I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of Report No. 31 of the Fourth Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: The European Communities (Wildlife Act, 1976) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985."
Report No. 31 of The Fourth Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities — The European Communities (Wildlife Act, 1976) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985: Motion.
Is aoibhinn liom bheith ar ais maidin ghrianmhar mar seo. I have noted Report No. 31 of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation. I am happy to say that the Committee's recommendation that a derogation be availed of under EC Directive No. 79/409 on wild birds to allow for control of certain species in the interests of protection of agricultural crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and any flora and fauna, has been implemented since July, 1986. The committee has since expressed its satisfaction at this measure in its report, No. 35 of 10 December 1986. As to the Committee's recommendations in its 31st report on the hunting of certain species of wild birds, the option to hunt brent and barnacle geese could only be introduced in the context of an amendment to the EC bird directives. The matter will receive full consideration having regard to the scientific data on these species in the event of any amendment to the bird directives. In regard to the recommendation of the committee on the hunting of the four species of gull, I do not intend to pursue this as the species in question are not regarded as traditional quarry species in Ireland. The custom in this country is to hunt only those species which are used for human consumption and gulls do not come into this category.
Mar athrú ar an ngnáth nós a bhíonn agam, ba mhaith liom an rud seo a mhíniú i mBéarla i dtosach. Labhróidh mé i nGaeilge ar ball.
The history in brief of the bird directive in this: the council directive of 79/409 on the Conservation of Wild Birds was elaborated during the period 1974/79 by member states of the European Community. The directive aimed at the provision of a uniform system of protection for all naturally occurring wild birds within the territories of the Community. The system of protection covered such matters as regulations of exploitation, including hunting and trade protection of habitats especially wet-lands and those of the species identified as rare, vulnerable and endangered in Annex I, for example, the Greenland white fronted goose and peregrine falcon and resolution of conflict arising from damage of it remained with individual member states to translate the provisions of the corrective international law in the most appropriate fashion. The directive came into effect in April, 1981.
The directive is implemented in Ireland under the Wildlife Act, 1976. The Act pre-dated the directive and had been drafted with one eye on the increasing international dimension of conservation of wildlife. It was felt that with the minor exception of the making of a number of regulations, for example, to prohibit the sale of two species, Gadwall and Goldeneye, designation of special protection areas, for example, Wexford Wildfowl Reserve, Puffin Island and falconary regulations, Ireland was fully implementing the directive.
In 1985, the Commission wrote to the Irish authorities querying certain aspects of implementation. Many of the points raised by them were technical and had already been noted by the Wildlife Service for amendments to the Act for purposes of clarification. The early issue which presented any difficulty was the inclusion of 12 species in the Third Schedule to the Act which effectively meant that there were no restrictions on the killing of these birds. The 12 species were historically regarded as pest species and there were valid biological, social and administrative reasons for excluding them from the full scope of the Act. The Commission insisted that the general system of protection be applied to these birds regardless of ecological factors. In effect, they sought a strict legalistic approach to the word of the directive and to a large extent, disregarded its spirit. Despite intensive negotiations with the Commission, they maintained their position. The Attorney General's office advised that there was a case in law against Ireland and that to avoid having a case stated against us in the European Court we should give the full protection of the Wildlife Act to the species involved. The necessary amendments to the Wildlife Act were made by regulations under the European Communities Act in December, 1985.
For practical purposes, it is necessary to consider the consequences of the protection of the former Third Schedule species only. We were aware that there would be literally thousands of applications from farmers, fishermen, gun clubs and the like to control these species where they were causing damage and that we would be administratively unable to cope with these applications. We, therefore, set about devising a system which would be in accordance with Article 9 of the directive — Article 9 deals with the control of species causing damage — and which would meet the legitimate control needs of interest groups without the need for each individual to obtain specific permission from the Wildlife Service. Further regulations were made in July, 1986 which effectively allowed owners-occupiers of property or their agents to control named species where threat was posed to crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, flora and fauna. The system took six months to set in place. In the interim, permissions to control these species were issued on demand. Indeed, the National Association for Regional Gun Clubs and their affiliates and members were issued with a general permission within weeks of the problem arising.
Following representations from the NARGC, the joint committee studied the amending regulations and issued a report on them. The main issues raised in the joint committee report were (1), that Ireland should derogate from the protective provision of the directive to allow for control of pest species; (2), that some pest species and brent and barnacle geese be made huntable species; (3), that amendments made should have been effected by an amending Bill rather than by regulation under the Wildlife Act.
The following points are relevant in regard to those issues. First, Ireland was already making derogations under the Wildlife Act by issuing specific permissions to control. The general system of permitting control which was subsequently introduced simplified matters considerably. Secondly, the matter of seeking an amendment to the directive to allow the possibility of hunting brent and barnacle geese would be fully considered. The committee went on to say that there were no proposals to seek to have pest species declared as hunting species, except the pigeon, as this would not be in accordance with established practice in this country where traditional quarry species are edible. People may not know it but there is now a pigeon shooting season which dates from 1 June to 31 January. To make non-edible species huntable species would reduce them to the status of live targets. It is important to maintain differentiation between legitimate control of species as a management option and hunting a species which as stated is usually confined to species which can be utilised as food.
The amendments became necessary as a result of obligations under the Treaty of Rome. The European Communities Acts were specifically designed to allow discharge of such obligations by the making of ministerial regulations. The regulations were laid before the Oireachtas in the normal way.
