Wild Birds Protection Bill, 1929—Committee.
SECTION 1.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Justice;
the expression "wild birds" means and includes all wild birds, other than game birds within the meaning of the Game Preservation Act, 1929.
I move:
"In page 2, line 15, to delete the figures ‘1929' and substitute the figures ‘1930.'"
In Section 1 reference is made to the Game Preservation Act, 1929. Of course, there is no Game Preservation Act of 1929, and my amendment is to alter the figures "1929" to "1930." In a subsequent stage of the Bill it may be necessary again to alter the figures "1930." As Deputies are aware, there is at present a little friction about the Game Preservation Bill. I suggest to the House tentatively at present to put in the figures "1930" in the hope that the Game Preservation Bill will become law this year.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 1 as amended stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
[Professor Thrift took the Chair.]
SECTION 2. (1) and (4).
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person during the period between the 1st day of March and the 1st day of August, both days inclusive (in this Act referred to as the close time), in any year—
(a) knowingly and wilfully to shoot or attempt to shoot any wild bird, or
(b) to use any boat for the purpose of shooting or causing to be shot any wild bird, or
(c) to use any trap, snare, net, or any other instrument for the purpose of taking alive or killing or attempting to take alive or kill any wild bird, or
(d) except during the first fifteen days of the close time, to sell or expose or offer for sale or have in his possession or control any wild bird recently taken alive or killed.
(4) Every person who shall do any act or thing in contravention of this section shall (unless such act or thing is for the time being permitted by an order under this Act) be guilty of an offence under this section and on summary conviction thereof shall, if and so far as the offence was committed in respect of any of the wild birds mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, be liable to a penalty not exceeding one pound for every such wild bird in respect of which the offence was committed and, if and so far as the offence was committed in respect of wild birds not mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, be liable in the case of a first offence to be reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding ten shillings for every such wild bird in respect of which the offence was committed.
I move:—
In Section 2, sub-section (1), page 2, line 17, to delete the figure and words "1st day of August" and substitute the figures and words "31st day of July."
This very small amendment brings the Bill more into harmony with other legislation by substituting "31st July" for "1st August." In other words, it brings in the open season on the 1st August instead of the 31st July.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In sub-section (4), page 3, line 7, to delete the words "one pound" and substitute therefor the words "one shilling."
I am rather disappointed that the Deputy has not given us some argument in favour of the reduction of the penalty. I think in legislation of this kind, and I venture to say that most members will agree with me, one point of view is that the penalty should not be absurdly excessive, and the other point of view is that you must see if you pass the Bill that the penalties should not be so small that the Act will be simply laughed at, that it will pay a person to break the law and pay the fine. It must be borne in mind also that magistrates do not, except in extreme cases indeed, inflict the maximum penalty. As the Bill stands, if a magistrate thinks that a fine of a shilling, sixpence, or a penny would be sufficient, he would be entitled to inflict such a fine. I, therefore, think that one pound does not seem to be extraordinarily excessive as the maximum fine. The fine might be left in the discretion of the magistrate.
I would suggest that the very fact that a person is prosecuted, even though he may be fined a small sum, is sufficiently serious. A shilling is quite enough especially in cases where young people are prosecuted. It is more likely that they would be able to pay 1/-.
The penalty should be measured according to the damage or injury and the damage done in trapping a bird would be very little. It may be said that the penalty I suggest is small but the injury would be very little. The Minister states that the District Justice will not inflict the maximum penalty except in extreme cases, but I have known instances in which District Justices imposed the full penalty and it was because the full penalty was imposed in these cases that my attention was called to this matter. In reality there was no breach of the law at all. It is quite possible that the full penalty may not be imposed but on Second Reading I commented on the fact that the penalty suggested in the Bill was £25 or three months in jail——
That is a different section.
The penalty in this case is 10/- but if a man is fined a shilling and costs in each case that should be sufficient to meet the offence. I think the Minister ought to meet me in this amendment. As I stated on Second Reading where you have extreme penalties you are encouraging people to defeat the law and to do anything in order to accomplish that, even to go the length of committing perjury. We have cases frequently before the District Justices in which perjury is committed. I think it would be better to have a small penalty in these cases and to have the law obeyed rather than to have a big penalty and to have the law disobeyed. That is why I put down the amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.
