Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1929

Vol. 13 No. 5

Game Preservation Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Question proposed: That this Bill be read a second time.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

This is a Bill to make better provision for the preservation of game. I do not think that I need take up the time of the House in stating the great economic advantage it would be to this country if that undeveloped asset of ours, the possibility of making this a great shooting country, could be carried out. No doubt it would bring a very large number of wealthy persons to this country. The farmers to whom the ownership of their lands has now passed, would find that in the game upon their lands they had an asset which might be availed of in the way of considerably increasing their means. This Bill enlarges the number of birds which hitherto have been known as game birds. Up to this the only game birds practically were pheasants, grouse and partridge. Under this Bill, the following are now made game birds: pheasant, partridge, grouse, quail, landrail, plover, snipe, and woodcock and also mallard, teal, widgeon, and other species of wild duck, brent goose, barnacle goose, or other species of wild goose. The Bill also settles the close season for game. Senators will notice that the first period of the year on which there can now be any shooting is the 12th August. Up to this, you could shoot duck in part of the country as well as snipe, plover, teal and widgeon on the 1st August. That date has now been moved back to the 12th August. That is to prevent people going out, ostensibly let us say, to shoot wild duck when, in fact, they were going out to shoot grouse before the opening of the grouse season.

The first Schedule to the Bill gives the dates with regard to the close season for the various classes of game. Power is also given to the Minister for Justice for the time being to declare that for a period of the year, which can be extended, no game of a particular class shall, except on licence, be shot in a particular area. The object of that is to allow game that are natural in this country, or which may be artificially reared or imported into the country either by game preservation societies or by private individuals, to increase and multiply. On the other hand, there must be a provision that certain classes of persons should be authorised to shoot certain kinds of game, because it is a well known fact that you must have only a limited number of cock pheasants in proportion to hen pheasants. It is very well known also that old grouse are deadly enemies of young grouse and that they go around exterminating them. Therefore, if the Act were not to defeat its own object it is necessary to give persons leave to shoot unnecessary cock pheasants and unnecessary old grouse.

Hares are also protected under this Bill. Certain coursing societies are recognised for the purpose of carrying out coursing under the authorised rules of coursing. These societies are getting special powers under the Bill for the trapping of hares. Otherwise the trapping and destruction of hares is not allowed. It is also made illegal to kill any game birds at night except duck and wild geese. Game birds can only be netted or trapped for the purpose of restocking. Certain powers are given to recognised game protection associations. It is our hope that game protection associations will spring up all over the country, because it is only by co-operation amongst the small land owners that one can reasonably expect to see the game in this country developed.

The second part of the Bill deals with the sale of game. It provides that game can only be sold to a licensed game dealer except where a person who holds a proper certificate has shot game upon his own land or where his friends or guests have done so. The game dealer must keep a book which is open for inspection by the Gárda Síochána. That book must set out every transaction which he carries out. It is hoped in that way that the operations of the professional poacher, that is the man who lives by shooting game on other people's land and selling it—a man who is a very dangerous enemy as regards the development of game in this country—will be very much checked. There are also provisions in the Act which deal with a question which is a rather vexed question, because there is very great doubt as to what is the correct season for the burning of gorse and heather. Finally, after a great deal of consideration and debate and having heard the views of a great many members of the Dáil, and the views of many people outside interested in this matter, the dates were fixed under Section 28 as between the 1st April and the 14th July. The penalties for trespassing in pursuit of game have also been extended. Up to this, if a person came in on your land with a gun and dog and was found there, that was not even proof that he was in there for the purpose of trespassing in pursuit of game. He could always say that he was not on the land for the purpose of shooting game—that he was there to shoot rabbits or something of that kind. No matter what he is in pursuit of now, whether rabbits, plover or any other creatures, if a man with a gun and dog is found on land, there will be a prima facie presumption that he was there for the purpose of shooting game. These, I think, are the main provisions of the Bill. I have put them as concisely as I could, and I now commend the Bill to the best consideration of the House.

