Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 May 1929

Vol. 29 No. 17

Public Business. - Game Preservation Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Derrig

On the last occasion when we were discussing this matter, Deputy Ruttledge was referring to the necessity for bringing the game laws here into consonance with those in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One of the worst features of this Bill is that there is no effort to view the question of game preservation, as Deputy O'Reilly has suggested, in a national manner, or approach it from the point of view of the production and replenishing of the game in the country. On the other hand, it does not seem to be in line with legislation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister told us in his opening statement that the value of the game in this country was extremely great, and he quoted the example of Scotland. Scotland is on an entirely different plane, and when we are discussing this question, we have to bear in mind the entirely different circumstances of the Saorstát as compared with Scotland. There you have large landed proprietors who devoted generations to the cultivation and preservation of game. Here you have a peasant proprietorship, and you have not the land question properly settled. I submit that if you want to proceed on the lines of teaching the farmers to appreciate the value of game and the virtues of citizenship and of restraint in this matter, it would be much better to take the representatives of the farmers into consultation, and as has been suggested by Deputy Shaw, to have made some effort to get in touch with the County Committees of Agriculture or other representative bodies that could speak for the farmers, put the whole question before them, and ask them to give their views either to the Ministry or to a Commission that, in my opinion, could have been usefully called into being for that purpose. When you had got the farmers interested in the matter you could then make certain proposals to them.

This Bill bears all the defects of a measure recommended and sponsored by the Minister on the direction or instruction of a certain number of people, who undoubtedly are interested in game preservation. It is very valuable to have unselfish people of that class, but, as the Minister himself says, the farmers, the owners of the sporting rights, are the people who, in the long run, will have to undertake the brunt of this work. They are the people, he says, who will have to take the responsibility of ultimately preserving the game. Now, this measure comes along with a series of new prohibitions when the House has clearly expressed the desire, in the case of the Forestry Bill for example, that this question should be tackled in another manner. Certainly, the Minister ought to do the things which have been asked, that is, give a definite inducement to the farmers for the destruction of vermin, and reduce the £2 licence to 10/-. That is a matter that has been discussed in the House frequently and a matter that will come up. So long as you put on a very high licence on the one hand, and on the other hand give the farmer no inducement to destroy vermin do you think that any number of prohibitions or any legislation that can possibly be devised will attain this purpose as well as securing the co-operation of the owners themselves would do. I submit, therefore, the Minister has not met the point.

I have been looking up this matter and I found that in Great Britain a good many years ago an important committee recommended that the occupiers of the land should have the full rights of destroying ground game. If the Minister cannot give the occupiers that right he ought not simply to pass legislation prohibiting them from doing so. He ought to say that this is a temporary measure which he proposes to pass but which he realises is defective and that at a later stage of this Bill he proposes to make it more acceptable to the farmers.

Another matter is the question of holding up and searching people. I think that is capable of creating a great deal of dissatisfaction. It is not sufficient, and it seems to me only a quibble. It is not really providing a solution to give the Superintendent of the Civic Guard, or other persons nominated by the Minister, the right to hold up and search people and to seek entrance to certain places. I think the Minister in reply to Deputy Kent said that it was not suggested that people should have the right to trespass against the owner's wish. If that is so, I do not know what the meaning of the particular section is. It seems to me there is a clear right there for any person whom the Minister sees fit to appoint as representative to invade any premises or property and to search any person for game. I think that that is not the best way of dealing with the question. It would be much better to bring those people who are charged with destroying game, and who apparently are in the mind of Deputies, in a nebulous way, although not referring to them directly—it would be much better, since whole communities at present are practically living on the killing of rabbits, to bring them into the open to see what their case is rather than drive them underground. I submit, in the long run, it is like Prohibition in the United States. If the people want to do these things, if they want to go out and shoot at night and so on, they are going to do it in spite of prohibition. The best way is to get co-operation of the different classes represented in this matter and then produce a proper national measure and put the whole game question on a sound footing, and if necessary make the country, as Deputy Anthony suggested, a bird sanctuary for a certain period of time.

Mr. Gorey

I am rather thankful that some members of the Opposition have carried on the debate so as to enable me to be here to-day. I briefed a few of them on Thursday night, and I think they have been more or less relevant since.

Dr. Ryan

There was a lot of sense talked while you were away.

Mr. Gorey

Some faults are alleged against this Bill. There is no fault in the Bill from my point of view or from any sensible man's point of view in so far as it is a measure for preserving game. But the great fault in the Bill, and in fact the damning fault, is the fact that the Bill in itself is no good for preserving game when you have no game to preserve. Side by side with this Bill, or even before this Bill was introduced, a scheme should have been worked out whereby the whole question should have been built up from top to bottom on a solid foundation. You have to get after the propagation of game in the year or two that this Bill excludes shooting. You must also get—and this is essential, from my point of view, if you are to have the Bill a success— you must get in the first instance the co-operation of the occupiers of the soil in a whole-hearted manner, and to do that you must get the owners of the game and instil into their minds the idea that the game is there to be paid for the same as the chickens in their yards. There may be some conflict of opinion upon that. In some of the Land Acts the game has been given over to the tenants, but in the majority of the Acts, and especially in the 1903 and the 1909 Acts, on the majority of estates the game rights are still retained by the landlord, if there are any game rights there and ever exercised. While those rights are there they are a stumbling-block to preservation, and game cannot be made a great national asset here until those obstacles are removed and you set the foundations right. I have no hesitation in saying that the game possibilities in this State are worth annually as much as the whole land annuities put together. When the Minister mentioned here the last day a figure of £2,000,000 and something odd—I do not remember the exact figure——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Two and a half millions, roughly, in Scotland.

Mr. Gorey

I do not know what game he had in mind. I do not think that we can contemplate deer forests in Ireland, but we certainly could contemplate with certainty and success valuable grouse shoots. We have a good deal of mountain and certainly bog, where as good a class of heather is produced as in the mountains; as good if not better for the propogation of grouse. I would like to know if it included, in addition to deer shooting and grouse shooting, ordinary shooting on the arable land of Scotland, because here you have a country very similar to the south of Scotland in many respects. You could have here, with the co-operation of the occupiers of the lands, a system where you could give the occupiers the ownership, where at least the price of the game when killed would be given to him, if not a little more. In that way the game of this country could be raised in the only way it can be raised as a real national asset. It may be said that the tenure of game rights in England and in Scotland is different from here. It is. In England and in Scotland most of the game preserves are held by landlords in game areas in the country, while here most of them are in the possession of tenants, and if they have not game rights now, by their opposition at least they could exercise an influence to prevent game being developed here as a national asset.

Take France or Belgium, where you have a thickly-populated country. I have not been there, but I know from soldiers who have been there during the war that the whole country was thickly populated with partridge, some pheasants, and hares, and a different class of partridge from the English or the Irish partridge. This Bill is no use unless you have a well thought-out scheme running side by side with it. You may require legislation, but certainly you will have to perfect a proper scheme embracing the Ministry of Agriculture. I see no reason why the Land Commission should not come in, because they will have a lot to do with game rights, and also the Ministry of Justice. But a scheme, if it is to be of any use, will have to come, I think, from the Department of Agriculture.