I entirely disagree with the views expressed by Deputy Nolan. I think that if these small penalties were inserted in the Bill they would really make a farce of it. If children commit offences under the Bill their parents will pay the fines and if in these cases they have to pay a fine of ten shillings instead of a shilling, I expect that they will take good care that the children will not offend again. It is up to the parents to make their children understand that they must obey the law and not destroy these birds wantonly.
I think if there is any criticism that can justly be made as to the administration of the penal law in this country as regards offences against animals that criticism might well be that the penalty inflicted by the justices and the courts for such offences is invariably too light within the limits of their discretion. They seem to me to err in inflicting too mild a penalty rather than in inflicting too severe a penalty. The proposal in the Bill is a reasonable one. The fine that may be imposed for a breach of the section is £1. It shall not exceed £1. You must, when you have a court, allow that court discretion, and I do not think that it can be suggested that discretion has been exceeded by the courts inflicting too severe a penalty. The tendency is to go the other way. I agree with what Deputy O'Mahony says, that it is turning the Bill into a farce if this House is to alter this Bill fixing the maximum penalty at 1/-. It is better not to pass the Bill at all than to pass the Bill with such a section as that, because if you put such a section into the Bill the country cannot be expected to take it seriously. I would ask the House to reject this amendment.
I entirely agree with what the two Deputies who have last spoken have said. If you have a Bill of this kind you must, in order to make it work, have a penalty that will meet the case. This is not too severe a penalty, but putting the penalty at £1 leaves it in the discretion of the Justice to measure the fine by the particular offence that is committed. I think anybody who follows the cases tried from time to time in the courts and notes the penalties that are inflicted for this kind of offence will agree that the penalties are, as a rule, too moderate. Sometimes, in cases of cruelty, the penalties inflicted are very moderate; if I might say so, they are immoderately so—if I may use that word. I do not think a Deputy will come across any case in which a District Justice or a Judge has passed a sentence that could be called at all severe. You must have a reasonable penalty if the legislation passed by the House is to work. It is necessary to fix a reasonable maximum penalty or the whole thing will be a farce. I hope the House will not alter the section as it stands. Except in very rare cases the maximum penalty will not be inflicted, and I hope these exceptional cases will never arise or that they will be very rare indeed.
What Deputy O'Mahony said is absolutely ridiculous. He talked about children committing offences against this Bill, and said that their parents will have to pay the fines. How does the Deputy think that working people in this country can pay the penalty in the Bill every time their children commit offences against it? These are offences that they do not regard as offences at all. It may seem a slight thing to Deputy Rice or to Deputy O'Mahony to pay a fine of 10/-, but 10/- does not seem a small thing at all to working people in the country. Deputy Rice says that the District Justices err on the side of leniency. I can, on the contrary, assert that the District Justice does not err on the side of leniency, and if I were permitted to quote examples of the opposite mentality on the part of Justices I could do so. Some of those District Justices take up fads, and on every occasion on which they have a chance they will inflict the maximum penalty for this sort of thing which is hardly regarded by the people as an offence at all. I know that the people must be taught to regard cruelty to birds as wrong, but you cannot begin suddenly and make them pay these maximum penalties now. I submit that Deputy Nolan's amendment is quite reasonable, and I urge the House to accept it.
One aspect has been lost sight of. If you make the maximum penalty very small you are encouraging the employment of children in this country. Suppose you have at the moment a case where wild birds are being trapped by adults. By this legislation you make it difficult for an adult to continue doing this, but if you insert a small penalty for a child you may find that the child will be drafted on to that sort of work. That is what will happen.
I would like to point out to Deputy Ryan that in the first place this section is dealing simply with an offence committed during the close season, that is during the nesting, breeding and rearing-time. That section appears to me to be rather a reasonable one, and if this offence is committed by a young person, no doubt that young person will be more lightly fined, if fined at all, than an adult. And the young person may not be fined at all because you have the Probation of Offenders Act. It is much more likely that a young person will be fined a very small sum than that the adult will be fined a very large sum.
