Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Dec 1929

Vol. 13 No. 8

Game Preservation Bill, 1929.—Report Stage.

Mr. Linehan

I move:

Section 3, sub-section (4). To insert after the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) It shall not be lawful for the Master or owner of a pack of harriers or beagles or for the owner of a harrier or beagle hound to permit such pack or hound to hunt in a drag-hunt during the period 1st May to 25th September in any year over any meadow or cornfield frequented by hares; and any person who acts in contravention of this sub-section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act and shall be punishable accordingly."

This amendment is similar to one that I moved on the Committee Stage. Objection was then taken to the inclusion of the month of March as part of the year in which hunting would be prohibited. I have altered the amendment to start from the 1st of May and to end on September 25. I would not move the amendment only that I know that it is absolutely necessary in some parts of the country. I have places in mind where irresponsible people during the summer months lay drag-hunts through cornfields and meadows, and in order to prevent that I submit this amendment for the consideration of the House. I think that we can very easily have sport and at the same time avoid injuring crops.

Sir Walter Nugent

I think we all recognise the humane motives which inspired the Senator in moving this amendment. I think his motives were rather impugned the other day, because he is himself a great hunting man, and I am quite sure that his feelings were moved simply in the cause of sport. But the way I feel about it is this: The amendment is an absolutely innocuous one, because it seems to me inconceivable that anyone would want to do what he tries to prevent—that anyone would want to run a drag-hunt in the months of May to September. If there are such people, it is quite right that they should be stopped. But is it not a fact that they can be stopped under the ordinary common law by the owner of the land? If that is so, this amendment is unnecessary. My point is that all these amendments, unless they are absolutely necessary, are liable to be misconstrued. They will be used as arguments to prevent people from coming here who desire to come here to enjoy sport and to spend their money. Therefore, I suggest to the Senator that unless he is quite satisfied that the amendment is necessary he should not press it. I am sure that the Minister for Justice will be able to inform him if the common law of the country is sufficient to meet this case. If so, it is quite unnecessary to have such an amendment as this.

Mr. O'Connor

When an amendment similar to this was before the House on the last day, I voted against it, because having lived for fifty years in the County Kildare, where hunting is carried on practically the whole year round in regard to all classes of sport, I doubted if it was absolutely necessary. To my knowledge no drag-hunt was ever run at that period of the year. But if Senator Linehan states that he knows parts of the country where this drag-hunting takes place at this objectionable time, I will accept his statement. As far as County Kildare is concerned, I do not object to the principle of it if it should be necessary in a part of the country where they have not the sense or the courtesy to avoid it. If it is not punishable by law, it should be made so. But as a rule in my district it is the farmers' sons who take an interest in hunting houses who lay these drag-hunts, and the last thing they would do would be to lay a drag-hunt over a cornfield or a newly laid-down grass field. Of course, in the county of Kildare there is a good deal of grazing across which they can lay a drag-hunt without injuring anything, but they never lay one in the summer at all; they always do so about March, ending by about the 1st of April. If it was necessary to have such an amendment as this, I would vote for it, but not on the grounds that it is necessary in my part of the country.

Miss Browne

Is Senator Linehan thinking of greyhound hunting? That is the only case that I can possibly think of. I never heard of such a thing as harriers and beagles hunting at the time of the year he mentions. Sometimes irresponsible people go out with a couple of greyhounds and hunt hares, but apart from that I do not know any place where hunting takes place at that time of the year. I think that the amendment is utterly unnecessary, unless peculiar conditions exist in Senator Linehan's district.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

I agree with Senator Sir Walter Nugent that this amendment is quite unnecessary, because anyone who likes can stop anybody else from hunting over his land. There might be feeling about it and persons might not like to assert themselves as against all their neighbours. But supposing somebody ran a pack of hounds through a standing cornfield, for instance, on the 1st August, there would be no outcry against a person who sued for the damage to his crop, but there would be a tremendous outcry against the person who ran his hounds, or allowed hounds to be run, through a growing and almost ripe crop of corn. But I have another objection to the amendment.

This is a Game Preservation Bill; we are concerned solely in it with game preservation, and I would suggest that if an amendment of this kind were inserted by the Seanad, the action taken might be rather severely criticised, and criticised, let me put it, from a rather humorous standpoint. The only way in which it can be made relevant to this Bill at all is by the one word "hares"—"to hunt in a drag-hunt during the period 1st May to 25th September in any year over any meadow or cornfield frequented by hares." Does anybody say that hares are going to be injured by a drag-hunt being run in their vicinity? That is the real question that is before the Seanad.

There is a question of making drag-hunting illegal, but that does not arise under this Bill. We are not discussing under this Bill whether drag-hunting is a good thing or whether it is a bad thing, whether it should be permitted at certain seasons or whether it should be permitted at all. These are considerations which do not arise under this Bill in the slightest degree, and I think to drag them in here, as Senator Linchan has very ingeniously done, by putting in the word "hares," would not be right. I am not putting it in any way offensively, but if he intended to put his finger in the eye of the Seanad, and to effect his purpose by these words, the Seanad might be regarded in certain quarters as having passed a rather ridiculous amendment. I hope I have not offended the Senator by that remark.

