Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jan 1947

Vol. 104 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Protection of Game—Motion.

Mr. Halliden

I beg to move the following motion, which has been on the Order Paper for a very considerable time:—

That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that an adequate sum of money should be made available by the Government for the protection of all kinds of game as well as for the destruction of vermin inimical to such game and for the preservation and conditioning of mountain ranges; and Dáil Eireann is further of opinion that said sum should be derivable from the revenue accruing annually from the collection of £2 game licences the whole amount of which is at present retained in the Exchequer.

The object of this motion is to focus the attention of the Government on the wonderful potentialities of the natural game of this country if they are allowed to develop in a normal way and if they are preserved as we wish to see them preserved. Our climate is admirably suited to such game; our mountains, hills, valleys and dales are very congenial for the production of game. In spite of all that, we find that this great national asset is practically lost to us. It is particularly important that the Government should take cognisance of this motion for the preservation and development of game at a time when we are trying to induce tourists to visit the country. We have every natural facility; we have our country well stocked with game, but there seems to be no unified, systematic, regular system of game preservation. Game can be made a great source of revenue for our people and, if properly developed, it could become a great attraction for tourists.

The motion asks that portion of the money accruing from game licences should be utilised to propagate and preserve game as well as for the destruction of vermin and the improvement of our mountain ranges and other places where game resorts. In Scotland, Switzerland and elsewhere game are being carefully preserved and they have become a great national asset. At the present time, from the various licences paid by sportsmen, the Treasury obtains practically £40,000 every year, made up as follows: £2 firearm certificates issued by the Gárda Síochána, £21,518; 5/- licences, something like £16,000; £2 firearm certificates issued by the Minister of Justice to tourists, £346; registration fees for firearm dealers, £603, and £3 game dealers' licences up to 31st December, 1945, the last figures available, £300, making a total of about £40,000. All that money goes into the Treasury.

The motion asks the Government to devote some of the money for the preservation of game throughout the country. There is a precedent for our request. We find that the Fisheries Board, which obtains a great deal of money in licences, devotes about one-third of its income to the preservation of fisheries. In making this demand I believe there is a consensus of public opinion at our backs. We find that through lack of destruction of vermin a very potential source of revenue, apart from the aspect of sport and pleasure, has been denied our people. I am sure that the Minister for Justice, who has a sense of fair play and equity, will accede to our request and place at the disposal of some recognised national game protection association a sum of money which will help in preserving our game. I need not stress this matter very much because I am sure every Deputy realises the great possibilities that exist if we properly preserve our game.

Mr. Anthony

This motion is divided into two parts. The first portion asks that an adequate sum of money should be made available by the Government for the protection of all kinds of game, and the second portion sets out that that sum should be derivable from the revenue accruing annually from the collection of £2 game licences, the whole amount of which is at present retained in the Exchequer. The mover of the motion, Deputy Bennett and I decided early on that if there was any important Government business to be transacted we would be prepared to allow our motion to stand over and to go down to the bottom of the Order Paper. As Deputies see, it has taken almost 12 months to reach this motion and I calculated it would take another 12 months before we could get another opportunity of discussing it. We decided, therefore, we should be as brief as possible in our remarks on the facts of the case.

The motion needs no embellishment whatsoever. It should be obvious to everybody who follows sport in this country that stocks of game have been decreasing year after year but particularly within the last half dozen years. Deputy Halliden speaks with authority because he knows as well as I do that sportsmen, particularly shooting men, have been going to the part of the country in which Deputy Halliden teaches and have been shooting over that area for a number of years, going back about 20 years. They have noticed that within the last six or seven years, particularly since the emergency, because of the attractive prices offered for game at the other side of the Channel, the stocks of birds have been going down with tremendous rapidity. That is due to two causes. The primary cause I believe has been the increasing numbers of hooded crows and other vermin in this country. When these attractive prices were offered in England, those who went out to trap or shoot these vermin turned their guns to other uses. Poaching, therefore, has been on the increase.