Deputy O'Reilly referred to this Bill. Reading his speech I thought it was an attack upon the Bill. He gave one the impression that he was rather against it, especially when he said that when the game season was opened and game came on the market the prices of beef went down, and that on account of that the Irish farmer should not be enthusiastic about it. I hope I did not misunderstand him, but I think that is not a point of view that could be justified at all. Even though the price of beef went down, and even though the demand would be slightly less, there is no reason why game should not be raised in this country and the price of beef not be reduced on account of it. Deputy Derrig says that the present licence should be reduced from £2 to 10/-. What is the object of that? Everyone knows that the 10/- licence running alongside the £2 licence is the great cause of the destruction of game. Men went out with the 10/- licence. They began on the 1st September and ended on the last day of the season. They shot the seven days of the week. It was impossible to prevent them shooting game. They were shooting it all the time. That was in the early days, and when the occupiers of land saw people coming on the land and shooting game every farmer and farmer's son started the same thing, with the result that we have no game at all to-day. I know men who have been continually shooting for 15 or 20 years, and they have not seen a partridge during that time. Partridge are extinct because they have been shot down, and also for other causes. You had the hostility of the occupiers of the soil, and until you enlist their full co-operation you will never have a successful Bill. What they have been able to do in France and in Belgium I think we can do here. You might do it on the mountains and in the bogs, but when you come down to the arable land and the small holdings you will have to work on the continental system. I do not know what has enlisted the sympathy and co-operation of the Belgian and French farmer, but at any rate they got them. The game is here, and what they were able to do we should be able to do.

You must get the good will and the co-operation of the occupier of the soil, and you must build up from that. The ordinary holding is too small for a special preserve. You get them into groups of two or three townlands. You must begin there and the only Department that can do it is the Department of Agriculture. You may need an instructor. A scheme can easily be adopted. Men who know all about this matter can sit down and work out a scheme. I admit there are considerable difficulties in the way. I know them. There is no difficulty I have come up against in my consideration of the matter that cannot be got over. It is a question of detail, of what price or compensation the owner of the soil should get for game. It is no use going into it now. With regard to the broad principle, I think that it is perfectly sound. You must get the co-operation of the farmer for two reasons. First of all, he is the owner of the soil, and therefore he has the only right to anything that is raised on it. I may be taken as being prejudiced, but, I think, considering all the equities, that no one should have a right to the game except the occupier of the land, the man who feeds them. That is one reason, but there is another, and that is that he holds the key to the whole situation, to success or the failure. No amount of preservation of stock on the land will prevent him from killing that stock and making all your efforts null and void if he is hostile. He must be taken into consideration apart altogether from the equities. This Bill, as I say, as far as it goes, is a good Bill. It may need some slight improvements, but if we aim at making game a national asset it falls very short. A big broad scheme must go side by side with it to get the full effect. It will be useless without it. It aims at giving protection, but it gives no protection at all from vermin; it gives no protection from birds of prey and other animals that prey on game; it gives no protection from the hawk, the weasel, the stoat, the owl, or from magpies or scald crows.

I have heard an outcry against interfering with nature and that we ought to have a sanctuary for birds for two or three years in this country. I am prepared to have a sanctuary for the useful birds that are in the country, but I would make war on the others. I am not prepared to make the country a sanctuary for them even if I offend the old maids of both sexes in this country. I have heard a whole lot about upsetting the balance of nature. Anything we do is wrong. It would be just as sensible to ask why make war on microbes? Why make war on bacteria? They, too, are preserving the balance of nature. The same thing can be said about the shark and the crocodile. They are preserving the balance of nature. This question of preserving the balance of nature can be taken too far. It can be brought even to the point of the ridiculous. If man is going to live and multiply in this country these obnoxious animals that are preying on the food of man must go. Either they have to go or man has, and I think I am right in being on the side of the human being. I hope the suggestion that the Department of Agriculture should take the initiative in this matter will not be lost sight of. There is no other body, to my mind, more fitted or capable to do it. I think it falls to no other body in the same way as it falls to the Department of Agriculture, because it is a branch of agriculture. It can be treated in the same way as our fowl, our pigs, eggs or other agricultural produce. You can introduce regulations and schemes the same as you did under the Dairy Produce Act and the Eggs Act. Rules and regulations can be made having State sanction, and any legal steps that may be necessary to get over the difficulties can be taken. I do not see any reason why we should not get the same position here as they have on the Continent or in England and Scotland, or why the game here should not be worth anything between two millions or three millions a year. There would be two distinct lines, the mountains and bogs and the arable land. You are dealing with two classes of game. On the arable land you will have partridge, pheasant and other ground game, and on the mountains grouse and perhaps hare. You will not have partridge and you probably will not have pheasant on the mountains, because there is not the cover there.

A good deal has been said about the man who takes out a licence being entitled to some rights. He has rights, but they should not override the rights of the occupier of the soil. Except for the man taking out a licence who has a shooting right of his own or has a lease, or is a member of a club that takes out a shooting right or has a lease, I think the whole position will have to be reviewed. It is not enough that an individual who has no property in the country can take out a licence and go anywhere he likes. That would be detrimental to the working of the scheme.

Mr. Anthony

Wild duck.

Mr. Gorey

Even in that case the occupier of the soil has certain rights. Of course, these details can be worked out having regard to everybody's interests. There is nothing insuperable about them. Whether it should be within the province of game clubs, whether a rate should be struck, or whether the licence money should be set aside for the destruction of vermin, I am not prepared to say at the moment. That also can be decided later, but it is absolutely necessary that the question of vermin be tackled. Since the Black-and-Tan period in this country, when ammunition became scarce, vermin has multiplied by leaps and bounds. Ground game has multiplied by leaps and bounds. Rabbits a few years ago were a pest. I think that it was these Deputy Derrig meant when he spoke of ground game. There is nothing in this Bill with regard to the destruction of ground game. There is no reason why a 5/- licence should not entitle a man to kill ground game on his land. As a matter of fact, an inducement ought to be given to the occupier of land to destroy all ground game, for they are useless.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Hares are ground game.

Mr. Gorey

Hares are ground game, but rabbits are not game at all. I accept the correction. I remember a few years ago some Englishmen being over here on a visit. I remember driving from Kilkenny to my place with one of them. He remarked that he saw more magpies from Kilkenny to my place than he saw in all England for five years. That has happened all over the country. Everywhere you go you will see magpies. They were bad enough before, but they are a plague now. That question must be tackled either by the State or game clubs or with the co-operation of both. This Bill does not go far enough. I have a few extracts here from speeches on the Bill by the Minister, Deputy O'Reilly and some others that I do not agree with. I do not think there is any good reason for my going into them, but I would like to get some idea from either the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Agriculture, with regard to getting some measure to run side by side with this for two years from the passing of this Bill. If this is going to be a measure to prevent the shooting of game, we must lay down a stock. It is easy enough to get pheasant, but it is a different matter about partridge. We need partridge much more than we need pheasants. I do not know the best way of getting partridge. I know the eggs can be hatched out under a hen, but a better way is to net a covey of partridge wherever they are to be got, take them here alive and distribute them. Pheasants need not be brought here alive. The eggs can be bought here at a reasonable figure and distributed. I believe you will get good results in that way. If you had a reasonable breeding stock procured for next year there would still be from one and a half to two years of this Act to run, and at the end of that time your whole ambition would be realised and the intention of the Act would be achieved. If I got an assurance that this matter would be considered by the Department and a proper scheme put into operation, I would be quite satisfied.