This case is a perfect example of the importance of international commitments and the reality of the extent to which wildlife conservation is now the concern of the international community. We found ourselves in a difficult situation in this instance despite the fact that there was no question of our good intentions and goodwill. There are a number of other international measures to which the State has willingly become a party and which require positive conservation response. We can only make that response if the political will exists to ensure adequate resources for conservation activities. The alternative is to allow for the continuing degradation of our natural environment and the social and economic consequences of this for our own people are predictable. There is also now the aspect that we will be guilty in international law of a breach of good faith and we will lessen our standing in the international community.
Chun go mairfidh an cine daonna is gá an dúlra a chaomhnú. Chuir an Straitéis Domhanda Caomhnaithe abhaile ar cheannasaithe in go leor tíortha go bhfuil an caomhnú agus an fhorbairt leanúnach ag brath ar a chéile; is iad dhá thaobh an aon bhoinn amháin iad. Tá an teachtaireacht chéanna, geall leis, le fáil i dtuarascáil an Choimisiúin Domhanda Imshaoil agus Forbartha, Ár gComhThodhchaí, a foilsíodh le gairid.
Baineann an teachtaireacht seo le hÉirinn chomh maith le gach áit eile. Ní fhéadfaimís bheith ag súil go n-éireodh linn an fhorbairt eacnamaíoch a iompar má leanaimíd orainn ag ligint don ola ár gcósta a thruailliú agus don sadhlas agus d'eisiltigh eile na héisc a mharú, nó má leanaimíd orainn ag leagan na gcrann aithghiniúnacha ar mhaithe le brabhach na gearrthréimhse. Sna blianta atá romhainn amach beidh athshlánú na turasóireachta agus athnuachan na talmhaíochta araon ag brath ar chaomhnú. Chun taca a chur faoin eacnamaíocht go fadtréimhseach agus chun go n-éireoidh linn ár n-oidhreacht a thabhairt slán ar mhaithe leis na glúnta a thiocfaidh, is anois a chaithfimíd an dúlra a chaomhnú.
Ní fearr beartas lena bhféadfadh an Rialtas réiteach a dhéanamh idir caomhnú agus forbairt ná glacadh leis an Straitéis Domhanda Caomhnaithe. Beidh an chéim eile níos dúshlánaí, Straitéis Náisiúnta Caomhnaithe na hÉireann a ullmhú a mbeadh in éineacht leis clár oibre dírithe ar chospóirí áirithe caomhnaithe agus forbairte leanúnaí. Gan amhras d'fhéadfadh Treoir an Chomhphobail Eorpaigh a dtaobh Imshaol a mheas, a thiocfaidh i bhfeidhm i 1988, bheith ina cabhair mhór. Ba bheag an tairbhe an chuid is lú di a chur i gcrích. Ach beidh ardtoradh ar an treoir seo más le hiomlán a brí a chuirfimíd i bhfeidhm í ar réimse leathan de thionscadail fhorbartha.
Ag cuimhneamh dúinn ar a thábhachtaí atá forbairt na talmhaíochta in Éirinn tá sé riachtanach réiteach a dhéanamh idir é agus an caomhnú. Is í an phráinn is mó go n-ainmneoimís na ceantair is mó a bhfuil an t-imshaol i mbaol iontu. Ó 1988 amach beidh airgead le fáil ón gComhphobal chun go dtiocfaidh chun cinn na cleachtais thalmhaíochta úd a dhéanfaidh leas an dúlra in áit dochar a dhéanamh mar a tharlaíonn go rómhinic. Ar fud fhairsinge na tuaithe is ar tháirgithe nádúrtha den scoth a bheidh meas de bharr athruithe ar an gComhpholasaí Talmhaíochta agus solathróidh caomhnú an dúlra deiseanna nua chun fiontair thuaithe a fhorbairt.
This is an area which I regard as a vital interest. Legislation has been introduced from time to time. The Wildlife Act, 1976 was designed to provide an up-to-date statutory framework for wildlife conservation in Ireland. It will be interesting to Senators to note that the Wildlife Act, 1976 was introduced in Seanad Éireann and in the course of discussing the legislation the Seanad made several amendments to the Bill and the legislation for the preservation of wildlife at the time was very much improved from the original format when it went to the other House. It proves that this House was at that time and now is more so vital in our system of legislation.
It is also interesting to note that the Act for the preservation of wild birds and the Game Preservation Act came from this House and would not be in existence but for the fact that in 1977 Members of the House initiated the Bills in question. The Game Preservation Act allowed people to set up gun clubs throughout the country. I would like to put on record my congratulations to these gun clubs for their excellent work and especially for the disciplined manner in which they ensure that wildlife is protected and especially among their preserves. The purpose of the legislation at the time was to encourage awareness among the people of the importance of preservation of our wildlife, complying with nature in the manner of the stronger making peace with the weaker. Unless measures had been taken to protect endangered species their numbers would have decreased and that would have been a great loss. The Wildlife Act, 1976 and the previous legislation ensured that people took notice of this fact and took appropriate measures to ensure these species would not disappear.
Most of us find it difficult to think clearly about wildlife. We tend to talk as though we would like all types of species to be preserved. Some wildlife live by eating each other and we generally feel more in favour of rare species than common ones. No one seems to press for preservation of parasitic worms, rats, mice, cabbage white-butterflies or even grey squirrels — never mind about viruses and bacteria — but there is enormous support for frogs, toads, dormice, birds, other than sparrows, starlings and pigeons, deer and red squirrels.
However, simply pointing out how illogical we are does not greatly help. What is needed is a genuine attempt to sort out what it is we really care about and what is really threatened. Millions of people feel that we should not risk losing a species forever and that a thriving wildlife adds value to our environment. Most of us probably agree. What we disagree about is whether what we desire can be achieved consistent with good farm practice, what farm practices are harmful, how much it would cost to do better and who should pay.
