring the gun there. I do not know really what the meaning of that is. I suggest that the sensible thing to do would be to increase the licence fee to 10/- and allow the farmer to carry his gun and destroy the enemies of game. They are also the enemies of his wife's fowl, and do a lot of damage, and he is anxious to destroy them. The magpies, for instance, might have the intelligence to keep to the part of the farmer's land on the other side of the road, and in that way they are really preserved by the Government, so that the provisions of this Bill are not sufficient for the preservation of game. People are no longer allowed to shoot hares. That is a humane and sensible provision. Hares are only to be coursed by slipping dogs. That, I submit, is rather a loose provision. Where you have legitimate coursing clubs no abuse arises. You have sportsmen there who have an interest in sport and like it for sport's sake. They give the hare a fair chance. But there are other people who course hares, and even though they have the dogs in slips, they can do just as much damage as a man with a gun or a net. When a hare is in close cover the dogs are slipped on top of him, and the hare has no chance. That is what is popularly known as pot-hunting, and there has been a considerable amount of that going on. I do not believe the Bill will prevent that kind of thing. I believe it will be necessary to define legal slipping.

Another part of the Bill refers to the collection of eggs. If it is seriously intended to encourage the preservation of game, pheasant eggs should be allowed to be collected. A person who has a large tract of land, or a hill with cover, might find it a profitable business to raise pheasants for shooting purposes, and could carry on a really legal business. Eggs could be collected from small farms. Pheasants lay their eggs in meadows and now-a-days meadows are chiefly cut by machines and that destroys a huge number of eggs.

Years ago the big landowners and preservers of game were not so anxious to collect eggs and hatch them until the machinery came, because when the meadows were cut with a scythe the men were sportsmen and left the pheasant's eggs intact. The mowing machine has no such respect for the eggs. If young pheasants are in the nest it would kill them, and if eggs were in the nest it would destroy them, so that if you want to preserve the pheasant it would be necessary to make some arrangement so far as the collection of the eggs is concerned. I do not believe this Bill as it stands is going to get us anywhere. It simply makes an attempt to stop traffic in game by curtailing the sale of game, and making it more difficult for poachers to dispose of the game. I believe a far better effect would be got if more attention were paid to the other end, that is, the production end and the destruction of the enemies of game. That will be only done when there is a change in the system, and when the Government has more confidence in the people, and when guns can be freely used for the destruction of pests and the enemies of game.

I welcome this Bill as an effort to do something which, in my view, should have been attempted long ago. I look upon this effort at game preservation, first as an effort to help the person who has shooting to let, in other words, to help those who have vested interests —although I am not very fond of vested interests in this or any other country—to make shoots profitable. Secondly, it seeks to help the sportsman, and thirdly, and this is a corollary of the first two, it seeks to create a national asset and to increase the national wealth. I would say in passing, or in parenthesis, that I should like also to see an attempt made in the near future to do for the inland fishing industry what it is now proposed to do for fur and feather game in the country. I would like to see an effort also for fin as well as fur and feather. I agree that this is a very decent effort, and that the Minister has endeavoured to get into touch with all persons concerned who have evinced any little interest in the preservation of game. In paying that tribute I should like to say I hope on the Committee Stage to alter the Bill and to bring it perhaps more into conformity with the present aspirations of many sportsmen.

So far as the expression "game birds" is concerned in the definition, I would suggest to the Minister that it might be possible under this definition of game birds to defeat the object he has in view. It might mean, and very possibly would mean, that you will multiply the number of poachers in the country. I go back to many years ago under the British régime when a man with a ten shilling licence was entitled to shoot mallard, teal, widgeon, and other species of wild duck. I exercised this power myself at that time. I shot these birds myself with that licence.

But never grouse, I hope?

Oh, no, not grouse. I suggest to the Minister that these birds are migratory, and do not require any protection from us. They visit our shores at various periods in very large numbers. They are migrants to this country, and need no protection at all.

The wild duck is not a migrant. Mallard and teal breed here.

The Minister expressed some doubt as to the origin of making some of these birds game. Surely the Minister must know that within the last twenty years there was a prosecution in Cork against a number of sportsmen because they shot on a Sunday. The Lord's Day Observance Act was invoked in order to keep a number of us democrats from shooting on any day of the week. We know also that these game laws were instituted and maintained by the landlord class in England and in other places as well, because they wanted to preserve for themselves anything that was any good in the country or in any other country. We inherited that tradition, and I would like to see a slight departure from it, so far as it concerns these birds.

The Minister also mentioned the destructive activities of such vermin as stoats, weasels, and so on. I agree with him. But there is no inducement in this Bill for farmers or other men with licences to carry guns to shoot down or destroy stoats, weasels, etc. Personally, I would rather hunt the weasel than shoot it. Of course, the Minister will also acknowledge, except in so far as concerns the shooting of the birds, that snipe and the woodcock cannot be considered game. I have a very vivid recollection of being one of a party of five, one of whom attempted to shoot a swallow, and he was told it was game because there was a similarity in the flight of the swallow with that of the snipe. I know in several parts of the country where the people perhaps are more gullible and more apt to believe things than we are in the Co. Cork, that that was accepted. However, it did not go down in Cork. Deputy O'Reilly, who usually speaks a good deal of common-sense, suggested that the ten shilling licence should be restored, and I think that is a matter that might be considered. I recognise, as well as the Minister, that there is a necessity, and that it will continue for some time, to have a record of the number of guns in the country, but I hope in the near future we will be able to restore the old system that a man should not be called upon to pay a licence for a gun when he is not using it. The position to-day is that if a man takes out a licence this year, he has to pay year after year, although he may not be using his gun at all. Under the old régime we were not required to do that.

I agree so far as partridges are concerned that there is every necessity that they should be extended the very best protection possible. To me, at any rate, a greater appeal would be made if we were to convert this whole country into a birds' sanctuary for twelve months or two years. Let us for a year or two have the whole Free State turned into a bird sanctuary. That would not require a very comprehensive Bill. It would make this country not only a paradise for the ordinary people, but for the people who have money to spend. As to the section dealing with hares, I notice that while the Minister acknowledges that he does not pretend to any knowledge of the sport, there is good evidence in this section, at any rate, that he has had good advisers.

There is only one comment I would like to make on that section and that is in relation to the first schedule which defines the annual close season. What I would suggest is that instead of having the close season from 1st April to 30th September, it should be from 1st March to the 30th September. I think I can safely say that there are more harrier clubs and coursing clubs in Cork City and County than in any other part of Ireland, north or south. Coursing is one of the features of social life in Cork City, particularly where we have between twelve and fourteen harrier clubs. There are a very large number of coursing clubs. I wish to say that, to the credit of the coursing clubs and to the steps they take by way of the preservation of game and enlisting towards that end the help and co-operation of the farmers of the district, we have been able to preserve large tracts of land and the hares have multiplied considerably.