One of the things I object to is that the open season for hares is prolonged until the 1st April. Representations have been made to me by some coursing clubs that the open season should not extend beyond 18th March. I would go further and suggest the 1st March, with special permission to clubs to carry on meetings up to 17th March. The ordinary close season should come into operation on 1st March. That has always been so, and it should continue to be so. Anybody who knows anything about hares is aware that large numbers of doe hares are heavy in young on the 1st March, and there are large numbers of leverets found knocking about. It may be information to some people that the best time for the propagation of hares is in October and November. I had a dozen leverets on my farm bigger than rabbits. They were born before Christmas. In my time I have netted as many as half a dozen hares in the day, and many of these would be carrying young. Up to March nearly all the doe hares are in young. Early in March quite a large percentage of them will be in young, and large numbers of leverets will be running about. If it is arranged that the close season will begin on 1st March, with special permission to clubs to go on to the 17th March, I think it will be found generally satisfactory. As a matter of fact, it was to meet that point that permission had to be asked from the County Councils to enable clubs to carry on until the 17th March. The general open season ought to expire on 1st March, with permission to clubs to have meetings up to the 17th March.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Gorey said that the owners of the soil in this country have not, in many instances, game rights. He was quite right in saying that under the 1903 and the 1909 Acts the game rights were not given to the people who bought the land. Under the 1923 Act, until the land is vested, the tenants have not the game rights. By far the bulk of land in the country has been dealt with under the 1903 and the 1923 Acts, so that the Minister for Justice would appear to have been wrong when he said that the farming community, with few exceptions, are the real owners of the game rights all over the country. As a matter of fact Deputy Corry raised the point that farmers saw very little use in preserving game for the sake of some absentee landlord living in England or somewhere else. Deputy Corry was interrupted and asked to point out a case where farmers did not own game rights. He mentioned Cork and other places, and it would appear now that he was quite right. If farmers do not own game rights on their own lands, there would appear to be very little inducement to them to take an interest in the preservation of game. The only effective way would be what Deputy Gorey suggested—that some Bill should be introduced vesting the game rights in the farmers, just as the land is vested in them. If farmers were permitted to own the game rights, they would naturally be interested in the preservation of game. From the debate it would appear that the ordinary farmer and his sons are the enemies of game. In fact it would seem that they should not be allowed to shoot any game at all.

Mr. Gorey

Not except with a game licence.

Dr. Ryan

If everything was done as Deputy Gorey has suggested; if farmers become owners of the game on their own land, in some places a farmer with 30 or 40 acres might see only one or two pheasants in the whole year. It would hardly be worth his while to take out a £2 game licence if game were so scarce as that. Under old conditions he was permitted to shoot game on his own land——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

No; not with a 10/- licence.

Dr. Ryan

I may be wrong——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Quite wrong.

Dr. Ryan

I thought it was so. As a matter of fact, I saw them doing it.

Mr. Gorey

I saw them doing it, too. I did it myself.

Dr. Ryan

They may have been acting illegally in doing it. Deputy Gorey mentioned that exception was taken here and elsewhere to the killing of birds of any sort. There are people who hold very strong views on the killing of birds. There is, perhaps, some justification for killing birds as a matter of necessity, rather than for sport. If it is necessary to kill birds of prey in order to protect other birds I am sure that would satisfy even the most humane person. I refer to such birds as hawks, magpies, and birds of that sort. They should be shot whenever there is an opportunity offered. Perhaps there may be difference of opinion about the shooting of game as a matter of necessity, or as a matter of sport. Deputy E. Doyle held that the man who went out to net plover was more of a sportsman than the man who went out to shoot plover. Of course, a lot depends upon the definition of a sportsman. The accepted definition of a sportsman is the man who shoots game— whether he is a sportsman or not, it does not matter. The important point is whether there is not more justification in the case of the man who goes out with a net in order to eke out a living. The question is: Is he not more justified than the man who goes out with a gun? There does appear to be some justification for allowing a man to use a net in order to make his living. Perhaps the opposite view to that of Deputy Doyle was expressed more clearly by Deputy Daly when he said that it is not the man who goes out for a shot who does the damage; it is the little sneak who goes out and tries to make a few shillings. I think the little sneak who goes out in order to make a few shillings, if he has no other way of making the few shillings, is justified.

Mr. Gorey

There will not be much use for game laws if you allow that sort of thing to be carried on.

Dr. Ryan

I think that man is far more justified in doing what he does than the man who comes over here from England, or who comes from the nearest town or village, in order to shoot plover or other birds for sport. The man who nets game in order to keep himself and his wife and family is more justified. That brings me to the section relating to export. The Minister said game birds, dead or alive, will not be exported, the object being that for the next two years there will not be commercial or semi-commercial shooting in this country. The Minister put in a section with regard to export, and permission can be got under it to send birds out of the country. As far as we can understand from the explanations, permission will be given to a sportsman who comes from England to send back a brace of snipe or partridge to his wife and family so as to show how well he is doing.

Mr. Gorey

Not during these two years—in exceptional cases, not in two years.

Dr. Ryan

I think even during the two years the birds can be sent to England. The man who has been making his living up to this by trading in game or by shooting game himself will not be permitted to export it. He is to be ruled out. The ordinary poor man who has no other way of making a living is going to be sacrificed for the sake of——

Mr. Gorey

Is there such a man?

Dr. Ryan

I do not see any necessity for the section if there is not.

Mr. Gorey

But is there such a poor devil?

Dr. Ryan

There is, of course.

Mr. Gorey

There are not twenty such men in the Saorstát.

Dr. Ryan

We will not argue about it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will we not have all this on Committee?

Mr. Gorey

There are no such men as the man he is talking about.

Dr. Ryan

At any rate, there is a section put in here on which, in Committee, Deputy Gorey can question the Minister, to see whether it is not against the poor man I speak of. There is another section which I would like the Minister to take into consideration during the Committee Stage. That is the section which deals with the burning of gorse and heather, and so on. It is an absolute necessity for certain mountain farmers who keep sheep to burn these mountains. It is necessary every second or third year, as far as I know, to burn the skin of the gorse or heather in order that new grass may come up for the sheep. Some of these mountain farmers have no other way of feeding their sheep.

Mr. Gorey

It is only a question as to the date of the burning.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, that is quite true, it is the date of the burning. From where I live I can see this burning going on very plainly on many of the Wicklow Mountains, and I know that the burning is done practically altogether in the month of April. These places are not dry enough before the 1st of April. The 14th of July would be too late on which to burn. I think there should be at least some provision under that section to make an exception where this burning was found necessary. I notice under this Bill that the Minister is again going to call in the Civic Guards. They were called in here before under the Forestry and other Bills. They were made wood-rangers under the Forestry Bill, and now they are going to be called on to act as gamekeepers. If we read Section 25, it will be seen that they can enter any place practically on land and sea, and if Deputy Dr. White gets his way, they will also be supplied with aeroplanes, so that they will have full control over land, sea, air and water in order to protect game.