There are two major aspects: the first is the destruction of habitats by removal of hedges and trees, by drainage, ploughing and other cultivations; the second is the use of chemicals, part of the pollution problem. In the Wildlife Bill, 1975 there was a Third Schedule and I will quote from the Official Report of Dáil at the time, 311, 22 January 1970. The then Minister, Deputy Fitzpatrick, said:
The Third Schedule, relating to wild birds, contains what might be called the black-listed categories, that is wellknown and numerous pests species for which the conservation measures of the Bill are not at present deemed necessary.
I will quote from page 7 of the Joint Committee's report:
The Oireachtas decided in 1976 that the species of wild birds specified in the Third Schedule to the Wildlife Act, 1976 did not need protection in this country though the Minister was empowered to provide by regulations to extend protection to these birds. The Joint Committee has not heard any evidence that present circumstances in this country require protection to what may be called Third Schedule birds. On the contrary it has been represented to the Joint Committee that these birds are a positive source of danger to agricultural interests, other wild birds and game stocks and that this danger is aggravated by the density of population of at least some of them in this country. In the case of these birds it would seem to the Committee that Ireland should derogate from the provisions of the Directive to enable their activities to be controlled by killing or capture without a licence or permission in the interests of preventing "serious damage to crops, livestocks, forests, fisheries and water" or "for the protection of flora and fauna".
Page 9 of the report states:
The damage referred to in section 42 (1) of the Act is that caused to:—
"(a) livestock, poultry or agricultural crops (including vegetables or fruit) either on pasture or on cultivated land,
(b) pen-reared wild birds on any land,
(c) other fauna,
(d) flora,
(e) a woodland or a forest plantation, or
(f) a fishery".
The Joint Committee has been informed by the Department that no action will be taken against a person who kills a wild bird, including those now specified in the Third Schedule to the Act but excluding the eight species specified in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule, in order to prevent damage of the kind indicated above. While this does provide some reassurance for farmers and others, the Joint Committee is not satisfied that it represents an adequate exercise of Ireland's right to derogate from provisions of the Directive in the case of any of the Third Schedule birds which are deemed likely to cause damage of the type indicated.
I have a modest bit of land in the disadvantaged area of West Limerick. Last year I had experience of sowing rape for fodder in the early spring of this year, but my hopes were extinguished because of damage done by pigeons and crows. They can do immense damage to crops and especially to farming enterprises. I am glad to note that the joint committee and the sub-committee which was chaired by Maurice Manning, then a TD, recognised that fact and while recognising that the preservation of wildlife is essential, would like farmers to realise that wildlife doing harm to the environment and to crops can be killed without a licence.
I will be brief because, unfortunately, I did not have sufficient time to study the report. On the quick read I had of it I want, first of all, to thank the joint committee for the work they put into this report and for the recommendations they made. They had the benefit of representations from the National Association of Game Councils and also from the Wexford Regional Game Council. Those people made strong representations to the joint committee and I am sure their advice was well received. Certainly advice from people with the experience of those two organisations would be very worth while.
The Wildlife Act, 1976, which was enacted on 22 December 1976, provides for the protection of wild birds and their nests and eggs, other than the wild birds specified in the Third Schedule to the Act. In 1979, the Council of the European Economic Community adopted council directive 79/409 EC on the conservation of naturally occurring birds in the wild state which the member states were required to implement. Indeed, it is good that there is such a directive and that member states can be forced to bring in legislation to protect wildlife and to control vermin, etc. We all know the havoc some wild birds can wreak on crops. I have seen acres of corn flattened by flocks of crows who suddenly descend on the cornfields and proceed to trample and eat the corn, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. It is, of course, necessary that constant control of such winged vermin should be allowed. Grey crows and magpies have been known to attack young lambs and pluck out their eyes. Pigeons cause considerable damage to vegetable crops. We all know the thousands of pounds worth of damage they can cause to vegetables, particularly in the spring time.
I would like to compliment the game councils and the gun clubs on the work they have done over the years in protecting wildlife. They have done a very good job in attracting tourists by organising shoots and, of course, ensuring that protected species were not shot at, and this is very important.
All of us have witnessed the departure of certain wildlife with which we were familiar over the years. The old corncrake is sadly missed from the rural scene. Of course, this has been caused by destruction of the natural habitat of the corncrake with the advent of silage, machines, more intensive fertilising of the land, and so on. It is a pity to see such birds depart because they were harmless creatures that everybody looked forward to in spring time and it is said that they are no longer with us. Every effort should be made to try to preserve and protect those kinds of birds.
On the other hand, the badger is also a protected species and those of us from rural areas realise the criticism farmers have of the badger, particularly as far as animal health is concerned, especially bovine TB. Rightly or wrongly, the badger has been blamed for spreading TB amongst farm animals but it is very difficult to get the Department of Agriculture and Food to accept that or, indeed, to do any great tests or trials on the badger. It is almost impossible for farmers to get a licence to destroy the badger.
I have had occasion to write to the Department about this problem in my own area where farmers had a bad outbreak of disease and, rightly or wrongly, they blamed the badger for it because badgers were fairly plentiful in that area. We tried to get a licence. First you have to write to the Department of Agriculture and Food vet and notify him that you want to apply for a licence to destroy the badger. The vet then has to come out and make a report on whether the badger is there, or whether he is coming into the farmer's land and, finally, if the licence is issued, it has to be issued by the Office of Public Works. The Minister's Department apparently have the final say and I did not know that until I had occasion to look into this problem. I thought the Department of Agriculture and Food would have sole responsibility for that.