I would suggest to the Minister that five months' hare hunting is quite sufficient. Those of us who have done any hunting either with harriers or greyhounds have experience that at the beginning of the season a number of leverets and sometimes numbers of hares-in-young are killed. This thing occurs about the beginning of the season; in some places just as in fishing we find that one district may be earlier or later than another district. That is quite a common experience.

Section 11 deals with the protection of the eggs of game birds. I am not over-nervous, but I would not like to see this section pass as it is. What I suggest is that it frequently happens that the eggs of the lapwing, commonly known as the pilibín or the green plover, are frequently disturbed by the farmers when ploughing. The nest of the corncrake is sometimes injured, too, by the farmer in cutting hay. If an agricultural labourer or farmer quite accidentally injures or destroys either the eggs of the corncrake or the lapwing, he is, under the section, as it stands, guilty of an offence and would be liable to be punished accordingly. I hope the Minister will make it clear that the agricultural labourer and the farmer will be protected so far as that section is concerned.

There is another section to which I would like to direct the attention of the Minister. It is Section 23, which deals with the prohibition against the exportation of certain game birds. If what the Minister has in mind is to bear fruit, namely, the creation of decent shooting or decent shoots and their lettings to visiting sportsmen, this section will need alteration. For reasons that we need not go into now, these visiting sportsmen, while they have been very few, are, I believe, increasing in numbers of late so far as fishing is concerned. I do hope, with that camaraderie which usually exists amongst sportsmen, that their numbers will continue to increase. The more persons of that class we have visiting this country the better it will be for us. This is a type of visitor quite apart from the type of noisy tripper or tourist. Visiting sportsmen in addition to a love of open spaces are decent and cultured fellows. I want it made clear to the Minister the point that I am on. Assuming that a visiting sportsman to this country gets a bag of game, he is precluded from sending a brace of snipe, grouse, cock, or any other game birds across to his friends. The Minister must know that one of the amenities that go to make up a successful visit to any part of the country is being able to send back to one's friends a brace or two of game birds. There is no provision in the Bill, as it stands, to allow that practice being continued. Rather, this section suggests that he must get permission in writing from the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána of the district. The sportsman may be many miles away from a barrack or from the habitation of the Superintendent of the Gárda.

Is the Deputy aware that that is only a very temporary section—two years?

Even if it is only temporary I would suggest that the Minister make some provision to get over that. I do not want to see dead game exported in very large numbers. At the same time, it is one of those little things that count that one should be able to send away a brace of snipe or pheasants or woodcock. It would be rather annoying to a sportsman who has come over here without perhaps having read this Bill to find that after a day or two or a week that he could not send a brace of partridges or pheasants or woodcock to his friends across the Channel without having to submit to red tape——

He could send cock.

The Minister will understand that I am only concerned with remedying a defect of this kind.

That is only a Committee point.

A visitor can send cock. It is only grouse, pheasant, or partridges that are prohibited. I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy.

Section 26 deals with the powers of holders of firearm certificates to challenge another person who is carrying a gun and to demand his licence. There is something to be said for that—one could do that in the old days when one held a game licence. I personally never exercised that right. The objection to it is that it leaves it open to any perky little pup who has money enough to buy a game licence to come and challenge a farmer or any other decent citizen who is shooting on his own land. I do not want to have this Bill held up to ridicule when it becomes an Act by reason of such defects. I suggest that that section should be considerably altered so as not to allow of the undesirable activities of this gentleman whom I have described as a perky little pup. That is what it would amount to. Some newly-rich tradesman who could afford a Rolls Royce car might demand of some broken-down has-been his right to shoot on his own land.

I think that sums up my criticism of the Bill. I would like the Minister to endeavour to preserve, in so far as he possibly can, the rights of the man with small means. He may be a man of small means, but yet he is a good sportsman. Deputy O'Reilly referred to the sportsmanship manifested by the members of coursing clubs. I can corroborate every word he said in that particular regard. The class of sport—so-called sport—known as pot-hunting does not exist to any great extent. Usually it is a case of coursing two dogs or three dogs after a hare. The pot-hunting to which the Deputy referred is a matter of coming on the hare in form, and I say that is a most cowardly class of activity, the most cowardly I know of. Whether we like it or not, no Act of this or any other Parliament will get that type of poacher into the net. He is a wily fellow, and he is able to escape, even where we have the good-will of farmers and young men in the district. The poachers, like the poor, will be always with us.

The Minister has made a splendid effort, an effort which we can all subscribe to, to do something in the way of preserving the game of the country. I would like him to take into consideration the suggestions I have made. I will at a later period embody some of them in amendments to the Bill. I feel sure that they will not be considered of a contentious nature. I am sure we will examine this Bill in an atmosphere free from all the turbulence and annoyance of politics, and that at least we will be sportsmen for three or four days.

I desire to welcome this Bill, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Game Protection Association, which feels very grateful to the Minister for the kind way in which he received suggestions which were put forward. The game laws operating in this country are not suitable to present-day conditions. Some of the game laws date back as far as the seventeenth century. The system of land purchase in Ireland was conducted from time to time without any serious concern for the preservation of the species of game which are to be found here. In some instances sporting rights were vested in the tenants; in others, in the landlords; while in other cases the sporting rights came back again to the tenants after certain lives. The Congested Districts Board also had a claim over them, and under the 1923 Act the Land Commission laid claim to sporting rights.

It is my intention to table some amendments to this Bill. Under the former Game Laws a portion of the fine imposed was given to the prosecutor, who might be a Guard or some other person. I think it would strengthen the object of the Bill if such a provision were brought in again. We have a precedent for it, because in the Fisheries Act of 1925 a similar clause was inserted. I think the Guards should have power to enter on lands just as they have power to enter certain premises. It might be well to consider whether the Irish Game Protection Association should not receive certain statutory rights. As regards repeals, there are two to which I would like to direct special attention. Both would come under Part II of this Bill. One has reference to the Game Trespass Act passed in the reign of Victoria. I do not see why this Act should not be repealed, but the whole of it might not be repealed. I think portion of it could wisely be brought in again. If it is not, then a man with a gun or dog can trespass on land in pursuit of game; he could not be prevented from doing so. Unless portion of this Act is introduced into the Bill there is no way of dealing with the type of person Deputy Anthony mentioned who, because he had taken out a licence, could question the right of the owner of land to walk over his own land with a gun or dog. Ordinarily, this man would be actually a trespasser, but yet he could question the right of the owner of the land to be there with a gun.