There is one little thing I would like the Minister to explain under Section 26. In that section in parenthesis it is stated that "unless a person satisfies the court that the carrying by him of such shot-gun without having a firearms certificate authorising him so to do was in the circumstances not unlawful." I cannot imagine any circumstances where a man can carry a gun without a firearms certificate and not be acting unlawfully. I thought it was absolutely essential in the case of every man who carries a gun to have a firearms certificate.

I would ask the Minister to explain why Sections 6, 7 and 9 are put into the Bill. They seem to be contradictory. Sections 7 and 9 do not seem to be necessary at all when you are finished with Section 6. This Section seems to provide for protection orders in respect of hares. It makes an exception lower down and, therefore, I do not see what necessity there is for Sections 7 and 9. I would be glad if the Minister for Justice would answer some of these questions.

Mr. O'Mahony

There is no doubt that this Bill now before the House is a very important measure and one which should be made as water-tight as possible. If it is made as water-tight as possible it will, I feel sure, lay the foundations of the development of a very great natural asset to the people of this country. Apart from the actual form in which this Bill may become law, the hope of achieving the object of developing this great asset depends on one central factor, and that is the co-operation of the occupiers of the land. To my mind the small farmer is just as valuable in this connection as the large farmer. Once the farmers realise that having game on their land is a valuable asset, then we shall see co-operation and game preservation raised to a very high state of efficiency.

Not very far from where I live a game preservation association was formed about two years ago. There are about 100 members in that association. The holdings of these members run from five acres upwards. That association then decided to shoot no game for two years. I was talking to some members lately and they told me that the increase in the game was so rapid that they would have to start shooting hares and pheasants this year. That has been brought about by co-operation amongst the farmers and the occupiers themselves. They had their difficulties to get over, and one of the chief difficulties was to satisfy the smaller farmer. They got over that difficulty. Personally, I believe that it is only a question of time when we shall see all over the Saorstát many similar associations formed. That brings me back to what I think is the real question of the whole future of game in this country. That is the hearty co-operation of the landowners and the occupiers of the land.

There are a few sections in this Bill to which I would like to draw attention. I observe that under Section 5 (1) the Minister for Justice can bring in a Game Birds Protection Order. This Order can be annulled by either the Dáil or Seanad. But if a Game Birds Protection Order is in force, exemption from this Order can only be given by the Superintendents of the Gárda Síochána in the districts in which the Order is in operation. Personally. I have the very highest opinion of the Gárda Síochána. I know that they have done very good work, and that they will continue to do good work. For this very reason I fear that placing the responsibility on them would be putting the Superintendents of the Gárda in a very invidious position.

It appears to me that no matter how careful and correct the decision of the Superintendent would be, he would always be open to criticism for refusing to grant an exemption order. He would be accused of favouritism by disappointed applicants when he granted an exemption. There is this possibility—the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána decides that in a certain area where a prohibition order has been issued that a syndicate, or it may be a private person, there applies for an exemption order, and he grants that exemption order. Later on, the Superintendent might be given a day's shooting, or several days' shooting there. That would be perfectly right if he could get it; but I can visualise what the people would say in that event. They would say: "Oh, yes; he got the shooting there simply because he gave the exemption order." That is why I would like to see the whole matter kept in the hands of the Minister. To my mind the granting of an exemption under Section 5 is a very serious and important factor. I feel very strongly that the power of granting same should be in the hands of the Minister, as in the case of the Hares Protection Order, Section 6 (2). In regard to Section 6, I would like to see some provision made for the protection of gardens, nursery grounds and plantations from the possible destruction by hares.

Section 16, sub-section (4) does not apply to the holder of a firearms certificate the excise duty on which is £2. There is certainly a class of individual who wants looking after, namely, the professional poacher. I mean by that, the man who has taken out a £2 licence and who goes around the country shooting over land over which he has not permission to shoot. He is generally a good shot and he hawks game around the country, selling chiefly to private individuals the game which he shoots. Personally, I can see no hardship in compelling every holder of a £2 licence to sell only to a holder of a game dealer's licence. That would go a long way to check the ravages of the professional poacher. Should an amendment to that effect be accepted, then Section 22 sub-section (1) would have either to be amended or deleted. Section 22 appears to me to be unnecessary, as it is already covered by Section 16 sub-section (3). In Section 18 I would like to see an additional sub-section prohibiting the selling or keeping for sale of any species of game during the annual close season for such species except for a period of five days from the date on which the close season commences. That would allow stocks on hands to be disposed of. In regard to Section 23, the remarks I made with regard to Section 5 apply with equal force, and I would like the Minister to keep in his own hands power to give permission to export game and not to leave it in the hands of the Superintendent of the Civic Guards. There is another point I would like to mention in connection with Section 23, that is, in regard to the inclusion of pheasants. It seems to me that the prohibition of the export of pheasants will seriously interfere with people, especially with syndicates who run big shoots and rear a lot of birds. These people generally export to make good a large part of their expenditure by the selling of pheasants, and if they have to sell four or five hundred pheasants simultaneously to the Dublin market, they will get a ridiculous price. Under the Bill as it stands they can apply for a permit. There is, however, a possibility that they might be refused, and therefore they would be reluctant to undertake the expense necessary to rear six or eight hundred birds if they feel there is a chance of these birds being left on their hands. That point could be met by deleting the word "pheasant" wherever it occurs, or by the Minister giving permission to syndicates who satisfy him that they are rearing so many birds. They would thus have permission from the start to export.

The question of Sunday shooting has already been spoken on by other Deputies. Personally, I would like to see no shooting on Sunday, but if that is not possible, I would like to see no shooting start before noon on Sunday. I think that birds should have even half a day in the week free from being shot. I notice in the Second Schedule, Part II, that the Game Trespass Act of 1864 is repealed in its entirety. I would suggest that the law on this subject should be codified under this Bill, if necessary under a separate and new part altogether. I think that that is very important. Finally, I note that landrails constitute game birds under Section 2, but that no close season has been fixed for them under Schedule 1. I suggest to the Minister that they should be protected from 1st February until 1st September.

Mr. Goulding

I find myself in agreement with a good deal of what Deputy Gorey said in connection with this Bill. I feel the fears he expressed that the people will not co-operate with the Minister in giving effect to it will be justified. Farmers have complained of the uselessness of preserving game and preventing its destruction when men who are absolute strangers can walk in on their land and shoot over it without their permission while they themselves are precluded from shooting. They say that they have applied time and again for a five-shilling licence to help them to kill vermin, but they have been refused. The point made by Deputy O'Mahony with reference to permission to be given by the Superintendent of the Civic Guards is certainly applicable. These men complained that they were refused a licence as the Superintendent of the Guards had given them a bad reputation. He stated openly, and did not make any attempt to conceal the fact, that the reason was that he wanted the shooting for himself and his friends. The Superintendent and his friends can go out and shoot while farmers are not allowed to shoot over their own land. Undoubtedly, if that section is retained as it stands, that feeling will exist all over the country and where a local Superintendent refuses permission for a licence personal motives will be immediately attributed to him.