Surely Deputies can visualise cases in which there is an adult, a grown person, twenty-five or thirty years of age, going out during the breeding season, and for mere wantonness breaking any quantity of hatching eggs and cruelly ill-treating wild birds, taking fledglings out of their nest and flinging them about from mere wantonness. There ought to be in any case like that a penalty much higher than 1/- inflicted. I have received complaints from Deputy Ryan's own county in connection with an island which is well known as a breeding-place for wild birds. In regard to that island there have been complaints about picnickers going out there and cruelly ill-treating wild birds. I am sure these complaints have reached the Deputy and the county council where people in the most wanton fashion do this thing. When they do, does not the Deputy think that in such exceptional cases there should be power to inflict a very strong penalty? I think the Deputy is assuming that in every case the penalty that will be inflicted will be £1. That is not how the thing will work out——
By certain Justices a penalty of £1 will be inflicted in every case of this kind.
In extreme cases, a fine of £1 should be imposed, but making the maximum now 1/- would be absurd. The maximum will be very rarely imposed. It will not be imposed except in cases of wantonness and in cases of extreme cruelty. I repeat that fixing the maximum at 1/- will be absurd.
One pound means to the average agricultural labourer at least two weeks' wages, and that is a very serious matter.
Surely the Justice will take that into consideration. What does it mean to a millionaire, supposing a millionaire does the damage?
All this legislation is of a very partial nature. We call this thing cruelty when it is done by a poor person; we term it cruelty if the poor kill birds in a certain condition, but we do not mind how people kill or destroy game or catch fish, especially if those people belong to certain classes. What is cruel in the case of the poor is merely sport for those who are well-off. This is a most odious Bill; everything in it is odious on account of that class prejudice which is apparent in it and which creates such hatred in the hearts of the ordinary poor workers in Ireland against the more privileged classes.
You cannot shoot game, and there are very heavy penalties for shooting game, during the close season. This section deals solely with the close season.
I was dealing with the general argument of cruelty and I had in mind the attitude taken in regard to the actions of poor people as compared with the amount of cruelty involved in the ordinary course of sport on the part of the wealthier classes.
Surely the poor people are not forbidden to take part in sport? Are they not as free to indulge in it as people in other stations in life?
Of course the poor man is forbidden, by reason of his economic conditions, from taking part in hunting or shooting.
I think that is a most ridiculous statement for the Deputy to make. I could quite understand what Deputy Ryan said and I do hope that the District Justices will not be so foolish as to impose fines altogether out of proportion to the circumstances of the case. If a Justice does so he will place himself in an unenviable position. I visualise that in very many cases under this Act offenders will get off with a warning and the maximum penalty will only be imposed in the most flagrant cases. I imagine if the fine is large enough that there could be an appeal; in any case there would be an outery against flagrant sentences and this outery would be such as to make a District Justice reconsider his ways. I agree with the speakers who say that if you place small penalties in the Bill you are simply making it nugatory from the beginning.
Section 2 (4) sets out that every person who shall do any act or thing in contravention of the section shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one pound "for every such wild bird..." That would mean that if a young boy or girl of seven or eight years going along the countryside pulled down a bird's nest—for instance, a wren's nest— where there would be fifteen to eighteen little birds—the fine would be accordingly £15 or £18 if the Act would be interpreted in that manner by the District Justice. Deputy Wolfe referred to the words cruel and immoral.
Immoderate was the word I think I used.
I beg the Deputy's pardon. My point is that if the Deputy talks about cruelty let us have a definite case. Take the case of Deputy Wolfe himself who is eighteen stones weight. He rides all day after hounds.
I am sorry to say that I gave that up a long time ago.
The poor horse on which the Deputy was riding was, so to speak, cribbed, cabined and confined; he was out all day after the hounds, and yet that is what is called sport.
May I inform the Deputy that that does not occur at the present time?
The Deputy was speaking particularly, if I may say so.
I am speaking generally about cruelty and I contend that there is cruelty in the very case I have instanced. I am in favour of protecting birds during the close season, but I believe that the amount of money in the Bill is really too much—one pound in respect of every bird.
That is the maximum penalty.
This matter is really serious and I would like to say that I am in favour of the amendment.
The arguments against the amendment are not at all convincing. Some Deputy said that this was really turning the Bill into a farce. What is the Bill doing but turning the Dáil into a farce? Deputy Beckett says that this thing would encourage employment of children. It will, in destroying birds' nests, and they would be hard up for employment if that is the only occupation they can follow. I can understand Deputy Rice encouraging appeals, because that will benefit the legal profession. If you have a fine of one shilling it is enough. If the same mentality exists amongst the District Justices as exists amongst the people who drafted this Bill and if they impose the maximum penalty for robbing a bird's nest, I wonder what would they fine a per son for robbing a mare's nest? I will not press this amendment to a division if the Minister will accept Deputy Ryan's amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 4 not moved.