Those of us who have taken any interest at all in game preservation know that, notwithstanding all we have done in the way of restocking at our own expense, game has become scarcer and scarcer. I am sure that Deputy Halliden will bear me out in the statement that in the part of the country from which he comes, it was a common thing over a dozen years ago to come across packs of grouse of anything from eight to ten or 12 birds, whilst for the past few seasons the greatest number of birds seen together was about four. They were to be found in threes, in twos, and in ones. It was a common thing some ten years ago or more to see packs of 12 to 14 birds in that area. Repeated efforts were made to stop poaching and to prevent the illicit taking of game, but poaching and the taking of game by all sorts of devices have been on the increase, with the result that game is almost decimated, not alone in that area but in other parts of Munster. The causes I have referred to already — the attractive prices offered for birds of all kinds, and poaching.

To be constructive, I would seriously suggest that, just as there are members of the Gárda Síochána who act as weights and measures inspectors and in other capacities, it would tend to decrease the number of poachers if in some of these game areas there were at least one or two members of the Gárda Síochána conversant with game and who know something about the preservation of game. The very fact of having such members of the Gárda in some of these barracks would act as a considerable deterrent to poachers in general. It may be said that I am advocating an increase in the Vote for the Gárda Síochána but I do not see that it would mean any great increase in the Vote, to arrange that certain members of the Gárda should extend their activities in this direction.

The Gárdaí have been very helpful in these cases already. I pay them this tribute, that in various parts of the country over which I have been — and I have been over most parts of Munster and elsewhere — they have been most helpful and have gone out of their way to prevent poaching in various districts. The very fact that one man would be specially allocated for that purpose would have a great effect. I know that it would be a physical impossibility for any guard or even a dozen guards to cover some of the mountains we want protected and to catch poachers because we know that some of these poachers are very wily and are not easily captured. We have the feeling nevertheless that the Government should do something in consideration of the fact that they get £40,000 per annum out of our pockets and that we get no return for that. Many voluntary associations have been established. I can speak with some authority for at least one of them and I have been a member of two or three. I can speak for the Munster Game Protection and Restocking Association. It is heartbreaking, after calling on members for a couple of pounds per head to restock those places, to see these birds being exported across Channel where prices are so attractive.

I would appeal to the Minister to look into the matter. I know that he is very considerate and always reacts in some way if any decent suggestion is put up to him. I suggest that he might see his way to detail even one member of the Gárda Síochána in each of these areas to attend to the prevention of poaching. We know that ordinarily that would be one of the primary duties of the Gárda but if one guard were specially detailed for that job for certain seasons of the year, it would go a long way towards satisfying the demands of the mover of the motion.

As I said at the outset, we were taken quite unawares this afternoon when we were told that this motion was coming on to-night. We felt that there were other matters of more urgent importance calling for more immediate attention. I had prepared certain figures relating to game in parts of Munster but I have not them with me as I did not think the motion would come up for discussion to-day. In the circumstances I felt that we should be very brief as the matter is not one of great national importance. I felt, however, that I should avail of this opportunity to make the suggestion relative to the Gárda Síochána to the Minister in the hope that he would do something which, I believe, will act as a deterrent to the poaching that has been going on for so long.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Anthony has been somewhat moderate in his remarks on this motion as I consider that this is a matter of real national importance. I raised the matter here so far back as 17 or 18 years ago and I have referred to it incidentally several times since. We have in this country mountain ranges and various bog plots which as game preserves could be made a very valuable asset. In Scotland which is not very much better equipped by nature than this country the game on the mountains brings in a great national revenue and is one of the attractions of the country. It leads to the spending of a great deal of money in the country. Game farming might be spoken of as a science and it could be as great an asset in this country as in Scotland. There was a time in this country when game was preserved to a certain extent, by the landlords. After the landlords were bought out or kicked out, the preservation of game ceased. The individual farmer had a small tract which was not worth preserving, and, anyhow, he could not preserve it.