I think that Deputy Gorey made some reference to deer. I hope for the sake of farmers deer will not be allowed to go at large in the country. I know of a case myself where some deer escaped from a preserve and they did far more damage than any sort of vermin. The result was, however, that the farmer was in such a position that he was unable to take any measures to protect his crops from deer. Shot-guns are of no use against them. He is looking for protection from that sort of thing, and some effort should be made to give it to him. A gunman should be sent down to destroy these deer if they cannot be impounded. I think Section 26 of the Bill will lead to endless trouble. An Irishman will not stand for that condition of affairs. If a farmer is shooting over his land and if he is suddenly confronted by a stranger who demands his licence I am afraid it will lead to trouble, and there is great danger that it may cause unrest. In regard to Section 24, which deals with the burning of mountains, I agree with Deputy Dr. Ryan that in parts of the country farmers are compelled to burn mountains on which they graze sheep. As the Deputy pointed out, this has to be done when the gorse is dry. If this section is retained without amendment it will impose a severe hardship on those people. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 should also be amended. Of course, it is a matter for the Committee Stage, but I might call attention to it now. It says that the section shall not apply to nor render unlawful the setting by an occupier of land of traps, snares or nets for the taking of rabbits on the land occupied by him. It should be amended by inserting the words after the words "occupier of land""or persons authorised by him." I raise that point because many people eke out a more or less precarious livelihood by trapping rabbits. If this section is allowed to stand as it is such people will be precluded from trapping even if they got the permission of the owners of the land unless the section is so amended as to give the occupier permission to give them authority to carry on the trapping.

Deputy Gorey also referred to the fact that the whole question of game rights will have to be dealt with. I agree with him. He suggested that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Lands and Agriculture should co-operate in the matter. I suggest that the Minister for Fisheries be also asked to co-operate. The most valuable portion of the game rights in this country is the inland fisheries. Anybody conversant with fishery laws will admit that the feudal laws still exist, the result being that the inland fishery rights which are so very valuable are left the property of a few individuals and are of very little benefit to the country at large.

Mr. Mathews

I welcome the Bill, and I think it will go a long way towards attaining the object for which it has been introduced. Of course a great deal of the success of this Bill will depend upon its strict administration. Deputy Gorey suggested that with this Bill another Bill should be introduced to try to get over the difficulty of re-stocking the country. I think if the people interested in the preservation and the protection of game in this country see that they are getting adequate protection under this Bill and if, when offences are committed, adequate fines will be inflicted, local co-operation, in the form of game preservation associations, will spring up. It is through such associations that game will be preserved and that the country will be re-stocked. I agree with Deputy Shaw and Deputy Bennett, who hold that these game protection associations, which they hope will spring up when this Bill becomes law, should have statutory powers such as are given to coursing clubs under the Bill. I think that would go a long way towards getting over the difficulties of re-stocking and preservation. The two most important clauses in the Bill, to my mind, are those dealing with the licensing of game dealers and the exportation of game. I think that a great deal of the game destroyed heretofore was very often shot by people who held no game-licence at all but a 10/- or a 5/- licence. Game shot under these conditions was brought into local towns and could be sold to anybody. Under this Bill a game dealer will have to keep a list and will have to make sure that the person from whom he buys game has a game licence. If there is a proper check kept on the game dealer I think it will go a long way towards securing the preservation of game.

Deputy Anthony raised the point about the exportation of game and said that a person coming over to this country for a few days' or a few weeks' sport would find one of his greatest pleasures in being able to send back a few brace of pheasants or partridge to friends on the other side. He said that he did not like to be put to the trouble of having to go to a superintendent of the Civic Guards and that it was only when he got to the post office that he would find that he could not send them away. I think that that difficulty might be got over if those coming into the country applied to somebody for a permit or a game certificate. I am not sure as to what office he would have to apply, but if he could get a permit to send so many brace of game out of the country at that time it would save him a great deal of trouble afterwards.

Mr. Gorey

The production of the game certificate is accepted at the post office as his right.

Mr. Mathews

But not to export game. He could not export them to Scotland or England.

Mr. Gorey

The production of the game certificate at the post office would be sufficient.

Mr. Mathews

No. not under this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

These are all points for Committee. Almost everything that has been said relates to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Mathews

This point is governed by Section 23. I am only suggesting to the Minister that the difficulties Deputy Anthony mentioned might be got over. I want to stress the point that the object of preserving and protecting game would be better attained by the formation of game protection associations and local co-operation and that these associations should be given statutory power under the Bill. I think that is the proper way of dealing with it rather than through the Department of Agriculture. I think that people who are really interested will find a means of purchasing partridge and other game when they know that adequate protection will be afforded under this Bill.

Dr. Tubridy

It was only when I heard the speech made by Deputy Dr. White that I decided that some westerner who represented the Gaeltacht should reply to him. I heard a rather startling proposal made by Deputy Dr. White. Deputy Dr. White had a solution for the Gaeltacht problem and for game preservation and that was to take all the people out of Connemara and remove them to hell or any place else——

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is not what he said.

Dr. Tubridy

What did he say? He advised the removal of the people from the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Into better land. The Deputy is not here, and it is not fair to him to say that.

Dr. Tubridy

Into better land, and convert Connemara into a game preserve. During the Gaeltacht debate here I heard what the Minister for Agriculture had to say on the migration question from the Gaeltacht, The Minister for Agriculture said definitely that he had given up the idea of migrating people from the Gaeltacht to better land. Is there a split in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I was only quoting what Deputy Dr. White said.

Dr. Tubridy

He said they should be migrated and the whole of Connemara area turned into a game preserve.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is not the Government policy.

Dr. Tubridy

The Minister for Agriculture says that they cannot be migrated.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The re-afforestation of Connemara and the migration of the inhabitants, including Deputy Tubridy, is not in contemplation.

Dr. Tubridy

I am very glad to know that. The speech made by Deputy Dr. White was very interesting. I should like to know if it represents the policy of the Government or if it was just a brilliant thought of his own. Our idea in Connemara is that before they begin to pass laws for the preservation of game, the Ministry should pass some laws for the preservation of the Irish language and the people in the Gaeltacht. I have absolutely no interest in this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Why is the Deputy addressing himself to it then?

Dr. Tubridy

I am replying to a speech made by Dr. White. As far as the preservation of game in Connemara will be helped by this Bill, I think the people of Connemara will give it the very smallest amount of co-operation they can give it, for the reason that the game in Connemara is not owned by the people of Connemara—it is owned by strangers who visit there and do the shooting. We in Connemara are not allowed to shoot game or to course. One section of the Bill prevents the shooting of hares and that will affect us in a rather peculiar way. Deputy Gorey will think it very strange when I say that Connemara is absolutely unsuitable for coursing. Hares cannot be coursed there, and if they are allowed to spread indefinitely, if there is no shooting or netting or trapping allowed, they will, undoubtedly, in a year or two, cause considerable trouble to small farmers.

Mr. Gorey

Send them down south.