My criticism is that it is so difficult to get any direct information as to whether or not the badger is a carrier of TB. In this day and age, having spent over the years over £100 million on the eradication of TB, the Department of Agriculture and Food should be able to pinpoint the source of the infection. If the badger is to blame, as many farmers believe he is, every effort should be made to cull the badger. Unfortunately, farmers cannot do that because they have to have a licence to do so as it is a protected species. It is difficult to convince farmers who have had the misfortune of a breakdown in their herds that the badger is not responsible and, as I have said, it is almost impossible to get a licence to destroy the badger.
I am not an expert on feathered birds. So I will finish by again complimenting the joint committee on the report they presented to us. I am sure when we have time to study it, we can all learn something from it.
Although not many Senators are interested in wildlife it is only right that this order should get a reasonable discussion. I might add that if one were to confine oneself solely to the order, one would have very little to say because it deals with a certain number of birds only.
The 1976 Wildlife Bill was actually launched in this House in early 1975 and it got a very good hearing and long discussion in this House. It was towards the end of 1976 that it finally became law after being passed by the Dáil. I am a little disappointed that we have not heard much about wildlife since then. At that time the Bill was brought in here by the Minister for Lands. Before that, it was dealt with by the Minister for Justice. Now we have a Department of Finance input. It was said then that was the first time in 45 years any legislation had been prepared dealing with wildlife. It appears that it could be another 45 years before we hear about it again. That is a pity.
I understand an advisory council was to be set up at that time. If that advisory council were set up we have not had any reports from them in this House. When we were speaking here on the Wildlife Bill in 1975 great concern was expressed by many speakers about the scarcity of ordinary birds like the thrush, the blackbird, the yellow-hammer, the lark, the corncrake, the snipe and the swallow. All of those were mentioned at that time. Why were they becoming so scarce and what was the reason for it? Strange as it may seem, the only bird that increased in population since then is the swallow. During the war years swallows became scarce. They migrate but in the area I come from they are more plentiful now than ever before. We cannot say that about other birds such as the corncrake. I mentioned at that time that I heard one corncrake in the area I come from. I venture to say that if children born within the past seven or eight years heard the corncrake in Tipperary, they would wonder what it was.
Have the advisory council done anything to discover the reason for the scarcity of those birds? I think the reason is that after the last World War farmers treated the land better than formerly; land was highly manured and perhaps that is one of the reasons. Silage came in some years ago. Silage was not known in this country until about 30 years ago. It is cut early in the year and perhaps it is cut three times a year with the result that it is probably affecting the hatching of chicks of wild birds. Drainage however, has done most harm. We all know that arterial drainage is very necessary but I wonder is it necessary for us when we go in for arterial drainage to drain every little stream miles away from the main river in places where you had bogs or marshy land in rich land areas like Tipperary. I am not aware of what is happening in counties like Mayo, Donegal or places where you have a lot of wet land; I am really speaking about what is happening in the Golden Vale and the scarcity of birds.
Practically every bit of this wet land was drained in Tipperary and other counties and that meant there was no longer room for birds like snipe in those places. Were we doing the right thing? I think we were not, because if a lot of the land drained by using Government grants is not maintained within three years it becomes wet again. Therefore that land was costing a lot of money to maintain. Now we have reached the stage when we have too much land, something we thought would never happen. Farmers are being offered money by the EC to let their land lie idle. That is a sad state of affairs, but it is not our doing. We were asked to produce in this country and we did produce. It might be a good thing if some of this land in every area was set aside for birds as a place where they could nest and live.
Others have paid a tribute — and I want to be associated with it — to our game councils and our gun clubs for what they have done for the protection of wildlife. I live near the Glen of Aherlow and there is a game council and gun club there. They have done a lot of work in trying to keep the wildlife in that area and bringing wildlife into it. They are not getting the support they deserve from the Department, or Bord Fáilte, or anyone else. I know they had a scheme whereby they grew two areas of grain every year, mostly oats, which were allowed to remain uncut and left there as feeding for the wild birds in the winter time. They told me recently they were not able to keep that up.
We are talking about the tourist trade being a great asset for this country but we are not helping our gun clubs or game councils to do something to entice the tourists here. In Strasbourg every hotel is booked out for the weekend during the shooting season. Tourists go there from Paris and other cities for the weekend. I see no reason why we could not have things like that in this country. Down through the years this has been a marvellous country for wildlife but in recent times things were not as good as they should be. While I welcome this report, I think there should be more reports. There should be a report before this House and perhaps the other House also at least once a year on the position of wildlife in Ireland.
Reading through the report the council directive from the EC states that the directive imposes a general obligation on member states to conserve all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state so as to maintain their population at or adapt it to a level which corresponds in particular to ecological scientific and cultural requirements while taking account of economic and recreational requirements. What I have found throughout the report is that it is quite difficult to achieve a balance to have the protected species protected and have the pest species not creating too much havoc. That seems to be the difficulty. Anyone coming from a farming community would know that some of these species can cause untold trouble to farmers in killing and trampling crops.
I must congratulate the Game Council and the gun clubs for trying to help to protect the endangered species. The Department should adopt some kind of educational programme informing the farming community as to the type of steps they could take to try not to destroy natural habitats of these protected species. From my point of view there is a form of ignorance. I do not come from a farming community and I do not have any great interest in hunting or other such pursuits. From a totally neutral point of view, a farmer may not be aware, if he carries out some form of drainage he may be destroying a natural habitat of some wildlife species.
Getting away from birds for a moment, I come from an area which has a large inland fishing area. We find that many people involved in this are very anxious about the amount of pike being taken out of the country and killed. If that continues, pike will become an endangered species. That would be a great loss to the tourism industry. I would sincerely hope that something like that would not happen. As Senator Willie Ryan has stated there should also be a good tourism promotion for the pheasant season. I had not been aware until Senator de Buitleár stated it that there is a season for pigeon shooting. These things should be emphasised and converted possibly into a tourist industry.