There is another aspect of the game laws—it dates from the time of George III—which might also be partly repealed. It deals with what Deputy Anthony referred to as Sunday work. I think we ought to do something in this respect. Gamekeepers, as we are aware, belong to different creeds and classes, and I suppose they have a right to attend different places of worship. If this Act is repealed altogether the gamekeepers will have to be on duty all day on Sunday as well as during the week. I think that that portion of the Act which would permit them to have a little rest on Sunday could be embodied in the Bill, but the other sections might be repealed. There should be some little consideration given to the gamekeepers. I will introduce an amendment, and I expect I will have the strong support of our friend Deputy O'Kelly. If I cannot get the whole of Sunday brought in I will look for a period up to twelve o'clock on Sunday.

Deputy O'Kelly referred to the matter of the gun licence. We have a two-guinea licence here, and in Northern Ireland and England they have a three-guinea licence. Our licence is not interchangeable. Would it not be possible to have in this country a three-guinea licence which would be interchangeable with the North or with England? If we had such a licence a gentleman might come over here for a day's shooting; a Free State resident's neighbour might like to come from Enniskillen for a day's sport; a man from the Northern area might like to come over to Cavan or Monaghan. That cannot be done at the moment, unless a two-guinea licence is taken out in each case. There should be an interchangeable licence. It would increase the number of sportsmen anxious to enter the Free State. It would not be a great concession, but it would be very much appreciated by people anxious to join their friends here in sporting outings. I would like the Minister to give consideration to that matter and see if there is any possibility of doing as I suggest.

This is a very pleasant interlude indeed, and I think the Minister in particular feels that he is dealing with a matter which to himself is thoroughly enjoyable. I do not know that I have anything important to contribute to this debate. It has already been indicated that there is no very clear principle running through this Bill, and it is very difficult to carry on a discussion except on Committee points. I will, however, mention a few things at this stage so that the Minister will have an opportunity of considering them and seeing whether he can meet views which are not so very much my own as views put before me by people of much greater experience than myself in the matter of game preservation. The first question I would like to ask him is where, under Section 5, a game protection order is put into operation if he is satisfied with the provisions in sub-section (3). My own feeling is that the provision making everything dependent on the discretion of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána is not an altogether satisfactory one either way. I would like to know from the Minister if he would not consider whether the owner or the lessee of a shooting estate should not be able to do the things that he contemplates as of right? The Minister himself pointed out what those things were: for instance, that it was necessary to remove the old cock birds that we are all familiar with. I am wondering whether people who have a right and an interest in a shooting estate should not be able to do that without having to seek for permission from people who, with all respect to them, know less about the matter than the owner or the lessee does. On the other hand, I do not know what the justification would be for giving that permission to anybody else, to anybody who was not the owner, the lessee, or the person with a direct interest in a shooting property.

It has been suggested to me that possibly a change of method might be desirable in Section 14. That is the section which deals with the disposal of property forfeited in accordance with the provisions in the Bill. It has been suggested to me that there is a certain danger if those engines or contrivances are forfeited in a district by the Guards that they will be bought possibly by a friend of the offender and used again. The suggestion has been made to me that it might be better if power were given to destroy them. The question of giving a discretion to the Gárda Síochána comes up again in Section 23. The same point really arises there. It has been put by Deputy Anthony. Assuming that a man has got the lease of a shooting, ought he to be burdened with such a cumbersome procedure as is required here, where permissions have to be given in duplicate, one duplicate being retained by the exporter? Take, for example, the sending of a brace of grouse by post. Would it not be possible where people are known to be the owners or lessees of a shooting estate to adopt a simpler procedure? In any case, ought not the liberty to do that in such a case be as of right and not dependent upon the permit of the Superintendent or a member of the Gárda Síochána. With regard to Section 24, it has been suggested to me that it might be well to consider a variation of the period in which the birding will take place. The Minister has told us that is a matter upon which he has an open mind. I am told that if you have the end of the period as early as 14th July, there is very considerable danger of some late broods of grouse being destroyed.

I do not know that there is any other matter that I want to deal with, except the point already raised by two Deputies in regard to Sunday shooting. I have every sympathy with Deputy Anthony's plea for the small man. I think he is absolutely right in that. Where you are dealing with shooting or fishing in this country, unless you are able to get public opinion behind you, you will never really be able to enforce the game laws, and thereby make the salmon, trout, grouse, woodcock and all the rest the source of wealth that they might be made in this country. You will not do that unless you succeed in enlisting behind you the support of the sportsman, whether he be big or small. Therefore, I am entirely with Deputy Anthony on that. On the other hand, I would put it to him that he ought to keep an open mind on the question of Sunday shooting, because I quite realise the difficulty in regard to that. I know that there are a lot of people who are good sportsmen and who can only enjoy a bit of sport on Sunday.

On the other hand, I recognise this, that since motor-cars have come so much into use there is probably more harm done on our grouse moors particularly on a Sunday than on any other day in the week, for the simple reason that these people are not sportsmen or people whom, I think, the Deputy would defend. But the fact is that parties of such people come out into the country in hired motor-cars and shoot over mountains where they have no right whatever. They shoot young birds, and they have disappeared before anyone can get at them. That is a fact that has to be considered, because of the great harm that is being done in that way. Even in the interests of the small man himself, I am not at all sure that we ought not to look very seriously into that aspect of the question, and see whether we ought not to have a total prohibition of shooting on Sundays.

There is one point in connection with this Bill that I would like to call the attention of the House to. I may say at the outset that I am altogether in favour of the preservation, not only of game, but of every wild bird that we have in the country. I have always been a lover of nature, and some of the happiest days of my life have been spent rambling about the country, by the banks of the rivers and through the woods observing nature. There is, however, one point that has not so far been referred to by any of the Deputies who have spoken. It is this: that there are a number of men through the country whose means of livelihood are derived from the netting of plover. Quite a number of people in the country derive their sole means of livelihood from that. I know several of them in the county I come from. I was speaking recently to one man who told me that he was able to make as much money in the season, which embraces the late autumn, winter and early spring, from the netting of plover as supported himself and his wife and family of six. This man and many others like him will be deprived of their only means of livelihood if plover is included in this Bill as a game bird.

The netting of plover is an art in itself. It takes some years to study and to be able to manage properly. The men engaged in it have been at it practically the best part of their lives. They have made a study of it, and is now their means of livelihood. If this bird is included in the list under the Bill, what it will mean for these men is depriving them of a means of earning their livelihood.

Where it is a question of the means of livelihood and the needs of the sportsman I think that means of livelihood should get precedence. I hope the Minister will take these points into consideration. The particular man to whom I have referred told me that when he is not engaged in netting plover he gets an odd day's work on the roads, but that would not be sufficient to keep himself and his family. Plover, so far as I am aware, is a very plentiful bird. It is migratory, and it is not shot usually as game. I think the sportsman does not bother about it very much, and it should be eliminated from the list, so that people dependent on the netting of plover would not be deprived of the means of earning their livelihood.