The Land Commission, the natural successors of the old landlords, fell down on the job. In many cases, they retained the game rights. The game rights were retained in the original Acts and the Land Commission fell down on the job. Tracts of mountain full of game were handed over to them by the old landlords, and, if they had continued to preserve them as they ought to have been preserved, they might have become a national asset; but the Land Commission, which ought to have been the custodian of the nation's rights, as I say, fell down on the job, and all these beautiful tracts of mountain which at one time were stocked with various kinds of game, mostly grouse, and which attracted many visitors to the country, have been allowed to run riot. The individual farmer who came into occupation of the land was unable to preserve it. He had no interest in preserving it because the amount of game on one individual's farm was insignificant. Groups of farmers, however, could preserve, although they could not put the amount of money into it that the old landlords originally put in.

There has lately been a tendency, I am glad to say, for farmers to group themselves in preservation societies to do a share of the work. They have very little funds at their command, but they are attempting to do the work which the Land Commission might have done at certain stages during the past 25 years. I have said that the preservation of this mountain game is a science which requires capital and expenditure.

There is a rotation system, something akin to the rotation of land on agricultural farms. Grouse mountain properly preserved would have four degrees of heather such as there is in Scotland with which I am very familiar. There would be one plot with one year's growth, another plot with two years' growth and other plots with three and four years' growth, and the old heather which is useless for game would eventually be burned. You cannot burn a mountain indiscriminately as was done by careless people around Dublin who burned both the heather and the game through carelessness.

Game preservation is a science and it requires money, and, as Deputy Anthony has said, the efforts of people who have formed themselves into groups and have expended some money by putting in stock have to a great extent been nullified by poachers. We have, unfortunately, in this country, as in other countries, men who will take advantage of other people's efforts and it is an expensive matter to put them down and one in which the Government should help. We ask in this motion that the money which is got from game licences be returned to game, as is done in the case of fisheries. The least the Government could do is to hand over to the different preservation societies the amount received in game licences. It will not suffice altogether to do the work. It would not be sufficient for proper preservation and for putting the mountains in proper order, but it would at least provide a gamekeeper in every district and prevent poaching. I hope that in the near future they will get on with the job of putting the game ranges in proper order.

This is a matter which does not require a long speech in support of it. The facts can be mentioned on three fingers. We have in the country a national asset if we desire to use it— probably as great an asset as there is in most countries of our size. We have the mountains, richer in the matter of growth than in most countries. They are natural beds for game if they are preserved, but the heather has grown out of control and the game have been allowed to be shot —they may be trapped, for all I know —and foxes and vermin have been allowed to kill them without check. This all requires a combined effort by the people concerned because individuals alone cannot deal with it. There must be some help from the Government who ought to have an interest in the matter, apart from the sporting interest which some of us have in it. They ought to realise that it could be made a real national asset if it were properly developed as in Scotland, which would attract tourists and bring money into the country.

We merely ask that the Government help us in the matter by handing over the money collected from the game licences. We do not suggest that other moneys might not be given as well, but, in natural justice, we are entitled to the moneys got from game which can then be put back into game. The Minister is not responsible for the Land Commission, but I ask him to suggest to the Land Commission that, instead of advertising the ranges they have in their hands for anybody to take —and nobody will take a mountain which has been allowed to run riot— they should try to maintain them in the condition in which they got them.

If that were done, they could get a good rent for them from individuals or groups of individuals. Many years ago, it was quite common for eight or nine people to take a mountain for £15 or £20, even though it was not well stocked. Now we would not give 5/- for the same mountain because the Land Commission have allowed these mountains to run riot. I suggest that the Minister should listen to our appeal and provide us with this money, and have it conveyed to the Land Commission that they might give some assistance in the matter of preservation and putting the mountains into proper condition for the breeding of game.