I beg to move amendment 5:
In sub-section (4), page 3, line 13, to delete all words after the word "shillings" to the end of the sub-section.
This brings us to practically the same argument as we have just listened to, except that 10/- is in as the fine which is considered sufficient. The effect of my amendment would be that under the Bill 10/- could be applied to cover all birds. I think 10/- would be sufficient for the whole lot. I would not have introduced the amendment at all only I know that on certain points District Justices have not got judicial minds. They run away with certain ideas, and every chance they get they inflict the maximum penalty. It is quite possible there would be one or two, or perhaps more, District Justices in the country who are as enthusiastic about this Bill as the people who framed it, and they will not be content unless they impose the maximum penalty. If a young person, through wantonness or innocence or by mistake, were to interfere with a nest of young birds, and if the parents were to be fined 10/- for every bird it would be a great hardship. We should not give power to a District Justice to inflict such a heavy penalty.
I agree that if the District Justice imposed a penalty of 10/- for every bird in a nest, say, of fifteen young birds, as Deputy Doyle mentioned, the destruction of the nest in that case meaning a fine of £7 10/-, it would be a great deal too excessive; but no sane District Justice would do so. The Deputy stated that the District Justices were in the habit of inflicting maximum penalties. The Deputy is misinformed on that subject completely.
Perhaps the Minister did not understand me. I said that certain District Justices were faddists in a certain direction and they would be inclined to impose the maximum penalty. I could mention one case if I were allowed.
The Deputy is misinformed in that case. Whenever a person is aggrieved by a sentence passed by a District Justice, no matter how small the amount may be, he can appeal to my Department——
—and I go through all the case myself in order to see whether or not the penalty was justified. I cannot at the moment recollect any case of a maximum fine. Certainly, if there are cases of maximum fines they are a very small number indeed, and I may say, on the whole, the District Justices fine very lightly. They do fine heavily in poteen cases, but no District Justice sitting to hear a case under this Bill would impose a maximum penalty unless it were a very extreme case. I would like to point out to the Deputy that this is only for a second offence. The Deputy will note in line 9:
If and so far as the offence was committed in respect of wild birds not mentioned in the first schedule to this Act, be liable in the case of a first offence to be reprimanded and discharged on payment of costs and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding 10/- for every such wild bird...
That shows the District Justice what the intention of the legislature is. In the first instance he must discharge a person, so that a person who had due warning and one conviction would come under this.
I would remind the Minister of my amendment where I can give proof that a District Justice did actually impose the maximum penalty where there was no real breach of the law. I communicated with the Minister with a view to having the fine reduced. It was not reduced. If the Minister wishes to get proof I will draw his attention to it later.
Perhaps the fine was richly deserved.
No. When that Bill was going through I said that where a man deliberately broke the law the maximum penalty was not too great, but in the case I am referring to there was no intention to break the law. The District Justice did not know the conditions prevailing in the district. He was not long there. He had come from the city, so that he did not understand the position. After that a number of people demanded that Peace Commissioners should sit on the bench with District Justices, a thing that I would not approve of. At the same time something should be done.
Under what statute was that case brought?
The Live Stock Breeding Act. I opposed an amendment proposing to reduce the fine from £2 to 10/-.
Was that a case dealing with 15 bull calves?
Yes. The summons dealt with 14 unlicensed calves. They were too weak to be operated on and two of them died before the court was held. There was no intention whatever to break the law or to use them for service. It was not the intention of the man to keep the 14 of them for use. However, the District Justice imposed the maximum penalty with costs. That is one case in point.
The owner got lots of notice.
No. There was no notice. It would be all right if there had been notice.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and agreed to.
Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3.
I move:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The Minister may by order made on the application of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries permit, for the purpose of protecting fisheries, the taking alive or the killing or both the taking alive and the killing in any particular fishery district or any particular part or parts thereof of any particular kind of wild birds in every year or any particular years or year during the whole or any particular part of the period which is by virtue of this Act or an order made under this Act the close time for that kind of wild birds in such fishery district or such particular part or parts thereof and may by any subsequent order made on the like application revoke or amend any such first-mentioned order."