Earl of Granard

As Vice-Chairman of the Irish Game Protection Society, I think it is only right that I should for a few moments intervene in the debate to say how pleased the Society is that this Bill has been introduced. The Minister has been very sympathetic towards the different suggestions submitted to him by our Society, and I think the Irish Coursing Club and the masters of harriers have had the same experience. The Minister referred to the great asset we have in game in this country. I think 100 years ago the North of Scotland was derelict. It had a poor population and very little game. Scotsmen, unlike us who live mostly in the past, live in the present and make a good thing out of it. They attract people to the country for the purpose of shooting. I am told that nearly £2,000,000 goes into Scotland every year through sporting tenants from America and elsewhere. This means that a great number of people are able to live in comfort in the northern part of Scotland, where previously they were in very poor circumstances. There is no doubt that this is one of the best sporting countries in the world. We have the best fishing and hunting, and there is no reason why in a short time we should not have as good shooting as well. There are large areas all over the West which would require preserving.

There are various points in this Bill which, I think, are very useful, and especially the one with regard to the export of game. When in London I talked to big game dealers in Leadenhall market. They told me that most of the grouse that came to London before the 12th August came from Northern Ireland and the Free State. Under this Bill that will be stopped, for no one can export game except under licence. Another point, which I think is a good one, is the power given to the Minister to schedule certain areas in which game cannot be killed. He rightly referred to the cock grouse. Cock grouse on the moors is really as bad as an old bachelor, and the sooner he is got out of the way the better. I do not think the provision with regard to restocking is a very safe one, for, as the Minister pointed out, if I or anybody wanted to catch pheasants for the purpose of rearing them we would not be able to do so except there was some provision such as there is in this Bill. I think the main provisions of the Bill are good. With regard to the close season for snipe, I should prefer it extended to 1st October. I gather that sportsmen who live on the eastern side of Ireland say the snipe that breed in the east would be shot by the shooters in the west. I hope the Bill will pass through this House and that before the 1st May it will become law.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I wish to join with Senator the Earl of Granard in supporting this Bill. It is an excellent measure to a certain point. While I do not want to be taken as criticising it in any way, I would like to make some remarks with a view to its improvement. I think there are many both inside and outside this House who realise that in the game question there is a wonderful opportunity for helping the farmers, who in many cases have game rights, and of also increasing the national income. The Minister has given very considerable thought to the problem. The Bill as it stands gives power to restrict the killing of game where necessary, and it provides that game can be sold only under licence. It gives power to restrict the shooting of certain species of game to limited periods, and during other periods it stops it. Speaking from experience of my part of the country, the west, I do not think the Bill will have the effect of increasing the head of game to anything like what is expected. As far as the Bill goes in its fairly limited purview, I think it makes provision for most contingencies, but it is coercive rather than constructive. It is, as the Minister said, on the organisation of the farmers that the success of the measure will largely depend, but I do not think that the Bill goes far enough towards getting the farmers to cooperate.

The Bill is based on what I might call two misconceptions. The first is that the head of game will multiply under the provisions of the Act, and, secondly, the Bill takes no account of the regular tribe of individuals who come out into the country in motor cars from the towns and who shoot simply for the joy of destruction, to whom the sale of game is of no object, and who care very little for the national interest. We had hoped that the measure would be considerably wider and that it would have contained some scheme for organising the farmers, and so indirectly provide them with a sideline which would go some considerable distance towards paying their rates. I raise this question on the Second Reading for I am afraid that pressure of other business may mean that it will be shelved, that the golden opportunity of increasing our national income may be put aside for a very considerable time, and that in the meantime the farmers who should be helped will suffer. Farming and fishing, since the Free State came into being, have been helped in every possible way by subsidies, propaganda and educational legislation, and as a result have been growing in strength day by day, and particularly the fishing industry, which is most closely allied to game preservation.