Mr. Moran

While I have a certain amount of sympathy with the objects of the motion I think it is misconceived, and if the Deputies moving it considered the matter further they possibly would have taken a different line of action in order to achieve the object they have in view. Deputy Anthony's grouse appears to be that game is scarce down in his area whereas his game here appears to be that grouse are scarce in County Cork. Deputy Anthony being a sporting man, knows that outside the scald-crow and other vermin responsible for some of the ravages on game the greatest danger is the man with the 5/- licence. He will shoot birds in season and out of season and at every opportunity he gets. Deputy Anthony and other Deputies who have been connected with sporting clubs or gun clubs throughout the country will know that in the remote mountainous areas the man with the 5/- licence when he has the cartridges which entitles him to operate only on his own land gets his regular share of the grouse or any other game over the whole neighbourhood. There is no law that will stop that.

You have laws dealing with that matter. You have various statutes dealing with the burning of mountains and the shooting of game out of season and so on. But, no matter how many laws you pass, you will not cure this evil unless and until you turn your local poacher into a gamekeeper. The gun clubs throughout the country have always found that the most effective remedy. The most effective way in which to cope with the situation would be by giving the people a right to their own game. In most areas there are tenants who do not even know who does own the game. In many areas there are tenants owning tracts of mountain but with no right to the game thereon. In many cases the game rights are leased by the Land Commission in the same way as the fishery rights are leased at present. The result is that there is a kind of tradition which has grown up with the people to poach game and I think it is very difficult to eradicate that tradition in those people. The only way in which it might be done would be by giving the tenants a right to the game on their own lands. If they wished they could themselves lease those rights and thereby learn that there is some profit to be made out of them and some financial benefit to be derived therefrom.

In the past we have proved by our own experience in the West that the best method of coping with poaching is by appointing the most notorious poacher in the district as a gamekeeper. He knows all the tricks of the trade. He knows where the birds are and he knows his terrain intimately. We have a pretty strong game club in my area. Every member pays a subscription and is thereby entitled to shoot over the lands leased by the club. It is a very democratic body and is open to all classes. We would be well content to carry out restocking and pay our own keepers, as we do at the present time. One of our great difficulties is that in and out through the areas over which we shoot there are tracts of land let to other people by the Land Commission. In our club we call them "no man's land". In some places we are allowed to shoot over these tracts but in other places we are forbidden. That is a difficulty we have experienced time and time again because the areas are not defined. Naturally we can take no responsibility for these tracts and game can be poached on them and perhaps on our own areas also. I think it is on that side that the principal difficulty lies and that is the inherent weak-of the present system.

In some counties the county committees of agriculture have schemes in operation to deal with vermin. Bounties are paid on foxes and so forth. Possibly, through pressure of public opinion and local agitation, those schemes could be extended to other pests. I believe that no matter what law is passed you cannot effectively deal with poachers unless you educate public opinion against them and unless the people co-operate with you.

The same difficulty exists with your fisheries. We passed a recent fishery Bill in this House. Notwithstanding the very serious penalties laid down under that measure and notwithstanding the stringent enforcement of that measure there are still quite a number of fishery prosecutions. In that case the penalties have proved no detriment to the poachers. Until such time as a riparian owner is given the right to his own fish you will not cure the existing malady. You cannot achieve your object by laying down severe penalties or bringing in new legislation. You must first educate the man in the street and show him that there is some financial profit to be gained. I would suggest that the best way to tackle this whole problem would be by getting the Minister for Lands to consider the serious difficulties arising throughout the country as to the ownership of the different mountains and bogs. If that position were clarified the local gun and game clubs would be in a better position to preserve the game and to restock.

Mr. Killilea

I am not one of those in entire agreement with Deputy Moran with regard to the poachers. That has not been my experience in my part of the country. I think this is a matter for the Minister for Finance and not for the Minister for Justice. The gun clubs have a limited amount of funds at their disposal and I think the matter could best be dealt with by getting some financial help from the Minister for Finance. Any money spent for such a purpose would amply repay itself. I have done a fair amount of vermin destruction myself. I have reared pheasants, which is no easy matter at any time. The best method of restocking is by the destruction of vermin. If the vermin are destroyed then automatically a natural increase in game will take place.

