May I ask has the Minister received representations in relation to licensing of otter hounds under this section?
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: " That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
My Department have received recently representations in regard to licensing of otter hunts. The suggestion was made to me that before issuing a licence to hunt otters I should consult with the master of certain packs of otter hounds. While I can understand the suggestion I am not satisfied that it would be proper for me to accept that, because I would be establishing a precedent there and I might be expected to consult with all sorts of people in regard to other licences under the Bill. The otter up to now has not received any protection whatever. He was regarded as a pest species. I am affording him protection here, prohibiting hunting of the otter unless under licence issued by me to which, under section 9, I may attach conditions.
In effect this section means that if somebody comes to the Minister with so many dogs or hounds and says " I have got an otter pack, I want to hunt otter " he has to get a licence from the Minister before he can engage in such.
That is right. And, of course, his bona fides would have to be established to let him get it.
That is somewhat better. I understand a very high price can be obtained for otter pelts at the moment. It is an obvious area for abuse unless it is very carefully monitored. There is some concern, because of the price being obtained for otter pelts at present, that there might be certain backdoor ways of abusing the licence.
I appreciate that but if an application is made to me for a licence to hunt otters, the bona fides of the person making the application will be investigated. Certain consultations would take place. I do not want to make these consultations statutory. I do not want to write them into the Bill.
I take it this will be the approach of the Department?
That will be the approach.
That will be very satisfactory.
Can the Minister give any indication of what the otter population or stocks are like because they can do an amount of damage to salmon, especially during the spawning season.
It is the same principle.
I am satisfied from information available that the species is not in danger of extinction but I am not in a position to give a head count so to speak. There is a study being carried out by my Department at the moment.
We are dealing with land mammals and marine mammals some of which are a pest to fishermen in that they destroy salmon for instance. Others are amphibious. In some areas they are farmed and I am wondering whether this sphere of activity will be allowed continue?
I am not aware of any such otter farming. The Bill deals with animals in the wild.
So if one undertakes to breed otters for the purpose of producing otter pelts, he may do with them as he wishes.
If he is in the business at the moment he may stay in it but to get into the business after the coming into operation of the Bill he could only do so presumably by capturing at least two otters. To do that he would have to get a licence from me.
Is there no artificial insemination of otters?
We have not reached that stage yet.
In that context does the Bill make any provision in respect of mink whether wild or farmed?
The Bill as it stands does not protect mink.
We have a lot of mink in my area and the people who have mink farms buy hides and skins of other types of animals, too.
I am advised that here again the licensing of mink farms is within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and that they are regulated by statute.
The trouble is when they escape.
If they escape they can be shot.
In subsection (1) the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant a licence to a master or other person in charge of a pack of otter hounds and so on. But I am more concerned with the master or other person in charge of a pack of stag hounds. The wording there is contemptuous.
I would not wish to be contemptuous in regard to a master of a pack of stag hounds.
Surely it is leaving the matter very much to the whim of the Minister.
If a licence were to be granted as a right then it would not be a licence at all and even if the words " if he thinks fit " were to be left out it would not be right.
It would not change the situation.
I wondered why the Minister was leaving in that precaution especially in respect of subsection 2 where you talk about the master of a pack of beagles hunting hares. I do not think that beagles succeed very often in catching hares.
When we come to that we will see that it only refers to the close season.
In subsection (1) the Minister may " if he thinks fit ", while in subsection (2) the Minister " may "?
I must accept the responsibility for the Bill as it is here but I imagine that the parliamentary draftsman followed precedent in this regard.
There is no difference between granting a licence to master of a pack of stag hounds and granting a licence to the master of a pack of harriers.
I take the Deputy's point. The section would be just as strong and as effective without those four words. We will think about it.
The purpose of subsections (2) and (3) is to enable the Minister to grant licences in certain circumstances for bona fide coursing and for beagling. Could the Minister tell us the circumstances under which he would grant licences for coursing events to be held outside the open season?
I understand, for example. that a particular event at Clounanna is held each year outside the open season. That event does not fall within the open season. That has been the position for many years. If I were not to make this provision, and that particular Clounanna event were to be held on the traditional date, it would be illegal. I do not think the Deputies opposite would wish that.
Mr. Kitt
On the Second Stage the Minister said that there will be provision for immediate action where, for instance, a crop was destroyed by straying deer. I would like to know if the intention of the Minister is to grant a licence to farmers to deal with such cases.
It is covered in section 42.
Whereas I appreciate the degree of protection afforded by the Minister, again my view would be that he does not go far enough. I dissent from a provision which grants to anybody a licence such as that contained in this provision. Even in relation to the otter, society has become more enlightened and perhaps in the years ahead we will see adequate legislation in this area.