The income from the sale of salmon and trout comes to £270,000 approximately per annum, and also the State gets a contribution from the licences as well as money from the fishery rights. Every penny of that is spent on the fishing industry. It amounts to £38,000. That money is utilised towards increasing the fishing population by artificial means. If you come to the game industry there is quite a different outlook. In the last 20 years partridge has been practically exterminated, and also the pheasant very nearly so, except on private preserves. Licences are being issued wholesale. I do not know if the House is aware that in the Free State there are 14,000 £2 licences and 44,000 5/- licences. That amounts to £39,000, which goes straight into the National Exchequer and is utilised for other services. Only 684 of these were issued last year to visitors from overseas. We can assume that one-third of these were taken by people who came to stay with their friends. That is an extraordinarily small number. With regard to the figures given by Senator the Earl of Granard, arising from the pursuit and sale of game in Scotland, I think that what Scotland collects in that respect amounts annually to about £3,000,000. That makes me feel that the possibilities of taking this measure further should be seriously examined. Of course the circumstances in Scotland are somewhat different.

There are some other points to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. In France there is a very interesting system under the laws of 1884 and 1924. The whole of the control of sport, which includes the killing of game, is vested in the Department of Agriculture, and they have very strict laws which deal with a varied population. They make provision for all classes of small and larger holders, and are most impartial. There are three major points of importance. First, there is the fact that the operation of these laws is delegated to the Prefects of the Departments, which are very much like our counties, and to general consuls. These Prefects and general consuls have power to refuse or grant licences and to vary, with the permission of the Minister, the close season. They can make provision for re-stocking and for the systematic destruction of vermin. Secondly, there is an allocation of a certain proportion of the sums got from the sale of permits towards the purposes to which I have referred. Lastly, they have power to enlist and dispose of game wardens, who are a kind of special police for the purpose of game protection.

I made inquiries in France and I found that in most localities the farmers are organised. They let their lands to syndicates in the towns who collect the money, and they do extraordinarily well out of the arrangement. In the United States there is State game preservation and they have State game wardens. In the State of New York pheasant can be shot only on four days in the year. In Canada the whole country is looked after by a small number of game wardens who are extremely useful. I give these examples of what is done elsewhere because I want to convince the House that there is still room for improvement, and that it is a matter for serious consideration to see that this Bill will not be our final word, which I am afraid it will be, unless we give consideration to the matters I have mentioned. For many reasons, the farmer has been apathetic in the matter of game preservation. He has been even hostile, but I think the majority of the reasons that caused him to be apathetic have ceased to exist to some extent. In fact, in many places they have disappeared altogether. The farmer is better educated, and he realises more his own interest. I think he only requires initial help and encouragement to strike out a sideline which will benefit him, and that, in many parts of the country, will help him to solve his de-rating problem without assistance. I think if we follow the precedents which we have in recent legislation, such as, the Livestock Breeding Act, and other Acts of the kind, we would build up an organisation which would help the farmers on the right way. I suggest, if the Minister could see his way to it, that we should have a joint committee whose task would be to examine the question of further constructive legislation with the object of increasing the head of game in the country. I think such a committee might profitably examine the institution of a consultative council such as we have in connection with the Livestock Act, and such as has been introduced in connection with the National Monuments Bill. Afterwards there could be formed an association of county preservation boards like the Fishery Conservators. In my own district these have been extraordinarily successful. The boards I have suggested would have duties similar to that of the Conservators of Fisheries—the destruction of vermin and re-stocking. I think they might also consider the allocation of funds which they have derived from gun licences towards game preservation.

I think it is only reasonable to suggest that a certain proportion of the funds received from an industry should be returned to that industry. I know there will be a good many people who will say that the laws applicable to France and America are not applicable here, and that you cannot organise the farmers. I think in many cases they would be right, but everything must have a start. I think attempts at organisation will fail miserably in some places, but in others they will succeed. There are indications in Wicklow, and elsewhere, that the farmers are beginning to do this work of organisation on their own. I am not wedded to any of these suggestions I have made, but I hope the House will agree to give some further examination to this big problem so that some steps will be taken in the matter which may considerably increase our income. I hope the Minister will accept on the Committee Stage amendments to the Bill, and particularly as regards the formation of a consultative council, which I suggest should be made up of representative organisations in the country, and some members of both Houses, whose task it would be to inquire into what way we could increase our game, and incidentally help our farmers.