I welcome the Bill as one of the most important and necessary that has been introduced for a long time. I have very little doubt that it will have unanimous support in this House and in the country. It deals with a subject with which I am thoroughly conversant, as I have been shooting since I was able to carry a gun. I regret to say that in many parts of the country game, with the exception of migratory birds, has become almost extinct, and only for the migratory birds I do not think a great many people would think it worth while to take out a licence. There are many causes for the practical disappearance of game birds in the country, such as the breaking up of large estates where they were reared and preserved; the extraordinary increase in the number of scald-crows, magpies and hawks; very little respect for the close season laws, and very often by people who ought to know better; the cutting down of the woods that afforded cover and protection to pheasants, woodcock, and other such birds; the wholesale burning of gorse and furze and the cover where those birds hatched; and the extraordinary increase in the number of vermin. I am sorry to say that more harm has been done by burning this year on account of the dry season than has been done in the previous years. This Bill is very important and very welcome.

We have to begin absolutely anew, because in a great many parts of the country game is entirely extinct. There are no partridge, but there are some pheasants and nothing else only ordinary birds. These scald-crows, magpies and hawks are the principal cause of the trouble. They destroy the eggs and kill the young birds, and in many cases the old birds. They used to be shot in large numbers in the preserves, because they concentrated where the game was reared, and they could be shot at. There are thousands of scald-crows all over the country robbing and plundering every bird hatching that they can get at. I saw a nest with seven duck eggs in it last Sunday and in a few hours they had that scattered all over the place and the eggs were sucked. They are going from one place to another exterminating the game. There is no use in this Bill, as I have said before, unless the public spirit is changed and the people have the same respect for game birds as they have for hares. In Westmeath and in Longford the people would as soon shoot a bullock as a hare. The coursing clubs in these counties have large areas under them, and undoubtedly they have done a very great service with regard to the protection of hares, and I can say without hesitation that no person in those counties would think of interfering with hares.

Unless local societies are formed for the purpose of doing away with vermin and protecting game, this Bill will not be of much use. In Westmeath, where there is a fishery protection association, we give half-a-crown for each cormorant's head. We have got in a good many of them. Cormorants do the same damage to fish as the scald-crows, magpies and hawks do to young birds. When this Bill becomes law, as I believe it will, I hope that every county will start a game protection association. I would also suggest that the poultry section of the Department of Agriculture should do something in the way of providing eggs that could be sold cheap to persons who would be desirous of having them hatched. Pheasants' eggs, I believe, cost about 1/- each. They could be provided with eggs at a cheap rate, and have them hatched out. I make the suggestion that that ought to be done, because if we do not restock the country with birds this Bill is practically useless. I have shot two or three days a week during the whole season. I can say that not alone did I not shoot a partridge, but I never saw one, and I have as good dogs as there are in the country. Partridge are extinct in the country, and they must be replaced. Pheasants also are practically extinct.

If any Deputy brings in an amendment to prohibit the shooting of pheasants and partridge for two years, I certainly would vote for it, but I consider an exception should be made in the case of estates where there are annual shoots. They could get a licence from the Minister to carry on that shoot, but unless something very drastic of that kind is done, and the close season is respected, and public spirit prevents the robbing of nests and the shooting of birds out of season, the Bill will not serve much purpose. I am hopeful that what I have said will be done. Hares are very plentiful where they are preserved, and the same thing would occur with regard to pheasants and partridge if there was any respect for the close season. I am not so sure that the extension of the flapper shoot to the 11th is right. These are possibly the most innocent birds we have got. They go up the streams, and they are shot before the time in large numbers all over the country. If you extend the time to the 11th, I believe that will benefit the poachers and the people who shoot these all the time, and it may penalise people who respect the law. If the Minister does extend the time to the 11th, possibly it may be right, but certainly whoever may be appointed in connection with the protection of game by these protection societies should see that the flappers are not slaughtered as they have been in the past.

With regard to the gorse burning, I consider the time in the Bill is too late. I think it ought to be much earlier, and I believe the 1st March would not be too early, because it is sad to see the damage that is being done by burnings. Thousands of nests have been destroyed because of it, and young hares, and everything of the kind have been burned, particularly in the dry season we have had. This is a very difficult matter to deal with because there are so many causes for the burnings. Sparks from the railway engines burn thousands of acres on the bogs where they adjoin the railways. You have also mischievous small boys who sometimes start fires for fun. That is a matter that will be very difficult to handle. I welcome the Bill very much, as no Bill has ever been introduced here that was more needed but, in order to make it effective, you must have co-operation all over the country from the very large number of people who are interested in the preservation of game. It is hoped that they will come together and form societies for encouraging the preservation of game and the destruction of vermin. It is also hoped that they will do something in the way of subsidising the hatching of young pheasants. I do not know whether the Minister could give assistance somewhat similar to that given by the Department of Fisheries for the hatching of ova. In Westmeath, we got £75 for that purpose and we are able to make very good use of it. Good results would follow if somewhat similar grants were made by the Minister out of some fund, and if the public cooperate, as I know they will. After the Bill is passed we will have one of the biggest assets of the country owing to the preservation of game, and it will attract people with money into the country. As I say, I hope that the public will assist in the formation of the clubs to which I refer. I, at any rate, hope to make a start in my county the moment the Bill is passed.

I think that we might call this "Game Week" in the Dáil. I must congratulate the Minister for Justice on having this week to himself. It is only fitting, I think, having devoted two days to the removal of all obstructions for enabling pot-hunters to shoot or get rid of the political opponents of the Minister, that he should devote the third day to preserving game. From what I can see of the Bill I think that our proper course would be to oppose it. The Minister has got the wrong end of the stick, which, perhaps, from his point of view, is only natural. If he or the Executive were in earnest in wishing to preserve game, legislation should be introduced, first of all, to vest the game rights either in the farmer, the owner of the land, or in the nation. As things stand, whom are we to preserve the game for? For the British landlord, the absentee who in many cases, having the game rights vested in him under various Land Acts, walks in and draws his money every year out of his game rights over moors and mountains and then goes off to England or Monte Carlo to spend it. That is the present position as regards the majority of estates where there is a large amount of game. As I say, the first thing that the Minister should do, if he is really desirous of preserving game, is to take the game rights from the absentees and vest them in the owners of the soil or in the nation. That would provide some incentive to farmers to preserve game. At present the farmer has the extreme pleasure of seeing some English gentleman, having paid two guineas for a licence, walk in and shoot over his land while the farmer himself cannot shoot anything.

Because the game rights are vested in the landlord in nine out of ten estates purchased under the Land Acts.

Where? In Cork County?