I welcome the report but I would ask the Minister to give some thought to my point about an educational committee informing the various communities of unnecessary work which may be the cause of destroying natural habitats.
Molaim go mór an obair atá déanta ag an gComhchoiste ins an tuarascáil seo ach ní aontaíom le gach rud atá ann. While I welcome the report I cannot say that I agree with all of its contents. As somebody who wholeheartedly supports all the efforts made to protect our wildlife, be it bird or animal, I regard it as part and parcel of this planet and it definitely enhances our environment. I fully support the efforts of conservationists and of anybody connected with conservation.
We have here in this House Éamon de Buitléar. He is perhaps the one man in Ireland who has done most over the years, not alone as a conservationist but through his television programmes, to teach us to care for and respect the environment and to protect our wildlife. Not alone has he taught us but far more important he has given our children a new and special awareness that in today's world much of what we have could be destroyed by just not caring. We are very deeply grateful to him for all he has done and hope he will continue with this great work.
Each day, month or season brings new hazards to our wildlife. One day everything is rosy and the next day we could have an oil spillage, completely by accident. No matter how small this could do untold damage to the sea birds. We are lucky so far that we had no major oil spillage as such. Perhaps those we did have were bad enough but basically we did not really have what one would call a disastrous oil spillage even though the effects of the oil spillages we had, small as they were, practically wiped out the sea bird population in the areas in which they occurred. Again, we have to be thankful to all those people who took time off when there was an oil spillage to saving the remaining birds, washing the oil off their feathers and releasing them when the mess was cleared up.
The burning of gorse or furze at particular times is a hazard that can be avoided. I believe there is a law, not really to prevent it but to prosecute offenders. From now on it is a common sight to see hundreds of acres of mountain completely black and burned. The strange thing about this is that it always happens at the wrong time of the year. It happens when the birds are nesting or hatching. We are not stringent enough in that area in prosecuting possibly the man who owns the land because the culprit, whoever he may be, just lights a match and disappears. Perhaps we could do something by following up the owner of the land and prosecuting. We have taken great steps over the last couple of years particularly in relation to the pollution of rivers. This year, more than any other, people have been summonsed and fined for pollution of rivers. The same procedure should be carried out with regard to the burning of gorse. The farmer will give a reason for the burning of gorse at a particular time of the year — probably old grass which has overgrown. I would not be against the idea of burning gorse provided it was done at a time of year when it did not endanger the wildlife.
Over the years and especially in the last 15 or 20 years the EC seems to be directing us to do things. The EC is giving directions and issuing orders to us that we should bring in this regulation and that regulation. Yet they themselves have nothing left in their own countries, either in wildlife or fishing. They have not only destroyed their own stocks of fishing but they have destroyed ours also.
As Senator Ryan said, where land drainage is to be carried out we know that if big tracts of land were drained they would provide our farmers with more land. The problem is that some of these places are protected because of the wildlife there. This directive normally comes from the EC and I remember that about 15,000 acres of land in Kerry was to be reclaimed in respect of which there was an objection from the EC because of the wildlife and so on. At the time I said: "Fair enough, if they do not want this land to be drained and if they want it as a haven for wildlife I will go along with that, but our farmers should be compensated by the EC. If the land is theirs and if by draining it, it can be good, arable land and if some directive comes that you cannot drain that land and cannot reclaim it, then compensation should be paid. If the EC wants certain areas of our country as a haven for wildlife, then we should look for and get compensation from the EC.
I said at the outset that I was one of those who want our wildlife to survive. I praised the interest and work by all the conservationists as regards our wildlife. At the same time, when you look at some of the species of birds that are mentioned in this document as species we want to protect, unless I am mistaken we find there was a bounty on one of those species a couple of years ago, and that was the grey crow. You actually got paid for shooting grey crows. Now we try to make this bird a protected species. We have to think of the sheep farmers. There is another one we call the Caobach which is the greater black gull. Both the Caobach and the grey crow do an amount of damage to lambs especially because they pick the eyes out of their heads. As a matter of fact, I have seen — I know that rabbits are looked upon as vermin — the caobach picking up a live rabbit in one swoop, going up about 20 yards into the sky, dropping the rabbit down on a rock, coming back down and repeating the process until the rabbit is dead. He then has his dinner.
In my side of the country definitely the caobach and the grey crow are enemies of the farmers because of the damage they are doing to the lamb population. I am not talking about wiping them out, but the law should allow a farmer to protect his property. Again, as much as we like the pigeons — perhaps they are a symbol of love and all the rest of it — but as somebody said yesterday they can cause a great deal of damage. There are a few things in this that I do not go along with — greater black gull, the grey crow and the pigeons. There should be some loosening up there so that a farmer could be allowed to shoot these.
People from Wexford are more interested in the gamebirds. They are not worried about the farmer and his lambs or the farmer and his boats or anything else. They are worried about what they can shoot and I think this is narrowminded. I was amazed about five years ago when a group of French people came into a particular hotel in our town and they had been out shooting all day. They lined up their bag of birds that evening for the cameras and there were more thrushes and blackbirds in their bag than anything else. I completely and absolutely condemn this. I do not know who is the cause of it. Surely most areas have game clubs and the game clubs that I know, in fairness to them, are people that have done an amount of good work over the years. We have to call a halt. It is great to welcome the tourists in but they have to respect our laws. They should be well monitored because they just go out and shoot anything that flies.