Passing along the country at any time you see nothing but scarecrows all over the place. The country is riddled with vermin. Some people are making a more or less individual effort to get rid of them. But if this proposal had been put to the Minister for Finance and not to the Minister for Justice I think we would find ourselves now in a stronger position.

We have at the moment fisheries coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Fisheries and game should be under the one Department and the one Minister should be responsible for them. I raised this matter on a previous occasion with the Minister for Justice and he took it up with the Minister for Finance; but what happens generally is, it is shuffled back again to the Minister for Justice. I think the only effective method is to get the Government to place full responsibility for this whole problem on a particular Minister and let him see what can be done. There is enormous room for improvement. There are people all over the country more than anxious to start gun clubs and do a tremendous amount of work for the preservation of game if only they were given some slight encouragement.

In Galway, years ago, there was an organisation for the destruction of vermin. They were operating fairly well until cartridges became scarce and then, of course, they faded out of existence and other types of organisations are taking their place.

The Minister would be well advised to put up to the Government the question of fixing responsibility for this work on some particular Minister and, if that is done, the fears that Deputy Moran has in regard to the 5/- licence can be dissipated. I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Anthony that the matter should be put in the hands of the Gárda. Other ways and means must be found. It is a question that should be discussed by the Government with a view to finding the best method. An entirely new system will have to be worked out. If we were to get together to discuss the type of gamekeeper that should be appointed it is doubtful if we would get agreement.

I suggest that persons getting a 5/- licence should be compelled to hand in the heads of half a dozen scald-crows, a couple of magpies and one or two hawks. That would more than compensate for the amount of destruction. All the destruction he would do with a gun, a scald-crow would do in half an hour. If a man can destroy six or eight scald-crows, he is entitled to benefits. Some system like that would be desirable. I submit that this matter is addressed to the wrong Minister but I would ask the Minister here present to put the question to the Government. This is as important an industry as the fishing industry and the same amount of attention should be paid to it and responsibility for it should be fixed on some particular Government Department.

Captain Giles

I am in thorough agreement with this motion in connection with game. As far as County Meath is concerned, I should like the Minister to do what has been done in County Cork, that is, to prohibit the sale of hen pheasants. At present the hen pheasants are being completely eliminated. In County Meath there were large areas of land that were very well preserved and well stocked with game of all types. That day is gone. The land has been divided and the game has been exterminated. I would ask that something should be done for the preservation of the hen pheasant in the Midlands.

There are four causes for the scarcity of game. The first is vermin. The scald-crow, the magpie and the fox are practically living on game. The poisoning of seed has done an enormous amount of harm. We should strictly prohibit the poisoning of seed by any farmer. There has been some talk about the 5/- licence. The amount of game a holder of such a licence gets is very little and if he is found shooting outside his own farm he may be summoned. I do not think he does as much harm as people think. Something will have to be done if we are to preserve the game of this country. The Minister can do a good deal by prohibiting the poisoning of any type of bird and prohibiting the sale of hen pheasants, at least for three or four years until restocking has taken place. That would help a good deal in preserving any game that is left. I would ask the Minister to say that in County Meath hen pheasants will be safeguarded for at least three years.

Mr. Carter

I am interested in the National Game Protection and Gun Dog Federation. The association have about 11,000 holders of game certificates who contribute £22,000 for licences. We are asking the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to us. For some time game has been in a bad way. We have 62,000 holders of limited certificates and they regard themselves as free to shoot over the country. If the Minister is prepared to give sympathetic consideration to our claims we are prepared to accept whatever he says. We ask, on behalf of the Game Preservation Association, that the Minister will help us in every way he can.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.