Dr. Tubridy

Yes, if we could catch them and sell them to you it would be all right. Another matter is the burning of furze. It is customary on the mountains in Connemara to burn furze, and that is necessary in the sheep area. Deputy Gorey and Deputy Dr. Ryan referred to certain dates for this burning. In Connemara the burning takes place when the weather is suitable. As soon as the furze is ready for burning, it is burned by the people who rear sheep. I also object to Section 26. I think that authority should not be given to every Tom, Dick and Harry to question individuals, as it is bound to lead to abuse.

Mr. Kent

If we want to preserve game in this country we must first of all be supplied with the game and I should like to know if the Minister is prepared to give a small grant for the re-stocking of the country with game. I suggest £5,000 for a start to re-stock the country with partridge, which is almost extinct in the South. If the Minister were prepared to grant that sum, what an advertisement it would be for the Tourist Development Association. Sportsmen would be so anxious to come into the country that they would be tripping over each other. The Department of Agriculture has already done a good deal for the preservation of game by re-afforestation work, as the plantations will be a means of protection for pheasants. My point is that if we preserve fish and game in this country we will be doing a considerable amount of good for this land of ours, which will teem with milk and honey once more, and the golden harvest which we will reap from the fin and feather will be very considerable. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the point I have put forward. A nod is as good as a wink, even from the back benches of the intellectuals.

Mr. S. Jordan

There is one point to which I should like the Minister to give consideration. One of the most essential things in connection with the preservation of game, and it is the means whereby you fill the pockets when you are out shooting, is the shot gun. While we are taking steps to preserve certain classes of game, there is a certain amount of what we call vermin actually robbing the farmers of the country. I know instances in Galway where farmers who were in possession of guns for the purpose of the protection of their property had them taken from them by the R.I.C. or in later times, and, although they have made repeated applications for the return of the guns, they have not got them back. I should like the Minister to give some consideration to that question, and give these guns back to those respectable citizens who want them for their own protection. For some petty reason some enemies of theirs, or some other people, have sent in reports to the authorities which are believed to be true, and these people have not got back their guns, with the result that they are not reaping the harvest which they sow, because their crops are destroyed by crows and other birds of that kind.

Mr. P. Houlihan

Before the Minister replies I should like to say a word. The way to preserve game, in my opinion, in this country is to observe the close shooting season, to prevent the burning of gorse and heather, and things like that, and to encourage the destruction of vermin. I know that long after the 28th February we find fellows who will shoot game. Only last year I knew of a professional gentleman, who ought to know better, who went out shooting grouse before the 12th August, and shot upwards of a dozen young grouse. And he was not the only one. Shooting in the close season is, I believe, doing away with more game than most things, and the burning of the gorse and the heather in the months of April and May destroys a lot of young birds in the nests. Then we have the vermin to deal with—hawks, magpies, scald crows. I would like if the Minister would insert a section in the Bill for the encouragement of the destruction of these pests. It should be as easy to encourage the destruction of these as it is for the Minister for Lands and Fisheries to encourage the destruction of the enemies of fish. I suggest that the Minister should utilise the proceeds of the two pound licences for giving rewards for the killing of those pests.

Mr. Seán Brodrick

I would like to press one or two points with regard to the close season for hares. I suggest that the close season for hares should be from the 1st March to the 30th September. I believe the 1st April is too late, and the hunting from the 1st March to the 1st April is certainly of a very poor class.

I welcome the Bill, which I think is a step in the right direction. I heard Deputy Corry stating last Friday that people carrying a two pound licence have really no authority to shoot over their lands. I see no objection whatever to people holding lands under the Land Commission shooting over these lands. He also suggested that people ought to be allowed to shoot game with a ten-shilling licence. At the same time you have another Deputy from Cork coming along and asking the Minister for a grant of £5,000 for re-stocking the country with game, and Deputy Corry asks that a ten-shilling licence should be a sufficient authority to shoot this game. I do not know that there is really much sport in that. For the shooting of game there should be no licence under two pounds. In the past few years I have known people going round the country trying to make a living out of the shooting of game. They have trenched upon preserved ground and sold game at a very good price. I am pleased to see that under this Bill one has to have an exporter's licence because that will help to do away with the boys who try to make a living from the gun.

Mr. J.T. Wolfe

It is a real pleasure to see a Bill introduced into this House which has the approval and sympathy of every section of this House and of those interested in the preservation of game. It has, I think, the sympathy even of the poachers, because the Bill, they imagine, is going to get rid of that dread fiend, the prosecution for trespass in pursuit of game.

Mr. Allen

Does the Deputy say that there are poachers in this House?

Mr. Wolfe

No, no.

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not gather that from the Deputy's statement.

Mr. Wolfe

I am afraid the hopes of the poachers are destined to be shattered. I hope before this Bill is passed the provision of that very useful section, George III., Ch. 35, Section 8, which is being repealed, will be reintroduced and, if I may respectfully suggest it to the Minister for Justice, reintroduced and renewed in very much stronger and more vigorous form. As I remember that statute, nine out of every ten prosecutions for poaching were brought under that section which when this Bill is passed will be no more. I take it perhaps that that was a draftsman's slip and that it will be remedied and that it will be renewed and re-enacted I hope in a form that will get rid of the difficulties and objections which the preserver of game had to meet when prosecuting under the old law.

I need not point out these to the Minister, as they are there in decided cases, not more than half a dozen of them, and these difficulties, I hope, will be got rid of. One of these difficulties I remember well, because, perhaps, many a time I utilised it when prosecuting, and sometimes it was utilised against me when I was for the defendant in prosecutions for trespass in pursuit of game, that these gentlemen were only looking for rabbits. I am sure the Minister will get rid of that little difficulty, and that that will be no longer a defence, and that people who look forward to this Bill with so much eagerness will find, when it becomes an Act and when it goes on to the Statute Book, that it will have renewed and revived the old Act of George III and that Section 10, Cap. 25, will be re-enacted and made firmer.

I think the Minister might also consider, if I may respectfully suggest it to him, that it might be necessary in the new section which he must introduce to define more clearly the necessary proofs to establish trespass in pursuit of game. I do not say that is an easy thing. I do not say that in doing it he should not have regard to the rights of defendant as well as the prosecutor. I am sure he will. I would ask the Minister, if possible—I have not considered it very closely—to make it clear and to get rid of the difficulties surrounding the law in the old poaching section which we have met so often.

Deputy Gorey struck the keynote on this Bill when he told us that the Act by itself would not work, that it would only work with the assistance and sympathy of the farmers, and he broached to us a very large and difficult problem which, he said, had given him a lot of trouble, namely, how to procure that sympathy. I agree it is a very difficult task. I also agree with him it is work that ought not to be beyond the reach of human possibility. I think we should strive to get the sympathy of the occupiers, and in order to make that sympathy effective we must get co-operation between the farmers.