Another matter which I think should have been mentioned in the report is very relevant in my side of the country and that is the issuing of strychnine licences. I know for a fact that in a small area of west Kerry, taking in the two peninsulas — the Iveragh and Dingle peninsulas — in excess of 200 licences are issued yearly for strychnine. There should be a great tightening up of the laws on the issue of these licences because the number being issued in a 30 mile radius of Dingle is excessive. Not alone is it a large amount of strychnine but it involves actual danger to human beings as well as wildlife. I would nearly go as far as saying that the sale of it should be banned. If there is vermin that must be eradicated, there must be a milder type of poison available. In the case of vermin like rats you can get a poison now that the hens can eat and it will not do them any harm but it will kill the rats. Is there something that the farmers could get, other than strychnine, to kill the vermin that they are trying to kill and enable us to do away with strychnine completely? When you have up to 200 licences for the Iveragh and Dingle peninsulas, the matter has gone too far altogether.
I have said nearly all I wanted to say but to go back to the caobach, the grey crow and the pigeons, the farmers should be allowed to pick them off now and then when they are doing damage to their crops.
This report took a long time to come before us. I read it with great interest a couple of years ago and I read it again this week, and was every bit as interested, and I was somewhat surprised at some of it. I want to agree to some extent with Senator Tom Fitzgerald in his case for the control of the grey crow. In my part of the world both the fox and the grey crow have increased enormously over the last three, four or five years and are giving a considerable amount of annoyance and indeed affecting farmers' incomes. One can protect oneself from the damage the fox does and to some extent, again in my part of the country, the sheep farmers can protect themselves from damage by the grey crow. The reason for that is, of course, they now control the yeaning season for sheep and they have them in around the house at the time of yeaning and they take them in batches.
That is the system now being used by farmers so they have reduced somewhat the damage being done by the grey crow. That does not follow for all parts of the country. Indeed, in the Minister's part of the country they may not use the same system for lambing and this grey crow can have a very detrimental affect on the farmer's income and on his business. It may, indeed, be a thing of beauty to many people but I would have to say it is a thing of horror because I was reared on a farm where we had sheep and we detested the grey crow at that time. Some years ago the grey crow almost disappeared from the scene altogether but now is back again in quite considerable numbers. It is not causing the same concern in my part of the country but I am sure it is doing the same damage down in Senator Tom Fitzgerald's part of the country. I would have sympathy for him and the farmers in that area if grey crow numbers are allowed to get out of control.
I support Senator Fitzgeralds' viewpoint on the burning of gorse, but not to the same extent. We need to prosecute in all cases, of course, where gorse is deliberately set on fire by vandals who do not take into account the nesting season and other aspects. Of course there should be prosecutions. It is a matter of educating farmers. In my experience most farmers have consideration for the nesting season and when they burn gorse they avoid burning it during that season. I think farmers, to a large extent, act very responsibly in this regard. There are, of course, some who perhaps through lack of thought or ignorance may burn gorse during the nesting season.
An increasing number of farmers are getting into the habit now of burning stubble and I believe this has a very detrimental effect on wildlife. When the harvest is over the easiest way of clearing the land of weeds etc., is to burn the stubble but in burning stubble you are burning and scorching the soil to a depth where the worms and all other insects will leave it for a considerable period. This, no doubt, is destroying the feeding grounds for our wildlife. I am not so sure the farmer is even doing his own business any great amount of good by burning stubble because I think the crops may be affected also. There should be some educational programme for farmers and some indepth study carried out on this habit of burning the stubble. Certainly it is affecting our wildlife and indeed it may even be affecting future crops. The farmer does not know the damage he may be doing to himself.
I am extremely concerned about the increasing use of machinery on our bogs. I am not one to advocate that bogs should be left alone and not utilised because there is a tradition of using our boglands for fuel and for purposes such as peat moss. It is coming back into fashion to cut turf because of the price of coal. Indeed, it is a tremendous help to our balance of payments to use our bogs, but they should be used properly. I believe the increasing use of machinery is doing immense damage to the wildlife of this country. It will not be easy for the Minister to agree with me because I am sure there are many in his constituency who use machinery. I am a turf cutter; we have always cut by hand. I think that is the way the bogs should be used. Some would say they should not be touched.
I think Senator de Buitleár is one of those who may advocate that the bogs should be left alone. That is fine but we cannot afford to have a mineral there if we do not use it to reduce our balance of payments. Indeed there is a tradition that many of us and our grandfathers were reared by a turf fireside. I do not think we should prevent that from happening but we should ensure that it is done in a way that will not affect the wildlife or the bogs. Five or six thousand years ago there was scarcely a bog in Ireland. No matter how low we cut our bogs, if we do not drain them they will continue to grow. In fact, I have cut turf in recent years on bogs that were cut to the rock in the forties during the Emergency. The bog has grown again to a depth where it can be cut, not to a significant depth, but it certainly can be cut again even though it would not be the best of turf.
Bogs grow at a rapid rate if they are not drained but to ensure the best return and the most efficient use of machinery the bog has to be drained. This is where the damage is done. I hope the Minister will look at this area and do what he can to control the use of machinery. They are using different machines. Indeed, I have seen machines down in the west which span from here nearly to Merrion Square, or certainly half of that distance across the bog. To use such a heavy machine the bog has to be pretty solid and the only way you can have a solid bog is to drain it. This is happening less than 12 miles from where we are standing, in the Dublin Mountains.
In the past three years machinery has come to the Dublin Mountains. We have been cutting turf in the Dublin Mountains for a considerable time — certainly all during my lifetime. It happens in bursts, for a few years you get a great number of people out doing it and then it slackens off. I suppose the price and availability of coal, or, as in the forties, the nonavailability of coal and other fuels determines this to a great extent. In the Dublin Mountains it always was cut by hand except, during the past three or four years some very heavy machinery has come to the Dublin Mountains and they are now draining the bogs. It is a lovely landscape and most people would not expect to find a bog, right on the tip of a mountain. I am afraid we are seeing the destruction of the bog in parts and it will probably spread all over if the use of machinery is allowed to continue. In this generation we could see the end of the bogs on the Dublin mountains and that would be a great pity.
