asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of the report of the wildlife inspector who monitored the coursing meeting at Listowel, County Kerry, on 14 and 15 November 1987; the number of hares killed; his views on whether this is a satisfactory situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Listowel (Kerry) Coursing Meeting.
4.
The hare coursing meeting at Listowel on 14 and 15 November 1987 was attended by a wildlife ranger on 14 November. Twenty hares were killed on that day. The ranger's report confirmed that there were no breaches of the provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1976.
Given the assurances that were received in this House that an official of the Forestry and Wildlife section will attend and monitor all coursing meeting, may I ask why none was in attendance on 15 November? The Minister said there was one in attendance on 14 November. Secondly, what is the Minister's view on an acceptable average of hares killed at coursing meetings? Is he aware that the Irish Coursing Club stated that the average is four hares? In view of the unacceptably high number of hares killed at this meeting, can the Minister state what action can be taken when this occurs?
First, the wildlife ranger attended on the entire first day of the coursing meeting. He was satisfied with the arrangements that were being made and that there were no breaches of the Wildlife Act, 1976. As far as I know, that Act ensures that a report must be given to the wildlife section on the coursing meeting. As regards acceptable averages of hares killed, I do not think that there is any acceptable average, but one would have to take into account that the Listowel coursing meeting is one of the largest in the country. Consequently, the number of hares to be killed on any day at such a big meeting would be greater.
How can an officer of the wildlife section monitor a coursing meeting if he only attends the first day of that meeting? Is that the practice all the time? Is it not normal to attend for the full duration of the meeting, if one is to monitor all meetings?
In order for State officers to give a proper report and to observe in the most positive way possible and get the maximum information, they use various systems. Sometimes they come on the first day of a meeting; sometimes midway through the meeting, and sometimes on the last day. This is normally the practice. The wildlife ranger on this occasion came on the first day of the meeting and was satisfied that the proper regulations and requirements were being adhered to. Consequently, he filed his report to this effect.
Arising out of the Minister's reply and previous replies given in this House, are any changes envisaged in relation to the attendance of wildlife rangers at future coursing meetings? Specifically, how can the abuse, for example, of rerunning hares be examined unless an entire coursing meeting is attended? Is it the Minister's intention to instruct his officials to attend meetings in their entirety without prior warning to those involved?
The information available to me is that there is a large hare population in this State at this time. Consequently, the necessity to re-run hares is not very great. It would be hoped that a wildlife ranger would attend almost every meeting if possible and that adequate reports would be forwarded. If the Deputy or, indeed, any other person has any complaints regarding actions that occur at any of these coursing meetings, I and my Department will be only too delighted to have them investigated thoroughly.
I have a submission to the effect that hares are, in fact, in a very poor condition when being coursed and that there is not any adequate provision there to ensure that they have been properly treated since capture and before they are coursed. Has the wildlife ranger any function in finding out the circumstances in which they were kept prior to being coursed, the length of time they have been kept in those conditions and the effect of those conditions on them? I put it to the Minister that if there is a very high rate of kill it can only be indicative either of poor treatment of the hares prior to being coursed or of their being rerun, as Deputy Higgins has suggested. There cannot be any other explanation.
A bad slipper.
I am not aware of maltreatment of hares prior to coursing meetings. From my own knowledge of the situation, I know that in the west hares are well treated before any coursing takes place.
That is the biggest understatement of the year.
If the Deputy has any information that he can put forward——
They are well treated on the morning of their slaughter.
——which clearly illustrates what he is saying and gives an opportunity to examine malpractice or maltreatment of hares prior to any coursing meeting, I should be only too delighted to have it fully investigated.
How would the Minister of State like to be chased around a field by a few teachers?
In 25 minutes we have dealt with three questions only.
I appreciate that, but I want to put to the Minister——
If anybody wants to pursue me, Deputy Desmond, I shall not run away.
The Minister of State would be running like hell away from them because they would slaughter him.
Is it not the duty of the wildlife rangers to investigate the circumstances of the hares' captivity? Without that investigation, how can anybody give the Minister a report? Somebody must be there checking, from an objective, independent point of view, whether or not the hares are being properly treated. I suggest that if the Minister is not willing to check that, he should now end the whole business of coursing hares. It is cruel and he is not providing any safeguard to stop that cruelty.
Some of the rangers actually catch the hares for the coursing.
I am satisfied with the vigilance of the wildlife rangers and with the observation and investigation they do before, during and after coursing meetings. If the Deputy has evidence that he can bring forward to us suggesting that maltreatment has taken place, I will have that investigated. There is no point in making allegations in this House unless one brings forward the evidence to allow the officers of the State to investigate any given situation to see whether what has been alleged did or did not happen.
I call Question No. 5.
A Cheann Comhairle, I have a final supplementary question, as it was my question.
I appreciate that, Deputy, but you were very silent for some minutes past. I shall allow a very final and brief supplementary question. The Deputy will appreciate that I have given a lot of latitude here.
In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that he is looking for evidence, would he ensure that a wildlife officer will attend the entirety of coursing meetings?
We have had that before.
Is the Minister aware that, towards the end of the coursing meeting in Listowel, by which time the wildlife officer was not present, a public announcement was made stating that the last five hares to be used would be good quality hares, the presumption being that the earlier hares used were sick, or whatever, and were not of good quality? Is that not, in itself, evidence that the Minister should be obliged to investigate and take action upon?
I want to assure the Deputy that I would not condone that kind of action. One would have to be dubious of the motives behind a statement like that. I want to assure the House that, given the resources available to me, I shall do my utmost to ensure that a wildlife ranger attends all coursing meetings.