Yes, and in Midleton. That is the position of affairs as I see it. I think that the speeches made here by Deputies opposite bear out my point of view, and show who are advising the Minister in this matter. We had, for instance, Deputy Cole looking for interchangeable licences by which English gentlemen will not have to pay for licences to shoot over lands in this country. Such men can pay for a licence in England, but are to be allowed to shoot here. Deputy Shaw says that he is prepared to vote for an amendment that would prevent any pheasant or partridge being shot for two years, but he says that licences should be given to large estates to shoot big bags of game and ship them off. According to him, the ordinary individual should be prevented from shooting for two years. That is an extraordinary attitude. The more I study the Bill the more I think it is worthless. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to see game preserved, but, so far as I can see, the Bill is worthless inasmuch as it offers no incentive to the ordinary individual, the ordinary farmer or sportsman to preserve game. I think that every Deputy will admit that without the assistance and co-operation of the ordinary individual you cannot preserve game no matter how you try. You have to have some incentive for him. The small farmer is precluded from shooting any game. He cannot afford to pay £2 for a game licence. He has only Sunday evening for shooting, and he will not pay £2 for a licence to shoot for four or five Sundays in the year. If the Minister were in earnest he would issue a 10/- licence and allow that to cover the shooting of game. As regards the Schedule dealing with the close seasons, I am at one with Deputy Anthony in regard to close seasons for hares. I have seen several young leverets before the close season was in force. I think that the 1st March should begin the close season. I am glad, despite what Deputy Anthony may say on other matters, that Cork sent us at least one gunman. I do not know whether he goes for big game or not, but I am glad to see that he goes for some game.

I am totally opposed to Section 26 which tries to create a fresh body of C.I.D. men, namely, the Jackeens with the £2 licences, who will come along and ask a farmer where his licence is, and who will shoot the game over that farmer's land. That creates a spy system which should not be tolerated. As I say, the first thing that should be done if we want to preserve game is to give the small farmer an interest in the matter. At present he has no interest in it, as the game rights over his land are reserved to the landlord. That happens especially on estates where the game rights are of any commercial value.

I think those absentee landlords have got enough out of this country without having the country paying for the preservation of game for them. That is what this Bill amounts to. I am as anxious as anybody to have game preserved. I think it would be a national asset if the game were preserved, but I see no asset in preserving game in this country, when it is only going to mean an increased income for absentee landlords who let the game rights for the season to some sporting gentleman from England. I must congratulate the Minister in having in one week succeeded in removing all the obstructions, and the close season in one respect, and having brought forward a Bill for preserving the close season in regard to game. I think he deserves congratulations on it, and whilst I do not hope that he will be very successful as regards the killing off and the destruction of the human population, which undoubtedly he is attempting under his Juries Bill, in which he removes the close season, I hope he will be more successful with this Bill, but I think it is worthless. I think if the matter were considered from the point of view I have put forward of offering some incentive to the ordinary farmer and vesting the rights in the tenant farmers or the nation, it would do more to preserve game than all the clauses of the worthless Bill now before us.

I think every true sportsman, and everybody who believes in helping what I might call an industry in this country, should congratulate the Minister on having brought forward this Bill. I do not intend to take up very much time in discussing the Bill now, as there will be an opportunity in Committee of discussing the details. There are one or two aspects, however, that strike me and to which I would like to refer. For instance, one part of the Bill gives considerable rights to coursing clubs and generally makes absolute provision for the protection of hares. The Minister has evidently gone to considerable pains to consult coursing men and others.

I would like to see inserted in the Bill a provision similar to that inserted in Section 15, so that the same powers as are given to coursing men should also be given to game preservation clubs and gun dog clubs. I have added gun dog clubs because there are in the country a very large number of clubs devoted to field trials. These clubs would be in a better position to assist in preserving game than any other organisation, for the reason that the sport depends on the existence of game. They do not shoot birds, they preserve them, and they could do more for the preservation of game than any other sort of club. They need a number of birds for their trials and their main object is to preserve them. I would like if the Minister would extend to these clubs and game preservation clubs the same rights that are given to coursing clubs. I say that when you have a body like the Irish Kennel Club that would supervise the subordinate bodies you ought to give them this right. I suggest that the Minister might, by a new sub-section provide for the recognition of gun dog clubs in the same way as he has recognised coursing clubs under the Irish Coursing Club. I think that he should recognise gun dog clubs and game preservation clubs under the auspices of the Irish Kennel Club. In the Irish Kennel Club, you have a body which is democratically elected from every county and almost from every second parish in Ireland. In its executive you have men of every grade of society. It is a particularly democratic body and I think that anybody who looks up the composition of it must recognise that it is as competent a body to advise the Minister as exists. No body is more competent in this respect than the members of the Irish Kennel Club. That is one suggestion I would make to the Minister. I would like if the Minister in his reply would undertake to introduce these provisions himself on the Committee Stage. If not, I would be happy to move an amendment in that direction myself.

There is another matter which lies at the root of game preservation, that is that several old game laws have been repealed. As matters stand at present, and as many of these old Game Laws have been repealed, I do not know exactly how one is going to deal with a poacher. I hope the Minister will explain the matter in detail when he replies. I do not see any section in the Bill that gives even the ordinary coursing club the right to prosecute a poacher as a poacher. As a member of such a club, I might perhaps take advantage of the old trespass laws and prosecute the poacher for trespass, but that would be a very lengthy and difficult procedure. The Bill as I read it does not definitely set out any provisions by which a poacher as such can be prosecuted. I hope the Minister will provide in plain language some little section or sub-section on the Committee Stage that will meet this matter. If game is to be preserved in this country— it is nearly non-existent at present— I agree with Deputy Shaw that some clubs such as I have suggested, game preservation clubs or gun dog clubs, must be established. Deputy Corry a moment ago said that we should offer some incentive to the ordinary farmer to preserve game. That is an incentive. It must be possible if every area in the country is to be preserved, to group together a number of small holders, men who hold a number of small holdings on mountains and other places, and have their lands preserved in the same way as the coursing clubs preserve the areas over which they operate at the moment. That is why I suggest the Minister should give some recognition to the kennel clubs.

The other way to do that that I see in this democratic country is by united action on the part of common holders of land, and provision must be made for them to do so. In that way it would be possible to develop one of the country's assets. A number of small owners of a mountain could preserve a large section of it, and could either let it locally for shooting purposes or could let it to any in-comer who would pay sufficient money for it. I do not suppose that many Deputies realise the asset that shooting is to a country. I have had very much experience of shooting in a great many countries. I know a good deal about the Scotch grouse moors and how they are worked. Deputies have said that grouse are almost absent from this country now, and that there are very few parts of the country fit for grouse. I assert without any fear of contradiction that there is a very large area—practically all the mountain area in the West and a considerable portion of the mountain area in the East—equal to and probably better than the Scotch moors for the raising of grouse, certainly better in regard to the quality of feeding. So that there are opportunities for setting up a very great industry in that respect. I am glad that the Minister has brought in this Bill, and I hope that he will accept the suggestions I have offered. There are some smaller changes I would like to see made, and perhaps amendments with regard to them will be moved on the Committee Stage.