I hope the Minister will take heed of what I have said and will investigate what is happening. I am sure he will see it himself and will do whatever he can to prevent the occurrence of what I am forecasting.
Ba mhaith liom mo mhíle buíochais a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí go léir a ghlac páirt san rún dúlra seo, agus freisin leis an Chomhchoiste toisc an tuarascáil thábhachtach a chuir siad le chéile agus a chuir siad faoi bhráid an Tí seo.
I sincerely thank the many Senators who have made their contributions on this very important wildlife motion. I also thank the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities for their recent report and for the many excellent reports they have produced. I have been very impressed by the very practical and reasonable contributions by the various Senators. Of course the tone was set by a very detailed contribution by my good friend, Senator Éamon de Buitléar. We are fortunate to have him as a Member of this House. His contribution to, appreciation of and information on wildlife and conservation throughout our country has been invaluable. No man, single handedly, has made a greater contribution to the role and importance of wildlife and to creating scientific data and educational information on wildlife in this country over the years, than Senator Éamon de Buitléar. My Department are very pleased and appreciate the great work he is doing. We have tried, on a number of occasions, to have some of his films made available. We are working towards that and we hope that we can get the co-operation of another semi-State body involved in that area to ensure that the information he has provided through the great films he has made will be available to the specialists and experts in my Department for future perusal and study.
Senator Kiely also made a very good contribution. He praised the gun clubs for their conservation attitude. I, too, would like to publicly praise the attitude of our gun clubs throughout the country. They are very honorable and reasonable people. They have a great commitment to their sport and to conservation. We are delighted to be able to co-operate with them in these pursuits.
Amendments to the Wildlife Act are necessary in order to protect invertebrates — worms and other such things — which Senator Kiely referred to. We are presently considering those amendments. We were pleased some months ago, as part of the wildlife section's contribution to the European year of the environment, to publish a book on invertebrates. We believe it is a very important detailed and scientific information and educational booklet, particularly for young people, school children and second and third level students. It is the first time any attempt was made in the country to put such a booklet together. We hope it will be used as a very important educational reference book in the years ahead, so that young people, in particular, can appreciate the importance of invertebrates and the role they play in our whole environment.
In enacting the Wildlife Act, 1976, the pest species were not protected, although the Minister could have included them at any time under regulations, only one has already been included, that is the bullfinch. The European Commission studied this situation and reacted to our position. We are obliged to adhere to various directives it issues. In certain cases we fight for, and have been fortunate to get, a derogation to ensure a balance between our traditions and wildlife in our country. We are fortunate that we have been reasonably successful in maintaining a balance between the needs of the country and international demands.
There are four international Conventions to which we subscribe; the Berne Convention, which covers wild birds, mammals, invertebrates, fish and habitats, the Bonn Convention which covers migratory species; the Ramsar Convention which protects wetlands, the habitats of many of our wildlife and the International Whaling Convention. This country has not been traditionally involved — I do not think it ever has been except perhaps some years back — in commercially exploiting whales. There are whales and dolphins in the seas around our country, particularly on the west coast and a distance from the west coast. We are party to an International Whaling Convention and we take cognisance of that fact.
The Irish Wildlife Conservancy are presently about to commence a survey on corncrakes. With the advent of modern machinery — Senator McMahon and other speakers referred to this — and high mechanisation such as forage harvesters, rotary mowers and other highly mechanised machines working on our farms the corncrake is now almost extinct. This survey is about to start and the Wildlife Service is participating in it with the Irish Wildlife Conservancy. Our wildlife rangers will be doing detailed work in this survey. We are pleased to be involved with the Irish Wildlife Conservancy on this matter.
The Wildlife Service is quite a young service. It has made considerable progress in the protection of our own wildlife, mammals, fish, habitats and other areas. Since the enactment of the 1976 Act, 46 nature reserves have been established in our country. Recently we created our own refuge for fauna at Lady's Island in County Wexford. There are 66 wild fowl sanctuaries where shooting is prohibited. One of the biggest problems facing the Wildlife Service — and indeed facing wild life — is the rapid change in farming patterns, intensive agricultural development, silage making, removal of hedgerows and the use of very high powered fertilisers, all of which affect the traditional habitats of the many species that exist and have existed in our country.
The EC Commission directed some time ago that all arterial drainage schemes must have an environmental impact assessment prepared to establish the effect on wildlife and on their habitats and on fisheries. Steps must be taken when any such scheme is being considered at present to protect wildlife and fisheries. The environmental impact must be measured against the benefits of the scheme.
My constituency colleague, Senator Hussey, made a very good contribution. He spoke about the difficulties being encountered by farmers, in the eradication of TB and about the involvement of badgers in spreading the disease. I share his views and concur readily with him. The Wildlife Service would welcome any well founded and judicious research on the precise role of the badger in the spread of bovine TB. At present there is no doubt that the badger is a carrier of TB but insufficient information is known about its role in transmitting TB to cattle. It would be easy to say that all herd breakdowns are due to badgers and to try to eliminate badgers as a result. However, the wildlife experts in my Department are adamant that there is no evidence that badgers cause these total herd breakdowns. We are prepared to issue licences for the trapping of badgers to the Department of Agriculture and Food, provided the Department carry out a complete research on each badger killed and that this data is published.