Mr. Bagwell

I rise to support the Bill. The shooting of game, as has been stated, is not the least important of the amenities of our country. I think that some improvement and modernisation of the law on the subject of game preservation is badly wanted. This Bill supplies what is wanted in that respect. Personally, I find it a sensible, moderate and well thought out measure, but I hold strongly that there are very great limits to what the law can do in this matter. That applies in a special degree to the preservation of game. Man is a natural hunter, and I hope he always will be so, but it follows that being a natural hunter the killing of game out of season or in season which belongs to somebody else, and which, in fact, is stealing, is not looked upon and never will be in much the same way as would be the removal of hens by a person from the domicile of another person. You will never get the same odium attached to the crime of poaching as to other crimes, for that reason the law will never be as effective as a deterrent as it would be in preventing other kinds of crime. In regard to certain game birds, I believe their continued existence will depend more than anything else upon private endeavour and private initiative. I do not believe the State can go beyond a certain point. I do not depreciate the great advantage of having the law better than it was in that respect.

I think the Bill does a great deal, and I welcome it, but we must not expect too much from it. In my opinion, game will never be in the Free State as great a national economic asset as it is in some other countries, such as Scotland. It may be made a greater economic asset than it is now, but it will never reach anything like the figures quoted, for the reason that we have not got here the same area of wild, unfertile mountains which are economically better utilised as sporting lands than anything else. Another thing is that we have not got as large a number of rich alien sportsmen visiting us who are willing to spend large sums on the shooting of game. I hope we will have more of them, and that they will bring money into the country. There are, however, certain difficulties in the way that do not exist in other countries. The most lucrative bird is the grouse. It is well known that the best birds are in the north of England and on the east side of Scotland, which has a hard, rigorous climate. In the west of Ireland you have a most climate and you have not such good grouse there. It does not seem possible to bring about the same head of game on Irish mountains, no matter how favourably situated. In this matter all the Oireachtas can do is to assist in putting matters right by law. I think the Bill does that, and, therefore, it will have some effect. With regard to the prohibition of the burning of gorse and heather within a certain period, hitherto the burning has been very detrimental, especially to mountain game. There must be some burning, because you cannot entirely eliminate it. This is an important economic factor. There is plenty of time left for the burning between the 1st April and 14th July.

It will be an exceedingly difficult thing to enforce. Anyone who knows mountain country knows what I mean. I hope it will be successful. Another proposal which struck me as an especially good one was that in Section 3 extending the close season for teal and widgeon to the 12th August, the same as for grouse. Many of these birds are too young to fly before that. It would not be sporting to shoot them, and it would be a very great waste. Hitherto the power to shoot them legally before the 12th August undoubtedly tended to bring about the shooting illegally of a great many grouse, because a man who is out shooting plover on a mountain about the 10th August, if grouse get up, he would be a remarkably better sportsman than a great many if he did not put them down.

In one respect the Bill has disappointed me. There is no mention of poison, but I shall have something to say about that in Committee, because poison is a very important factor in this question. Personally, having regard to the practical difficulties surrounding this question, that is the only disappointment I found in the Bill. It is a Bill of which I strongly approve, generally speaking, and I shall strongly support it.