I understand that this is the first time the otter has had some protection.
I do not think it goes far enough.
For the first time we are recognising the deer. For the first time the badger is being given absolute protection and considerable protection is being given also to the otter.
It is a question of keeping a balance. The otter can do irreparable damage. He is a lovely looking animal and certain people regard him as a pet but he can be a very dangerous and marauding animal in certain circumstances. The lesser of two evils would be to hunt the otter. It is all right having recourse to sophistry and having a soppy approach to these things such as following the New Statesman or The Tribune but the rest of us must deal with practical situations.
I tried to stress in my Second Stage speech that there must be a balance between conservation on the one hand and agriculture, industry and tourism on the other. I thoroughly agree with Deputy Haughey that we must have a balance when discussing wildlife. There must be regard for what can be encouraged, what can be tolerated and what it is necessary to prune.
I hope that the effects of this Bill will give some people the urge to be a little better informed before they indulge in criticism.
My objection is not that I am opposed to the effective and humane control of wildlife as such, whether it be the hare, otter or deer. What I object vehemently to is the licensing of a particular form of control which, in my view, gives rise to cruelty and which is inhumane and uncivilised. I would not, if I were fortunate enough to be in the Minister's position, licence anybody or any person in charge of a group of otter hounds to indulge in that form of control. With respect, this is a point of view which is substantially held by a growing section of Irish society and in the future it will be seen to have merit.
I do not intend to impose this view on anybody but I hope that its worth will be recognised in future. I commend the Minister for his approach in regard to deer. There are many effective controls laid down for their protection. I do not seek inspiration for my views from the New Statesman or any other such publication.
The Deputy knows all the trendy lefties.
With due respect to Deputy Haughey, not being a master of hounds or anything else like that, I could fire quite a few pseudo-liberal jibes in the other direction but I do not propose to do so. As a constant reader of the Cork Examiner, of The Irish Press and so on, I hold these views adamantly. Maybe I am wrong.
We all appreciate Deputy Desmond's point of view. There is a growing concern among a large section of the population about bloodsports. We would be following a dangerous line in this legislation if we were to have regard for what Deputy Desmond thinks will develop as a very strong lobby in the years to come against the killing of animals for sport otherwise. A person must make up his mind which side he is on. He cannot be on this Committee if he is strictly on the bloodsport side. There is more difficulty in deciding which animals should be protected. Badgers are now protected. I have been a member of an agricultural committee for several years; we paid a bounty for the killing of badgers. These animals destroy a great deal of poultry. The committee of conservators gave a bounty for the killing of otters and seals. Now these animals are being protected. Are we not to have regard for the animals which these other animals destroy?
I should like to put it to the Deputy and to the Committee that the provisions of this Bill are flexible. If a day comes when the otter is a pest and is overrunning the country then we will deal with the situation. If a day comes when people feel that hares are endangered and should be totally protected then they can be preserved under the terms of the Bill. This is flexible legislation which I trust will outlive our lifetime.
I want to make the point that I have no objection whatsoever to the effective control and preservation of wildlife, in respect of the animals we are dealing with here. Irrespective of the species, control may be very necessary as it is in this case. What I object to most vehemently is the giving to any person a licence for particular forms of control. The particular form of control here is the authorisation to a master—God be with the days, Deputy Haughey—of a pack of stag hounds or other persons to proceed to exterminate a species in a particular form.
That shows the Deputy's lack of knowledge of the situation. Stag hounds do not destroy deer, in fact they breed, they add to the complement of deer.
I do not wish to interrupt Deputy Desmond's contribution but I should like to ask him if he dismisses in the same fashion the captain of a fishing boat in Dún Laoghaire, who goes out under licence and in his own inhumane way catches fish?
I do not see anything objectionable in that. I see no alternative to it. If I may throw the precise converse back at the Deputy, it is not so long ago since this country introduced the humane killers to the slaughterhouses of the Corporation, which the Deputy represents. It has now become a civilised acceptance that one does not, in relation to the preparation of beef, indulge in cruelty.
The Deputy is making Deputy Tunney's teeth water.
The idea of licensing any person to get, for his pleasure, a pack of otter hounds to hunt is barbarous and uncivilised. With due respect to the Minister, I do not think the viewpoint I hold is that of a tiny minority. I would stress here that otter hunting in Britain is illegal.
The circumstances obtaining in England are quite different to those here. This is an Irish Bill dealing with Irish wildlife conservation. I think, with all respect, we have discussed this section long enough.
Question put and agreed to.