We do not want, ad lib, irregular trapping of badgers taking place and a certain amount of badgers being trapped and used as a yardstick to decide that badgers are totally responsible for the spread of TB. We want total research. A whole set should be taken out, not just three badgers from any one set and this could be used as a yardstick to say that all the badgers in the set are carrying TB and are a contributory factor to the spread of bovine TB. There is no hard information on that that can be sustained. We want the Department of Agriculture and Food to co-operate with us in ensuring that information can be provided, that the scientific data can be made available and that conclusive evidence can be produced, one way or the other, as to what contribution badgers make to carrying and transmitting bovine TB from one area to another.
Senator W. Ryan spoke about setting aside agricultural land for wildlife purposes. This indeed has been proposed by the European Communities. However, funding for this must come through the member states and in our case through the Department of Agriculture and Food under the Agriculture Structures Directive.
He also spoke about the Irish Wildlife Advisory Council. The Wildlife Service is slightly over a decade old. They joined my Department just over six months ago. We are delighted to have them under the umbrella of the Office of Public Works which, I think they and we agree, is their rightful home. Consideration is being given at this time to the setting up of an Irish wildlife advisory council. Under the recently enacted ACE regulations, that is Action for Community Environment, funds will be made available by the European Communities to protect bird sites in some areas throughout the Community. We hope Ireland can benefit from that and we are in the process of preparing a number of applications.
My Department are preparing cases for financial aid from Brussels to recoup investment for moneys we have provided for the establishment of areas such as the Wexford Wild Fowl Reserve, where 50 per cent of the world population of the Greenland white fronted goose spent their winter and for Loughbarra bog which was recently purchased by the wildlife service which is also a goose site, and for other sites also. If funds were made available to purchase a reasonable sample of the various types of peat lands it would be our objective to purchase 10,000 hectares of wetland, raised bogs and 40,000 hectares of blanket bog. Our modest programme could cost up to £40 million and for a small country this is a massive contribution to conservation. Therefore we would be only too delighted to avail of whatever funds are available from Brussels in the future for this type of conservation.
Senator Reynolds and others, too, spoke on the need to control farm pest species. Ireland has provided for the control of these pest species where they cause damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, flora and fauna. The Wildlife Service is in constant contact with the Department of Agriculture, with agricultural and ACOT advisers, in order that they can get their views and objectives across to the farming community. We have also produced a booklet called Farming and Wildlife for general information and distribution throughout the country.
The taking of pike by foreigners has also been referred to, and there are now by-laws which have recently been made by the Minister for the Marine and which limit the number and size of pike that can be taken out of our rivers and lakes. Senator Tom Fitzgerald covered a very wide area and I just want to inform the House that almost 2,000 guillemots were killed by oil pollution following the Kowloon Bridge disaster. However, the loss of these guillemots does not appear to have had a major effect on the overall population of the species in our country and my Department, through the Wildlife Service, have been observing and monitoring this situation. We would hope that further disastrous pollution difficulties like this can be avoided, but being an island country we always run this serious risk. Senator Fitzgerald also referred to the burning of gorse. The law maintains that gorse can only be burned between the 31 August and 15 April, that is, under the Wildlife Act, 1976. We hope that all reasonable and law abiding citizens adhere to these regulations because between the period 15 April and 31 August wildlife and the whole environmental area is at its most vulnerable, so during that time is disastrous. Only between the 31 August and 15 April of the following year can any burning take place, and not during the good dry spring and summer months when the whole environment is absolutely vulnerable to absolute annihilation.
Senator Fitzgerald also referred to tourists who come here to shoot. We, indeed, are concerned with the conservation of wildlife and we must therefore regulate many matters, including hunting. We recognise the contribution that visitors and tourists coming to our country to hunt can make to our economy. The Wildlife Service of my Department will co-operate with the Department of Tourism and Transport and Bord Fáilte in any way legally possible to develop this sector of tourism and to protect the wildlife of our country for our people and for the whole world to enjoy.
The Senator also spoke about strychnine. The use of poison against wildlife is generally forbidden. There is general debarment of the use of strychnine for the extinction of wildlife. However, the Protection of Animals Acts allows landowners to poison their lands. We agree that the large scale use of poison particularly strychnine can be very dangerous, not only to wildlife but indeed to us all. I understand that there is more strychnine sold in the Dingle area than in the whole of the rest of Ireland. I am not too sure what economic reason for that is but that seems to be the statistical information available.
Senator McMahon in a very practical contribution spoke about the agricultural situation in this context and about the exploitation of our boglands. I would have to concur with what he has said. The rational exploitation of our bogland must go hand in hand with the preservation of a reasonable percentage of our boglands for conservation. We are in constant consultation with Bord na Móna concerning the use of cutaway bogs, many of which would make excellent wetland sites if properly flooded. This is something that consideration is being given to at this time and I hope we may be able to get support for from Europe, both financial and otherwise.
The role of the Wildlife Service is very important. We have to implement the 1976 Wildlife Act, we have to ensure that Ireland honours its commitment to various international Conventions. If we are in violation of these Conventions we are in difficulty. If we were in violation of the 1976 Wildlife Act, the wild service would not be fulfilling its proper role. We have to co-ordinate our programmes and co-operate with voluntary organisations and conservation organisations in the interests of conservation, and of sport and gamesmanship. We have to take into account the national regional connotations, and local connotations and the economic demands based on people and we have to try to find a balance between the statutory and the legal roles we must play in adhering to international Conventions and the economic and practical demands — we would hope reasonable demands — being made by the voluntary organisations in our country. I hope that with co-operation, with more enlightened debate, with more statistical, scientific and educational data that we can all play our rightful role in preserving the wildlife heritage of our country for the present and future generations. I thank the House for this debate this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.