Colonel Moore

I have nothing to say against this Bill, but, on the contrary, a good deal to say in its favour. I think Senator the Earl of Granard is the only one who has thrown discredit on the Bill. He told us about Scotland, about the millions of money that are spent there, how foolish the Irish people are, and how clever the Scottish are in regard to this matter. The Senator looks only at one side of it. Scotland was cleared of thousands and thousands of people in order that game might exist in the mountain and other districts. Of course the pasture on the mountains is of no use to anyone except for grazing sheep. In the west of Ireland the mountains are used for the grazing of sheep. I think the Irish people have been much wiser in not having allowed themselves to be put out of the country so that their place might be taken by deer and by wild birds. I think we are very fortunate that our people succeeded where the Scotch failed, and that they are not now in Canada and other countries. I have nothing to say against this Bill. On the contrary, I think it is a basis for the protection of birds. The Bill itself will not make such an enormous difference, because the people will shoot game. You cannot stop that. The only game I have ever seen protected properly was protected by the people on the land. Certain friends of mine took an area at a very small price and paid so much for every head of game that was shot to a certain person who lived on the spot. In that way the game was protected comparatively cheaply. Unless the people can join together, as Senator the McGilly cuddy pointed out, for their own interests, in order to protect the game for richer people who will pay for it, they will not go very far. I think it would be well if something of the kind were attempted to help to do that sort of thing. As far as partridge are concerned, they depend on tillage. When tillage decreases partridge decrease. Unless tillage is in a much better state than it is now there will not be many partridge. At present there are practically no partridge except in a few places where they are protected. Hares will be easily protected now. People are keen on sporting and greyhounds, and you will always be able to get those on the spot to help to protect hares, because they are always fond of coursing. I think we are all agreed that the Bill is valuable.

Mr. Linehan

As a representative of the occupiers of land I do not believe the Minister in any way consulted them when preparing this Bill. I would like to get information about points that do not appear to be clear. The occupiers of the land are the persons who support the game. It was on their land the game was fed, and there seems to be a kind of insinuation that they are more or less responsible for the diminution of the amount of game. In the first place it is well to see who are the legal owners of the game, because I presume this Bill will not in any way alter the existing ownership. According to a return issued by the Land Commission for the year ending the 31st March, 1928, there were 9,079 estates vested under the Acts of 1903 and 1909, and out of these estates in only 5,844 cases were the game rights vested in the purchasers. That is to say that in little more than half the estates the game rights are still in the hands of the head landlord, the landlord or the Land Commission. It may be taken that the estates that were not handed over to the purchasers were estates where the game rights were of some substantial value. I find by this return that in 118 estates the sporting rights were reserved to the head landlord; in 812 estates they were reserved to the vendors; in 51 estates to the purchasers and superior landlords or vendors jointly; in 197 estates partly to the purchasers, the superior landlord or vendors; in 83 estates to the vendor and superior landlord concurrently; in 15 partly to the vendor and the superior landlord; in 245 to the vendors for life and afterwards to the purchasers; in 26 partly to the purchasers and to the Land Commission; in 109 to the Land Commission and superior landlords or vendors; in 57 to the Land Commission and superior landlord, and in 902 to the Land Commission alone. That shows that in a very large area the sporting rights are not legally in the hands of the occupiers.

I find by Section 15 of the Bill that it is necessary to get the consent of the occupier where a recognised association wishes to pursue game on a holding. I do not know if that means that by this Bill the ownership of the game is transferred to the occupier or not, but in that respect I am aware that in several instances occupiers were forced during the troubled period to give consents to people who came around to them in order to get coursing rights. The occupiers did not think the coursing rights of any great value, and they simply signed the documents put before them without any valuable consideration, without having the advice of a solicitor or anyone else. I suggest that consent which is mentioned in the section should be given after the passing of this Bill, and that where there are existing consents they should not be binding on the occupiers. I have also seen that some coursing clubs that got consents from occupiers have actually sub-let their sporting right to game preservation associations for the purpose of stocking the land with game, altogether ignoring the rights of the occupiers.

In some respects I would be in favour of having this Bill more stringent for the preservation of game. For instance, I do not see that it is made illegal to shoot hares. I think it is regarded by most people as a very unmanly thing to shoot a hare under any circumstances, and I think there should be an amendment in the Bill to prevent that.