We must get co-operation between the occupiers of land. Deputy Gorey has suggested, and I was trying to think of a better solution, that we must invoke the assistance of the Department of Agriculture to bring about that co-ordination. Were it not for the assistance of a Deputy in this House who, I think, gave me a better solution of that real difficulty I would myself say that I knew no better way out of that than that suggested by Deputy Gorey. But I do think as we have been amalgamating land, sea and air we might also get our fisheries and our game rights amalgamated. You have throughout this country Boards of Conservators. You may criticise them as you please. I am sure some of them are not above criticism, but through and through you will find this that amongst them there are the best of sports, members who have a real interest in the preservation of game, men who are true and real sportsmen working energetically for the pure love of sport. Why not, if we can at all manage it, amalgamate the preservation of game with the preservation of fish? Give our Boards of Conservators the protection both of game and of fish and they can do it with the same staff. To give the water bailiff his due, he is, as a rule, a sportsman. I do not say he is always so but he will do the two jobs at the same time and do them both fairly efficiently. I would suggest that is a matter well worth the consideration of the Minister for Justice and those who take an interest in the preservation of game. I can only repeat the pleasure it is to all of us to find all parties working together with one common object, which is entirely apart from anything political, the preservation of game and of a great national asset which I believe will have far more value than many of us can realise.

Mr. Ruttledge

The Minister has made no provision in the Bill for the destruction of vermin. Would the Minister state if, on the Committee Stage, he would be prepared to accept an amendment by which a fund would be created that would enable something to be given to people who would produce hawks or magpies? I suggest that a fund should be provided in the following way. A permit to sell cartridges which costs £1 could be increased to £4 or £5. I understand there is a considerable profit being made on them. That would give him a fund that would deal with the matter.

The second question is that which has been raised by Deputy Wolfe. If Section 10 is being recast or embodied in some other form in this Bill provision should be made for costs, as the Minister knows under this section there was no power to allow costs. In Section 5, page 3, the Minister when satisfied, may order a special close season for certain game birds. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider an amendment to the effect that the local enquiry should be carried out by the District Justice in the same manner as the official by-laws have been formed at the present time.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Dealing with the question which Deputy Wolfe put and which Deputy Ruttledge reiterated, it is my intention to introduce an amendment and place it before the House for its consideration which will strengthen the existing provisions for the preservation of game inasmuch as it will strengthen the section dealing with trespass in pursuit of game. This discussion has gone on at very considerable length and a great deal of it seems to me to have been completely irrelevant to the Bill before the House. Such criticisms as were passed upon the Bill actually before the House are small criticisms going to minor points and sections. It will be impossible for me now to trace every single point which has been made in the course of the debate. I will only deal with a few general ones.

First of all I said that a great deal of the speeches were entirely irrelevant. Deputy Ruttledge's speech, which was not quite as long as his question, was entirely irrelevant. Deputy Jordan's speech was entirely irrelevant, and a great number of other speakers were entirely irrelevant. This is a Bill which deals with the preservation of game. It has nothing on earth to do with either the repeal, alteration or modification of the Firearms Act, 1925, or with the Finance Act of 1925. Under the Firearms Act of 1925 certain classes of licences are created. Under the Finance Act of 1925 certain fees must be paid to get out these licences. That is not a matter which can be dealt with in this Bill at all, and if Deputies think a 10/- licence ought to be sufficient for the whole country, a view that I do not agree with at all, their method is to put in an amendment to the Finance Bill now before the House. It is not to discuss it upon a Bill which has nothing on earth to do with it. This is not a Finance Bill. It is merely a Game Preservation Bill. It has nothing to do with firearms at all, and a discussion on fees which are to be charged on the issue of licences is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order, is the Minister replying to criticisms of the Bill or making an attack on the Ceann Comhairle? He has stated that all the speeches were irrelevant.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There has been another matter introduced here which does not very much concern the present Bill. That is the question of vermin. In my opening statement I said I was perfectly aware of the great damage vermin were doing in this country, and I agree with Deputy Kent that hawks do a great deal of damage to chickens in country places. I happen to know it to my own cost. I live in a rather wooded place, and I know the damage done by hawks to fowl is very considerable in the fowl yard. That gives rise to a different consideration, which is this: Should the Government do everything, or should the people do something for themselves? That really is a question which that gives rise to.

Deputy Derrig was very strong upon this. So were other persons, but it seems to me those who were pressing that the Government should re-stock the country with game and that the Government should put so much per head upon vermin are showing a great distrust in the people themselves. They seem to think that the people can do nothing for themselves and that the Government must do everything for them. They seem to think that the Irish people are an inefficient people who cannot organise themselves, think for themselves, or act for themselves, but are so many babies who are to be led. I cannot take that view. I believe as soon as the people of this country realise that game is a real asset for them that they will themselves take the necessary steps to destroy vermin which must be done, a great deal of it by trapping and more of it by shooting.

For instance, the hawk, I think, can be more effectually destroyed on the moors by the hawk traps than by the shot gun. It is practically impossible to shoot a hawk on a mountain. He will never come near you, but a great number of hawks are caught on moors by a trap set on the top of a stick. It is my view that if you get people to recognise that there is money in this a war will be carried on on vermin. As Deputy Shaw pointed out, game protection associations will spring up and members will make it a point of honour to destroy vermin as far as they can. If they like they can put up certain sums of money, so much for each head of vermin that is destroyed in their neighbourhood, but that is the people helping themselves; it is co-operation. That is quite a different thing from always coming to the Government for everything, even though it may not be a very large sum. Deputy Gorey and several other Deputies spoke about the occupying tenants not having the right to shoot on their own bogs. That may be so in certain counties. I do not know all Ireland. I only know one part of Ireland, but I know it very well. It is not correct to say that under the 1903 Act and the 1909 Act game was automatically reserved to the landlord.

Mr. Gorey

That was not said.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It was said.

Mr. Gorey

Not by me.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I did not say it was said by you. The Deputy need not get angry over it. It was Deputy Dr. Ryan, as a matter of fact, who said it.

Dr. Ryan

Does the Minister think he will get away with it easier by saying it was I who said it than he would by saying it was Deputy Gorey?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I do not want to put Deputy Ryan's sins on Deputy Gorey. They may be too heavy. Under the 1903 and the 1909 Acts the landlord could reserve the rights to game. In some cases, I know he did, but in very large areas in the country the rights to game were not reserved. In other cases, they were merely for the life of the owner or for the life of his eldest son. I think there are very few cases where the game rights were reserved under the 1903 or the 1909 Act.

As far as the financial side of this is concerned there is some confusion of mind. Some Deputies, especially Deputy Derrig, seem to think that you can have your loaf and eat your loaf. That is to say, you can make an income out of your game by setting your game rights and at the same time you can shoot the game. It must be either one thing or the other. You must make up your mind that you are going to give over the shooting of game to somebody else that you are going to shoot it yourself. In one case, you provide yourself with sport which some people enjoy, the sport of shooting, and in the other you add to your income. I am only dealing with cases in which occupiers of land treat game as a potential source of wealth to themselves. The only way in which I see these game rights can be made valuable to the occupiers of land in this country is if associations are formed, either by persons taking the shooting from them or by the farmers themselves.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The only way in which successful preservation of game can be carried out, it seems to me, is not by the payment of so much per year to the owners of the shooting, but by the payment of so much per head for the game shot upon their land. That is an experiment that has been tried very successfully. Somebody said that partridge were extinct in this country. They are not entirely extinct. Dr. Tubridy talked about Connemara. I happen to know an instance in Connemara where a well-known sporting gentleman brought over partridge and let them out. He has now a very successful shoot of partridge. Connemara is a very poor place. It is not a partridge country, in the sense that some of the counties round Dublin are or ought to be, but there is a very successful partridge shoot there because he pays the owners of the land so much per head for the partridge shot. My belief is that as soon as the persons in this country who have shooting rights realise this they will take advantage of it. If an ex-landlord has shooting rights, say, over Deputy Gorey's farm, it might pay him extremely well to pay Deputy Gorey so much per head for the partridge shot on his land. That would be the way in which really good game preservation could be carried out by persons who have reserved game rights and do not utilise them themselves. Those persons, I hope, will let their rights to syndicates who will be willing to work them. That is really one of the main features of the Bill.