Mr. O'Farrell

Regarding the wording of the amendment, I would like to know from the Minister if the effect of it would be, if passed, that there could be hunting over meadows or cornfields provided they were not frequented by hares. It seems to me that the effect of the amendment, if passed, would be that one could hunt over a meadow or a cornfield provided it was not frequented by hares. I think that these words should be left out.

Mr. Linehan

In reply to the point made by Senator O'Farrell, I desire to say that if these words were not in the amendment, the amendment would not be in order at all. I take it for granted that as a result of this Bill all meadows and cornfields will be very much frequented by hares. I hope that will be the result of the Bill. There is no doubt that if a pack of harriers or beagles hunt over a cornfield or a meadow they will certainly do a great deal of damage to the farmer who owns the land, and will make him very resentful, and perhaps turn him from giving permission for hunting over his land at all. It is quite evident that the game that would resort to these fields will be disturbed by the dogs hunting over them. It very often happens that the dogs running in a drag-hunt lose the scent, and travel all over the land. If there are any young hares in the coverts on the land they will surely be killed by the hounds. I am aware that the farmer has the right to take a civil action for trespass and the damage done to his land, but he cannot always identify the parties who carry on the practice. Even if he were able to identify them, it might be found that they were not any mark for damages, I think it would be well to make it clear to people who wish to carry on drag-hunts that they are not at liberty to lay their drags over cornfields or meadows, and that they must confine their operations to the pasture land which, I think, would be quite sufficient for their purpose.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Brown

On behalf of Senator the Earl of Granard, I move amendment 2:—

"First Schedule. To delete the words ‘and partridge' in column 1 and to substitute therefor the words ‘partridge and woodcock."'

The object of the amendment is to take woodcock out of the companionship of snipe, at the bottom of the Schedule, for close season purposes, and to put it into the better companionship of pheasant and partridge. The effect of the amendment is to start the close season time a month earlier; that is to start it on 1st February instead of on 1st March. The close time will end on the same date as it did before for woodcock—namely, the end of September. The reason for the amendment, as explained to me by Senator the Earl of Granard, is that a large number of woodcock now breed in this country. That is quite contrary to their habits when I was young. There was then very great difficulty indeed in getting the eggs of woodcock. But such a large quantity of woodcock now breed in the country that an amendment of this kind is considered necessary. They pair very often before 1st February. I cannot see that any harm can be done by making the close time a little longer in the case of woodcock and changing the date from 1st March to 1st February.

Sir Edward Bellingham

I second.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I cannot see that any case really has been made out for this amendment. The real object of the amendment is to shorten, at the spring end, the shooting season for woodcock. The statement has been made that woodcock pair earlier than they used to. I do not know that there is any authority for that statement or that there is any evidence that they do. The fact that you see two woodcock together in February does not prove that they have paired any more than it does when you see two woodcock together in October, November or December. The same thing holds with regard to snipe. If you are shooting well you might get snipe right and left at any season of the year. The fact that they are seen together in the month of February does not prove that they have paired. I do not know that there is any evidence that they do. In February you have a good deal of woodcock shooting. I believe that a great number of owners of woodcock shoots would consider that they had lost many a good day's shooting if an amendment like this were inserted. Of course, we are all out for the preserving of Irish game. Perhaps I am now coming to a rather vexed question, that is, how far the woodcock that are bred in Ireland migrate, and if they do migrate to what extent they return. I understand that the percentage of ringed birds that have been shot in this country is infinitesimal in comparison with the number of birds that have been ringed. I do not think that this amendment would really help Irish shooting.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Brown

The second amendment in the name of Senator the Earl of Granard is consequential, and it goes with the other. With the permission of the House I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Brown

On behalf of Senator the Earl of Granard I move:—

First Schedule. To delete the words "From the 15th day of February to the 15th day of October, both days inclusive," inserted in Committee and to substitute therefor the words "From the 1st day of March to the 31st day of August, both days inclusive."

I understand this is the working out of a compromise with the sportsmen in the eastern counties of the Saorstát where snipe prevail and the western counties as regards dates. If you begin as late as the date in the Bill, the close time is to be the 1st March instead of the 15th February. Most of the snipe then in the eastern counties have got away to the west, and the sportsmen in the east do not get their chance. I understand the dates are a sort of compromise.

Mr. O'Connor

I second:

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I entirely agree that snipe should come in to be shot on the 1st of October and go out on the 1st February. These are dates I would prefer both for snipe and woodcock. I think that is the real compromise between the persons who are fighting to have snipe come in on the 15th August and the equally strong body of opinion that are fighting that snipe should not come in until the 1st October. I think as far as snipe is concerned this is the correct date, but I would like to see the same date applied to woodcock.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 5 (Sir Edward Bellingham), by leave, withdrawn.

Report Stage concluded.