As regards hunting by harriers and beagles, there should be some regulation made so that masters and those responsible for these packs should take steps to see that when the day's hunting is over the dogs are collected and brought home. It sometimes happens that the dogs are left to get home of their own accord, and that in a great many cases they remain hunting all night. The Minister should have some control over the masters of such dogs before he gives his certificate to them, to see that they observe the conditions, and that those in charge will be responsible for them when they take them out. It is quite different with men engaged poaching. I see by the Bill that hunting in the close season is stopped. Drag hunting takes place in the close season and consists of running a drag across the country in a straight line and going through meadows and corn crops. These hunts disturb the young game, because young hares especially resort to meadows and corn fields, and very often many of them are killed by these dogs. I presume the Minister will say that the occupier can always take steps to prosecute those responsible. It is hard for the occupier to identify them. There appears to be no one responsible, and very few of them, in some cases, would be a mark for damages. I think some amendment should be put in to that effect, as it would strengthen the Bill and, at the same time, save the occupiers from serious injury being done to crops. I am in favour of the Bill, but I hope that the amendments which I suggest will be inserted.

Mr. Comyn

I am very glad that the interests of the farmers have been considered in the chorus of praise with which this Bill has been received. Like Senator Linehan, I am very much in favour of the rigorous protection of game, but I am also in favour of preserving, as far as possible, the interests of the farming community. I am greatly surprised that Section 28 (1) has been allowed to pass in its present form:

It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the 1st day of April and the 14th day of July (both days inclusive) in any year any gorse, furze, whin, heath, fern or greg-ling growing on any lands not then cultivated or in course of cultivation.

Nobody would condemn as strongly as I would the burning of heather while the young grouse are being hatched, that is between the 1st of April and the 14th of July, and I consider that period long enough. But there are many mountains in the west of Ireland where there is not one pack of grouse, but where there are hundreds and thousands of sheep, the sole mainstay of farmers. In the County Kerry and other places we know that in order to make these mountains of any value to the farmers who have to live by the grazing of sheep, it is necessary to burn the heath sometimes in the spring so that the farmers may have the benefit of the young shoots which come up in the following spring. Sometimes it may not be possible to set fire to a mountain before the 1st of April because, on account of the state of the weather, it will not take fire. The heath belongs to the farmer, yet here you have an absolute prohibition against a man doing what he likes with his own land. I leave it at that so far as burning is concerned. I am absolutely opposed to the burning of heather if there is any sort of prospect that it contains young grouse or the nests of birds. Here we have a clause which says:

It shall not be lawful for any person to burn or otherwise destroy between the 1st day of April and the 14th day of July any heather....

Is he not to be allowed, if he thinks it is the proper way, to grub his own land? Is he not to be allowed to cut heath if he thinks it is the proper way to keep down overgrown heath, and let the new shoots grow? I do not think the interests of farming have been sufficiently considered in the drafting of the Bill, and I echo what Senator Linehan said, that the farmers ought to have been consulted. There is another class of person whose interests should be considered, and that is the farmer's son. I notice that a protection order can be made in relation to hares, but that where a protection order is made "it shall not be lawful for any person while such order continues in force to kill or take hares in the county or part of a county to which such order relates by any means other than by coursing with not more than two dogs let loose from slips in pursuit of the hare." Gentlemen will come out from the local county town and they will have a slip and all the other accoutrements of the coursing match —but farmers' sons have no slips. I would be in favour of deleting these words "from slips" and allowing farmers' sons to course if the gentlemen from the cities are allowed to course.

There was another matter referred to by Senator Linehan which I think deserves attention. Permission to preserve was obtained from farmers some years ago when they were not as firmly settled in their holdings as they are now. I do not think the State should take advantage of the permission then granted, and I think when the State legislates it ought to legislate in respect of permissions which shall hereafter be granted. In that way, I think, what has been said by Senator Linehan is perfectly sound. On the main provisions of the Bill I think it is highly desirable that game should be preserved. The only way to preserve game is to make it in the interest of the farmers to preserve it. They are the people who will preserve it. If they are not conciliated, if their interests are not looked after, and if some encouragement is not given them in the preservation of game you might as well be talking to the idle wind.