I cannot agree with Deputy Corry that this is a worthless Bill. I think that it will be of great value to the country if properly worked, and I believe that it will be properly worked. I do not know who the author of the term "game bird" was. I think that the term is purely an arbitrary one, because in various countries different birds are game birds. I have shot the capercailze, or black cock. They are rather scarce here, but they are relatively common in Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister would think it necessary to include them in this Bill. It does not matter very much what birds are called game birds. As far as birds are concerned, game can be made a very paying proposition to any country. The only bird that the Minister has left out is the goose. Of course, he is a migrant who comes here only in the winter time.

I agree with the other Deputies who said that unless there is a sport-sense, an esprit de corps, if you like, in the mind of every one who possesses a gun the benefits of this Bill will be nullified to a large extent. I am sure that that sporting sense is there, and to develop it it only requires to be stimulated, and I believe that when that sporting sense is more fully developed this Bill will do great good. When some of the people in my part of the country meet a covey of partridge or a clutch of pheasants they seem to think that a great thing to do is to shoot every one of them. That is a very wrong gospel and idea. If the man with the gun who calls himself a sportsman would realise that, and would curb his inclination to shoot every bird that gets up before him, it would do a great deal to help forward the object of this Bill. I know that the Minister cannot very well put a clause into the Bill to that effect. It should not be necessary to make that suggestion, but the necessity does arise.

I look upon the feathered poachers as more injurious than the genus homo. At present anyone who is fond of shooting must be struck with the tremendous increase in the type of birds that are, in my opinion, of little or no use for anything. Deputy Buckley, I think, said that he loved all birds. I like birds myself, but I do not know exactly why some birds were created at all. Anyone who goes up the mountains or through the bogs and marshes of Ireland will be at once struck by the tremendous increase in recent years that there has been of hawks, carrion crows, magpies, and a certain species of gull. I have put them in what I consider to be their order of destructiveness. I put the hawk before the scald-crow. It is an easy thing to poison these scald-crows. The amount of damage that these birds do is incalculable, and I would like to see something in the Bill which would encourage people to do away with them, but the Minister will probably say that that is unnecessary, that it should be a matter for the farmer or the landowner to do away with these birds himself, and I more or less agree.

I propose to put forward a few amendments to the Bill. There is a mechanical means of killing game birds which perhaps has not been practised here, but which I know has been practised in other countries. Aeroplanes have been used from which to fire into flocks of duck, widgeon, teal and geese, and fast motor boats have been used for the same purpose, the two acting together. That is unfair, even although these birds are migrants. That practice has not made its appearance here yet, but I throw out the suggestion to the Minister that it might be advisable to prohibit the use of the aeroplane and the motor launch for destroying these birds. I am glad to see that the opening of the season for partridge shooting is put back. I would like to see it put back a month later in fact, and from what I know about partridge shooting, I do not think that that would do a bit of harm, because the Minister said that as this was a colder country than the neighbouring country partridges came on later, and the result was that when the shooting season opened on the 1st September the birds were not as strong on the wing as they should be. The only way that I can see in which that could be covered would be for the Minister, if at any time he thought it suitable to do so, to prohibit the shooting of any bird whatever in any part of the Saorstát before a certain date. I do not want to see wealthy men having the sole right to shoot game birds, and if you like making a dinner off them. I have what is perhaps a rather startling suggestion to make, and I hope Deputies from the West will not jump on me for making it. I understand that Connemara was once a huge forest. Though the Department of Agriculture, and formerly the Congested Districts Board, have been doing their best for our people there, the land is so arid and impoverished that, I am afraid, it is a losing proposition. Why not turn Connemara into a forest or shooting ground as it was of yore? We are not able to make that part of Ireland fit for people to live in. Why not migrate the people to other parts of the country, following the example of a neighbouring country? I think that would be a very good thing for the people, and that it would be a source of material gain to the nation as a whole.

What would the Deputy say about the preservation of Irish?

The people would spread the Irish language wherever they went. Deputy Shaw raised an important point, when he stated that he would like to see some arrangement made by the Minister for Agriculture, whereby pheasants' eggs would be distributed amongst small holders and labourers. I think that is an excellent idea, because these eggs can be hatched under the domestic hen. If that were done universally there would be no dearth of pheasants in a short time, and it would be a source of material gain to our people. It is essential that packs of grouse should be broken up, because, as the Minister stated, it is sad to see the destruction of grouse that takes place if the packs are not broken up. Who is going to do the breaking up, I do not know.

Deputy White.

In the district I come from the birds that require protection are partridge and grouse. I have been shooting for a great number of years. I was a fairly good shot, but I suppose I missed a great deal more than I ever shot. I am delighted that the Minister has introduced this Bill, which, as far as game is concerned, can do a great deal of good for the nation generally.

I am very pleased that this Bill has been introduced. I believe it will be the means of preserving game which is now practically extinct. Speaking of my experience of partridge, for over twenty years I remember finding dozens of coveys of partridge in harvest time, but now none are to be found. Some people attribute the extinction of partridge to the spraying of potato gardens. When these gardens are sprayed the grubs on the stalks fall to the ground and are picked up by the partridge. In my opinion that has had a good deal to do with the extinction of partridge. As to the preservation of hares, I think the close season should be the 1st of March. I found young leverets on the mountain on the 1st of March, and it is painful to see coursing men, from clubs, as well as private individuals, with greyhounds destroying these young hares. I think it is cruelty. I was never at a coursing meeting, natural or artificial, but I do my utmost to preserve the hares on my farm. When the proper season arrives everyone is welcome to hunt them. I do not agree with the Minister when he says that the preservation of game will be a source of revenue to the farmers. It is my experience that hares do an amount of damage to young crops, especially cabbage, but even if farmers suffer a little loss they are satisfied. It is a grand thing when a farmer goes out for his cattle on a summer's morning to see, perhaps, two, three, or a dozen hares running around, and a few coveys of partridge rising from the land. I say that it is the duty of the farmer to give every encouragement to sportsmen to come here, perhaps from across the channel. If they do come they will be the means of bringing revenue to the country, but it will not go into the farmers' pockets. An amount of destruction is done to young birds in the hatching season by hawks, carrion crows, and magpies. Not alone do these vermin kill the game birds, but I have often seen them coming into my own farm and taking away young chickens, ducks and goslings. I think the Minister should give instructions to the Guards in country districts, where, at times, they have very little to do, to carry sporting guns to shoot down vermin that are destructive to game. As Deputy Corry said, I have no fear of men coming into farmers' places when searching for game and ordering them around. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that would give any man authority to go into a farmer's place and search it. I think the farmer is master on his own farm, and need not allow anyone in, if he does not wish to do so. I think he could put out anyone who came in and treat him as a trespasser.

The Deputy is quite correct.