The object of this amendment is to enable the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, for the purpose of protecting fisheries, to make orders for the destruction of birds that do serious harm to fish. Of course the fishing industry is a very valuable one and there are certain birds that are, I understand, very pernicious, and that destroy enormous quantities of young fish. It seems that these birds should not be protected.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Every person who shall do any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) use as a scarecrow any live bird which is tethered, or
(b) use as a decoy any live bird which is tethered or is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances or which is blind, maimed or injured, or
(c) use bird-lime or any substance of a like nature for the purpose of taking or capturing alive or attempting to take or capture alive any wild bird, or
(d) take or attempt to take any wild bird by means of a hook or other similar instrument,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five pounds or alternatively or in addition thereto to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.
I move:—
To delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following—
"(a) use as a scarecrow any live bird which is blind, maimed, or injured, or."
I hope this amendment will be accepted. To show that I am anxious that birds will not suffer any undue cruelty, I am asking that these words be included, "used as a scarecrow any live bird which is blind, maimed or injured, or." The Bill as it stands says "any bird." It does not matter what sort of bird it is, whether it is in good health or whether it is properly handled or not; any person who tethers a bird will be prosecuted and fined very heavily. This amendment would give a considerable number of people the means of earning a livelihood.
This deals with fixing scarecrows.
Any bird will come in under that.
Am I to take it from the Minister that this will not prevent a person from bracing a bird for the purpose of catching birds?
The Deputy will see that the next amendment in my name proposes to give leave to tether a bird as a decoy, for the purpose of catching birds, but this means that nobody shall tie a live bird in a field and leave him there to starve for the purpose of frightening other birds away.
I suppose the Minister means a bird that could travel but not fly away.
I will withdraw the amendment in favour of the Minister's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In paragraph (b), on page 3, line 53, to insert the word "so" before the word "tethered," and also before the word "secured," line 54, and to insert after the word "appliances," line 54, the words "as to cause suffering."
It would then run, "use as a decoy any live bird which is so tethered or is so secured by means of braces or other similar appliances as to cause unnecessary suffering." That means that if the bird is being treated as a decoy in a humane fashion it can be so used. That would enable the present birdcatchers to use nets for the purpose of catching birds and to use a decoy for netting. That can be humanely done, and it would enable the birdcatchers to carry on their present occupation.
Acting-Chairman
"Unnecessary" is not on the paper.
The Minister could put in as an amendment on the next stage the word "unnecessary" before "suffering." The word "unnecessary" is not there now.
I ask the Minister not to put in "unnecessary."
I did not mean to say "unnecessary."
The danger is that a number of people think that anything at all causes birds to suffer. I have a pamphlet here that was sent out from a certain organisation, and I say that it would be much better if they had sent what it cost them to circulate this pamphlet to the "Herald" Boot Fund to supply boots to poor children. They believe that anything at all causes suffering. I think you would need to put in "unnecessary."
Is not the Justice in the end the person who decides whether there is suffering or not? He will decide the degree of the suffering. I would urge that the word "unnecessary" is unnecessary. It is not persons who write to the newspapers who will decide that.
"Unnecessary" is unnecessary.
If a poor person who was brought up in court had not a counsel to defend his case and the State had, the State Counsel would be able to make such a case as would make it impossible for the poor person to pay the fine.
Counsel is never necessary in a case like this, and a solicitor is not really necessary either, because the Justice himself always sees that poor persons who are not legally represented get fair treatment.
One point about the word "unnecessary" is that if it is inserted it implies that any fastening of a bird causes suffering. I do not hold that it does. There are ways of fastening birds that will not cause suffering, and if you insert the word "unnecessary" you imply that any fastening causes suffering.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
To delete paragraph (c).
The people who handle birdlime, what I might call the professionals in this business, do not cause any undue hardship in any way, nor do they ever resort to places where there are birds of a sort that are not of very much use to them, and consequently they would not injure any of these birds. If you prevent people from attempting to catch birds by birdlime you will prevent people from earning a living. That is no exaggeration. There are a number of people in the country and in the City of Dublin who are eking out an existence by catching birds, and you propose to deprive them of that means of living. God knows, we have enough people eking out the means of existence, and I think that this amendment should be accepted.