Dr. Gogarty

Might I ask if the Minister would be willing to extend the date for the preservation of snipe to the 1st of October? We have until the 31st August but the snipe are very small then and hardly worth shooting. It is not sporting to shoot them then as they are hardly able to fly. Lots of them follow the path of the partridge and disappear. I think it would not be any harm to extend the time for another month in order that they would become game birds and game objects. A lot of people might like to boast about how many snipe they shot without stating whether or not the snipe were able to fly. Different species of birds have been exempted and dates have been altered. I think it is very important in the case of snipe to increase the period of protection for one month until they are in full flight. They are not birds that bring in very much income; you do not often see them exposed in the shops, but they are more sought for than any other game bird. It is a very small point, but I hope I will be supported on the Committee Stage, for the sake of sportsmen especially, in suggesting another four weeks.

The Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

Alluding to what Senator Gogarty has just said about the close season for snipe, as this Bill was originally introduced into the Dáil the close season was to the 1st of October. Other persons were strongly in favour of the close season for snipe being the 12th of August, and finally a compromise was arrived at by which the 1st of September was taken as being the opening day. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. I think Senator the Earl of Granard was right when he said that really it is a battle between the east and the west. The snipe shot in September are not home snipe at all; they are foreign snipe. The home snipe have gone before that date, and the foreign snipe come to the midland and eastern counties before they come to the western counties. I think most people are agreed on that. The eastern counties people think they lose really good shooting of the foreign snipe when they come first if the season is put back to the 1st of October. Personally, I have an open mind on the question, because I happen to be a western man, and all my snipe shooting was done in County Mayo where the close season was always the 1st of October. The close season for snipe varied from county to county. The Dáil finally decided upon this date and possibly on the Committee Stage the Seanad may make up its mind about it, but I venture to suggest that this compromise to the 1st of September is not a bad compromise because the 12th August had very definite supporters in the Dáil and outside.

There was a great deal said about the ownership of shooting rights. Of course this Bill has nothing to do with the ownership of shooting rights. Shooting rights remain vested in the persons in whom they were vested before this Bill was introduced. This Bill does not purport to transfer the rights of property from one person to another at all. It only purports to enable, as far as it can, those in whom sporting rights are vested to make the best of the asset which they possess. Senator Linehan said a good deal about hunting and dogs being loose and drag hunts going through fields of corn in midsummer. I do not know whether they do or not. We may come to that on the Committee Stage. I think on the Committee Stage I will leave the defence of harrier hunts to Senator Colonel Moore, whom I know was for some years master of a pack of harriers. Possibly he will answer Senator Linehan's attack on masters of harriers.

A very interesting speech was made by Senator the McGillycuddy, and I will consider the suggestions that he made, with very great care in the time at my disposal. But in the first place I would like to say that this is not the end of game legislation. There never is finality in legislation, but I hope this Bill will commend itself to the House as a good beginning in legislation upon this subject. I entirely agree with Senator Bagwell that the Government cannot develop game shooting. If the owners of the land and the owners of the game rights, do not set to work to develop their shooting rights, no government can do it. My hope is, that under this Bill certain game protection associations will come forward and have themselves recognised and authorised. Then we will be able to consider the question of the formation of a consultative council, or the question of whether some of the money which is raised by gun licences might not be spent to advantage in the preservation of game. All these things can be considered after this Bill has been working for some time, and we can see if there is a genuine desire to form game associations and to develop the shooting of game. But I think at present the suggestions, admirable though they are, of Senator the McGillycuddy would not be quite feasible. No doubt the formation of a consultative council would be a very excellent thing, but where could you get persons to act on a consultative council until you had game associations recognised throughout the country? If you went round and got persons who were well-known shooters there would immediately be a very much louder outcry on the same lines as Senator Linehan went on, if you picked the big men only and did not consider the small men at all. My hope is to see the small farmers come together and co-operate. They may be small farmers in the sense that they pay very small rents, but they may have 500 or 600 acres of land, held at ½d. or 1d. an acre, which might be very useful if the game on it were preserved and might bring them in a great deal of money. Those are the people who I would desire to see forming game associations. If there are associations of that kind formed and if there is a general desire on the part of the people to work out this question for themselves, then I think this question of having a consultative council, or the question of devoting a certain amount of State funds to the development of game preservation, would be feasible. But at present, admirable though I think the suggestions are, on the whole they are premature.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage of the Bill ordered for Wednesday, December 11th.