I have very little more to say on the matter. I am a farmer myself. I preserve the game in the close season. I do not course nor shoot, but I like to see sportsmen come in and enjoy the game, and hunt over the land. If this country is preserved, and if no game is shot for the next two years, it will be the means of bringing into this country sportsmen who will have the capital which we need so badly. If we suffer a little loss to our crops through hares, which are very destructive, still we will not grumble so long as we can bring in tourists for fishing and shooting. That is the principal reason why I support this Bill.

I contend that I am neither a gunman nor a sportsman in connection with partridge or pheasant.

Surely you are a sportsman.

I would like to say something on this Bill. It is one for preserving game in this country. I am after reading the Bill through, and as a matter of fact I cannot find in any section of the Bill, where you can protect game. You talk about the seasons. You talk about magpies and scald-crows, and all that sort of thing. There is one little animal, I forget his name, but I think people down the country call him a grass mouse. I want to know what section prevents the grass mouse in the spring——

He belongs to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

—from coming along and breaking the eggs. There is nothing to prevent the east wind in the months of May and June, which has a most serious effect upon the eggs of game birds. You will want to arrange the weather, and you will have to try to get the clerk to prevent this particular state of affairs at that season of the year. I am not against the Bill for this reason. In the definition of game birds, it says: "The expression ‘game birds' means and includes pheasant, partridge, grouse, quail, landrail, plover, etc." I may mention this that 90 per cent. of the plover that come into this country come from across. I have known working-class people who have made part-time livelihoods at this season of the year, and who do other work in the summer time. If this Bill becomes an Act, these people will be prevented from trying to eke out an existence for themselves and those who depend upon them. There is no protection for these people; it is all protection for birds. My reason for saying that the birds are migratory is that I have seen half a dozen birds caught in this country very recently having rings on their legs with addresses in Scotland. I think the Minister for Justice said the plover was not a migratory bird.

No. I did not. The green plover and the lapwing breed in this country. The grey and golden plover do not.

I agree that the lapwing breeds in this country, but 90 per cent. of the lapwings in this country in November and in December come from abroad. I heard my friend and colleague, Deputy Anthony, talking about sportsmen and poachers. As a matter of fact, I believe my colleague Deputy Anthony is a sportsman in the sense that he believes himself to be one, and most of the Deputies here who discussed this Bill contend that they are also. A sportsman, in my opinion, is a man who goes out without a game dog. I have seen three or four men go out with game dogs, and go into a place where there were partridges. The game dog goes up and sets the partridge and five men pour half a dozen shots into the partridge. Is that sportsmanship? How are we going to prevent that? Under this Bill there is nothing to prevent it, and I say it will be impossible to prevent it, except in this way, that the Minister will include a section in the Bill which will prevent any gunman who goes out having a dog with him on the land while in search of game. That will protect game, and there is no other means. The poacher is a real sportsman because he goes out with his gun.

He has his dog, too.

And he does not know where the birds are going to get up. He fires. I am beginning to hit hard, and they do not like it, because truth is stranger than fiction.

In connection with the netting of plover, I want to say that there is no sportsman in the country, or so-called sportsman, in favour of the plover. It is a migratory bird. Some of the farmers contend that he is a useful bird in connection with fluke.

Quite right.

I would like to argue that point, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, with your permission.

Anyhow, the plover at all events is not allowed to be netted. He cannot be caught with a net. People who are catching these plover for the purpose of earning a livelihood have never been prevented by the farming community. I certainly believe that the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches and the Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches should at least allow that right to remain with poor men who are making a living in the country by killing plover. It will not interfere with the sportsmen who are out for partridge and pheasants. If the Minister will consent to delete the word "plover" in the Bill, I will support the Bill after a few other amendments have been made in it.

took the Chair.

On a point of order, the case the Deputy is making is that no sportsman has a right to go out and shoot partridge. In connection with plover, he is making the case that you may set a net for them and catch 20 or 40 in the one haul. What is the difference in the arguments he is putting up for and against?

I will endeavour to answer the question put to me by Deputy O'Dwyer. The position is this. Take a man who goes out with 15 yards of net and puts it down in a field. I maintain he is a sportsman and a scientific one as well. That class of person brings plover down from the elements, and that man should be protected. But as regards getting 40 or 50 birds at the one time, he might not catch them in a week.

He might.

He might not. I have seen people and they have not caught that many in a week.

What about the poor farmer?

I do not follow the Deputy about the poor farmer.

On a point of order—

It is not a point of order.

On a point of personal explanation—

It is not that either. These points are really points of disorderly intervention.

There is no doubt whatever that green plover prevent sheep and cattle from getting fluke. The Deputy is perfectly right when he says that a large percentage of green plover come from Scotland, because in Scotland they do not, as a matter of fact, shoot green plover. I understand from Deputy Bennett that the same thing obtains in England, the reason being that they do a national good in lessening the ravages of fluke.

I think we ought to attack the green plover in Committee.

Deputy Dr. White contends that green plover do a national good by preventing or lessening the ravages of fluke. I know where there have been over a million plover this year and in that particular place a poor farmer has lost one hundred pounds' worth of sheep through fluke. Where does the argument that they prevent fluke stand then? Deputy Anthony wants to make the country a sanctuary for birds, a Juan Fernandez, where there would be nothing but birds. We have a number of old fanatics in this country every day writing to the papers, weeping over the little birds, but we have 40,000 people who are starving and no legislation has been brought in to alleviate their sufferings. Bills of this sort have very little use, national or otherwise, and I am going to vote against it.

Deputy Gorey is not here to deal with the question of hares, but some of his impressions are left in the Bill. I agree with Deputy White in connection with the shooting of partridge. I have seen partridge shot by those so-called sportsmen who come over here. The birds were but little chicks that were not able to fly. I would prefer that the close season would be the 20th October instead of the 30th September. In connection with hares, I certainly would be in favour of 1st March, because I have seen leverets and hares in young, killed at this season of the year. I am in favour of protecting the hare because it gives a useful sport in the country. But on account of plover being brought into the Bill I certainly will vote against the Second Reading.

I welcome this Bill, and I do so on behalf of my constituents of all classes, especially the farmers, who are the most enthusiastic preservers of the hares. In 1903, when that famous Land Bill was passed, people thought that in a short time we would not see a hare in the country. They thought there would be no sporting spirit left in the young men of the country, but there sprung up a new spirit. I remember when I was a young fellow, I was summoned for coursing. I called it coursing, but the law of the land called it poaching. I had to go into a mountain to find a hare, because you could not get one anywhere else. Anyhow, that time is gone, the hares are here in thousands, and we have no landlords. As regards the fixing of the close season, I thought that that matter was vested in the County Councils. I think I am right in saying that the 1st March is the time in the county of Cork. I remember a year ago when the Cork Coursing Club wanted a special day to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, as we are deprived of celebrating it by the Minister for Justice, they came before the County Council and asked for permission for a coursing meeting on St. Patrick's Day. We granted it on condition that all the hares would be of one sex. They gave us that guarantee, and they had a good day's sport.