I will only just run through a few other features of the Bill. One of the main things which has given rise to discussion here is the question of Sunday shooting. I must admit that a certain case has been put up against Sunday shooting. The strongest arguments, I think, against it, were the arguments put forward by Deputy Law that persons who live in the neighbourhood of large towns may suffer very heavily if Sunday shooting is permitted. If you have a grouse moor, say, twenty miles from Dublin persons can come down from Dublin by car and shoot your game in the early hours of Sunday and then go back to Dublin having destroyed your shooting for the year. That is quite possible. It is a strong argument that Sunday shooting should be stopped.

On the other hand, if a person pays a £2 licence and has the right to shoot over his own land, I do not think his rights should be interfered with. If a person owns land and has brought himself within the law by paying for his shooting rights over the land, I do not think it right to interfere with the liberty of that person, and certainly I would oppose any amendment which would make Sunday, or any part of Sunday, a close day for shooting. There is another question, and that is the question of green plover. Green plover, from the sportman's or the shooting man's point of view, is a negligible bird. Nobody gets very much pleasure out of shooting green plover. It is only if one happens to go over your head that you shoot him, but green plover may be very valuable birds, from the farmer's point of view. Green plover is very necessary for the check of fluke both in sheep and cattle. I need not go through the life history of the little insect that creates fluke, but at one stage of his career it is necessary for him to inhabit the water snail, and these water snails are eaten by the dozen by green plover. In that way, green plover are a great preventative of fluke in sheep and cattle. It is generally recognised that they have been reduced extraordinarily in numbers. In some countries shooting them at all is prohibited. I think that although one or two persons may make an income by trapping them, or other persons may make an income by collecting and selling the eggs, they are birds which, in the interests of the whole community, should be preserved and not exterminated.

I come now to a very argumentative question, so to speak—the question of the close season for hares. It appears from what has been said here that the coursing men are of the opinion that the ideal close season for hares should commence on 1st March, or from the 1st March to the 17th or 18th March. On the other hand, the hunting men are of the opinion that the close season should not begin until 1st April.

Mr. Gorey

That is not so, for several reasons. The spring operations are carried on in the month of April.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I wish the Deputy would allow me to speak.

That is the view of the hunting men. As a matter of fact, I have had a communication from the master of a very well-known pack of harriers saying that if the March hunting was done away with he would give up hunting with his harriers altogether in this country. I never was very much of a hunting man and, in fact, I have not been on a horse's back for over twenty years; but I know that as far as harrier hunting is concerned, the real season for hunting with the harriers is in the month of March. Hares are better for hunting with harriers in the month of March than at any other period of the year.

Mr. Corry

Is that because they are heavy in young?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The explanation is that the jack-hare in March wanders very far afield; when he is hunted, he goes home in a straight line, and the result is that he gives a long straight run to the hounds. On the other hand, a hare roused from the form in a country which he knows very well will go circling round and round and he never leaves his own area. The month of March is the one month in which the hare does leave his own area and travels far afield, and when he is hunted he gives a straight run home. That is the reason why I have always heard from hunting men that the hunting of a jack-hare in March is the best form of harrier hunting.

Mr. Gorey

Where have they a hunt in the month of March?

Mr. Carney

How are they going to differentiate between the two types of hares? They may get a good run at a jack-hare, but how are they to know whether or not it is a jack-hare that they are hunting?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

That is a very excellent point, but you see that the jack-hare is much more lively and much more on the move than the other type of hare.

Mr. Corry

You have to catch your hare first.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The hares killed by harriers are very few in number. The ordinary pack of harriers will hunt two days in the week. How many hares will they kill in the season? I think it might possibly meet the views of the House if the close season for hares began on the 17th March, allowing that they might be hunted with harriers until 1st April.

Mr. Gorey

In what county does the close season not operate until 1st of April, even for harriers?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

In what counties did the season close before that period?

Mr. Gorey

In any county in Ireland, and I will challenge the Minister on that point.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I will take up the challenge, and I will give the Deputy the particulars.

Mr. Gorey

We had to go to the County Councils to get the close season extended. We had to go specially to them, and the same applied to every county in Ireland.

Mr. Corry

The same thing happened in Cork.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Are there any harriers in Cork?

Mr. Corry

There are.

Mr. Gorey

There are a lot of queer things in Cork.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I have gone through the main points of this Bill. There are just a few points which have been mentioned, and I will deal very shortly with them, because most of them are Committee points. Deputy Derrig talked about persons having a right to destroy ground game on their own holdings. He said that was recommended by a Committee in England. Of course it was recommended by a Committee, and it was followed by the Ground Game Act, under which the occupier can destroy hares and rabbits on his own land. Except in so far as the hares will be protected in certain areas by this Bill, a man can still destroy hares on his own land.

Deputy O'Mahony thought it would be better for the Minister to give permits in cases in which they could be granted. That would be hardly feasible because there may be a considerable number of permits wanted and the Minister would not know the particular needs of the county. He could only act on the advice of the Guards. It would take a great deal of time before the permit would be issued. I think the superintendent would be the proper person to give the permit and he might be trusted to act fairly in the matter. The spirit in which the Act will be administered is that the Guards will be told that a person shall not have the right in prohibited areas to shoot game unless he can show a reasonable prima facie case.

It is necessary to shoot old cock grouse, but it is highly advisable to shoot cock pheasants. Everybody knows that the grouse is monogamous and the pheasant is polygamous. You must have one cock grouse for every hen grouse and, on the other hand, the allowance is one cock pheasant to twenty hen pheasants. Therefore, you must keep the number of cock pheasants down. That is a thing that would have to be considered in places where there are large shoots and where there are great numbers of pheasants. Deputy O'Mahony has pointed out that if a person rears a great number of pheasants or grouse and has a fully-stocked shooting, it would be necessary to shoot down those birds and it would be right and proper that he should get permission to shoot them, first, in the interests of game preservation and, secondly, because he might have gone to a great deal of expense and he would be able to get something back on the sale and exportation of game birds. I cannot agree with Deputy O'Reilly that Ireland never can be made a grouse country. I think the very opposite is the case. I think grouse is just the very class of game to which Ireland is suited. I hope in a few years we will find game flourishing in Ireland, and producing a very considerable amount of revenue for this country.

Question: " That the Bill be now read a Second Time," agreed to. Committee Stage fixed for Thursday, 30th May.