As regards partridge, partridge in my constituency are extinct. It is a pity, because I remember when I was a young fellow when looking for hares a covey of partridge would get up around me, and give me a most delightful surprise. I had nothing to fire at them except a wattle.

That you had for the hare.

I had not it for the hare. I never hit a hare in my life. Deputy Dr. White, a few moments ago, included the goose in the category of game. I never heard of a game goose in my life, but I did hear of what should be included in the Bill, and that is a game-cock. I would rather the Minister for Justice included him with the remainder of the game. He would die an easier death than he would get by a cook cutting his head off.

Deputy Shaw is recognised as an authority on this subject. He pointed out that there would be parish clubs got up for the protection of game. I agree with him. In nearly every parish we have got a coursing club, and they have certain rights to the lands in the parish. They have converted the poachers to their own way of thinking, and they had another knack of doing it than by taking them into the courts. They had their own way of punishing them. These poachers were looked upon as carrion crows, and they were quietened in a good many ways legitimately, so that we have no poachers. I agree that partridge should not be shot for the next three years. Let us have a whole lot of them and they will scatter. In my district, we have a forest that was planted by the present Government. Some time ago we had a syndicate over—Deputy Bennett will bear me out—who were prepared to stock the forest with all classes of game. I am sure that society is there still. That would be a good industry in that particular side of the country. I do not agree that people would not be allowed to shoot the game. The farmers are interested in the preservation of game, and when tourists come along they go out and show them where the game are. If the coursing clubs will take up this business, and they will, because they have authorised me to speak here on behalf of them, and to thank the Minister for Justice for bringing in this Bill, they will protect the birds as well as the hares. It is not the man who goes out for a shot that does the damage. It is the little sneak who goes out by himself to try and make a few shillings. If this protection association is taken up, as I think it will be, these little sneaks will have to get permission from these clubs before they can go out in the morning, and the birds will be protected as well as the hares. There are thousands of hares and they are very valuable at present to poor men. In my district a poor man got £70 for a year-and-a-half old grey-hound, just as much as you would get for six sows and their litters. Of course, they are not as valuable as they were, but they will come on again in value.

A Deputy

What about game-cocks?

Game-cocks had their day, and it is to be hoped they will come back again. I do not see why that sport, when legitimately carried on, should not be permitted as well as others. As I say, the farmers will welcome this Bill and assist the coursing clubs and the protection associations in protecting the birds. They will welcome the tourists and give them a day's shooting, so as to help them to enjoy their visit and bring plenty of money into the country, which is what we want.

We have had a very interesting and full discussion upon this measure, and there seems to be no real objection in any part of the House to it. The criticisms made have really dealt with Committee points. I suggest, therefore, that we should conclude the Second Reading now and, say, on this day fortnight, or some time like that, take these points on the Committee Stage.

Is there any objection to concluding the Second Stage now?

The Minister has been two days grousing for protection, and he is only going to spend one day protecting the grouse.

The Deputy is satisfied, having said that, I am sure. Nothing can be said on the Second Stage that could not be said in Committee, at some appropriate point.

The only thing is that the Minister might give some indication whether he would bring in the suggested amendments himself, or whether it would be necessary for Deputies to put them down.

That is where the Minister's reply would come in. This is the kind of Bill which will require a fairly long Committee Stage, and our experience of this particular type of Bill, where there is no fundamental disagreement but much difference of opinion on detail, is that on the Report Stage you very often have a re-committal, because the Minister generally brings in amendments to meet points which he agreed to in Committee. It is a matter more for the Committee Stage than any other Stage.

I should like to ask the Minister whether non-affiliated coursing clubs will have the right to prosecute. Down the country there are some clubs which are not affiliated.

No, you must have some check over clubs.

I am glad to know that. It is necessary that they should be affiliated.

On the point of agreeing to the Second Reading and waiting for the Committee Stage, I should like to say that there are certain points which Deputies want to raise on the principle of the Bill dealing with the general question of game preservation. If we agree to the Second Reading being concluded to-day, a certain amount of latitude should be given on one or more sections of the Bill in Committee, which would give Deputies an opportunity of developing the views which they hold on the question of game protection.

The Chair must be taken as being definitely against that. If any Deputy has a general view to put forward, this would appear to be the time to do it. Deputy Ruttledge's point is sound. It would be valuable for Deputies to hear the Minister before they put down amendments for the Committee Stage. The Minister himself might have some amendments to bring in to cover the points raised.

It would save a lot of time.

We will have to give the Minister an opportunity at some future time, and the debate therefore cannot be concluded to-day.

I certainly withdraw my objection, if it is regarded as an objection.

The Minister must get time to make his position clear, whether to-day or on the next day.

I think I could say a few things in the five minutes remaining.

I want to put a few points. There is a difference between the game laws existing in Northern Ireland and in England and those of the Free State, and I should like to know whether the Minister is considering bringing our laws into conformity with them. Seeing that birds, at any rate, do not recognise any border, the Minister might arrange to have the game laws in the Free State similar to those in Northern Ireland. Several Deputies mentioned the hardship it might impose on poor people in the country if a large number of wild birds previously not regarded as game were treated as game under this Bill. Duck, widgeon, geese, teal, and plover are now treated as game and are to receive protection under this Bill, which they previously had not got. The only case made in regard to any of these types of birds is in connection with plover and partridge. They are very nearly extinct, and it might be very well to give them protection and include them in this Bill. Snipe are also included now as game. In Northern Ireland, even under a Bill passed a few months ago, they were excluded.

Here also we have the system of licensing by which you cannot shoot any sort of game without having a two pound licence. As the Minister is introducing a Bill dealing with certain birds which are proposed to be made game, he might be disposed to give some sort of latitude to the farmers to protect their crops, and who might be disposed to destroy some of the birds that destroy game. Farmers who take out five shilling licences cannot take their gun across the road to the other side. If a man has two farms he dare not bring his gun from one to the other farm. There are a number of people in the country who have two farms, not adjoining each other, and it is a ridiculous position that a man cannot take his gun from one farm to the other. Whether that is due to some mistake in the law I do not know, but it is a peculiar position to obtain. In Northern Ireland they have a ten shilling licence and they have much more power under that than there is under a five shilling licence here. Farmers, while they would be anxious to protect game, would have, at the same time, some little interest in gaining something from it for themselves. The only way they can do that is by being allowed, at some fair and reasonable figure, to exercise that right. It is unfair that for months of the year every unfortunate farmer who may contribute his share towards the protection of game cannot exercise any right himself unless he takes out a two pound licence. As other Deputies pointed out, they can keep these guns in their houses, even though they cannot use them.

It being 2 o'clock, the debate stood adjourned (Mr. Ruttledge).

The Dáil adjourned until Wednesday, 15th May, 1929, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share