I have also put my name to this amendment. The way I look at it is that there are certain people who earn a living by catching birds, whether for sale at home or for export, and if we are going to inflict even the smallest amount of human suffering by depriving those people of a living I think we should not pass a Bill like this, considering that in the present state of the country no alternative employment can be given to these people. We should not have so much regard for the sufferings of birds in that way as we should have for people who are not getting enough to eat, and if we are going to throw more people into the unemployed ranks by passing a clause like this, I think we are making a great mistake.
I have observed on many occasions professional birdcatchers catching birds with birdlime and I never saw any cruelty. They may have been expert men at their work. They generally go behind some fence or behind a haycock, because it is at that time of the year that birds are mostly caught, and the birdlime is put on close to where they are hiding. When a bird sticks to the bird-lime it is taken away and treated with the greatest kindness, much more kindly than I have seen sportsmen treating game with their dogs and guns. I have been told that birdlime in some cases is a cruel way of catching birds, because the bird-lime is made of a material that should not be used. If it were possible for the Minister on the Report Stage to bring in an amendment forbidding the use of certain materials in birdlime I think it would be more to the point, but I certainly would not agree to this provision remaining in the Bill unless it can be shown to me that alternative methods of catching birds are quite as effective, so that we will not be depriving men of earning their living. They have been described as the lowest of the low. I do not know that they are. As far as I can see they are earning as honest a living as many other persons, and they should be allowed to earn it.
I seriously hope that the House will reject this amendment. I do not want to repeat the remarks I made on the Second Reading with regard to birdlime, but it is a well-known fact that the use of birdlime does result in cruelty to birds. I agree with Deputy Ryan that professional birdcatchers are much more careful and much more humane than the amateurs in the use of it. But no amount of care can prevent a bird from escaping at times, even with professional birdcatchers. That bird succeeds in getting away before it is taken off the twig, and when it alights on another tree or bush it dies of starvation. I am sure that Deputy Ryan himself must have seen instances where birds escaped and were afterwards found dead on bushes or lying on a road, with lime on their wings.
I read in the Press a letter written by an eye-witness, and I propose to read part of it:—
If the public knew and realised the hideous cruelty of bird-lime, they could not be so callous as not to insist on the passing of Senator Brown's Bill. Let me cite a bitter experience of only a week ago.
Just near here on the Curragh, I saw a dog playing the game, as dogs do, of chasing a bird on the wing. It is only a game, for they never catch a healthy bird. But I saw that this little bird was flying very low in zig-zag jerks, so I shouted at the dog just as he knocked it over, and, hearing me, made off.
I ran and picked up the little dead thing—the most pitiful I have ever held in my hand. It was a robin, but just a skeleton in feathers—and such feathers— bent, twisted, clotted with lime, its wings glued so that it could not fly. But the most terrible were the eyes—closed, enormously swollen, seared and blinded with lime. It was dying of thirst and starvation, blind, crippled and despairingly struggling when the dog's paw mercifully ended its agony.
Why is all this suffering inflicted? To sell the few that survive the trapping to English traders who are not allowed to buy English birds. Some while ago a casual labourer for whom we used to send when extra labour was needed, refused to come, saying he made more in one day's trapping of goldfinches from a Manchester dealer, who had a big foreign contract, than he could earn in a week's ordinary work.
Now, when these things can happen, whether they are the result of the operation of amateurs or professionals, I think the House ought not to be impressed by the argument that some persons may lose their employment. There are other ways of taking birds than this inhuman means of birdlime. The use of bird-lime has been prohibited in other countries, and I suggest that if this country is not to hold itself up as one which has no regard for the sufferings of dumb creatures that the House ought to reject this amendment.
As Deputy Dr. Ryan has said, I think, a lot of this thing is due to the use of an inferior kind of birdlime. I think that bird-lime used years ago did not cause the suffering indicated by Deputy Rice. These cases have occurred. I have heard of them also occurring. The birds were unable to rise afterwards as a result of the birdlime. When the older form of birdlime was used the birds were able to rid themselves of it. I think the matter would be arranged if the older form of birdlime could be used, because undoubtedly a very large number of men are earning more or less a precarious livelihood at this in the country, and if we are going to deprive them of it we may spare the sufferings of the birds, but we will inflict suffering on human beings. One would be worse than the other. There are men in the country who are not professional bird-catchers. They catch birds on Sunday, and they take an interest in the work. They are often more kind to the birds than the people who criticise them, because it is to these men's interests that the birds when captured should be well looked after. While I admit that the birds who escape suffer, the birds that are caught are tended very carefully, and it is seen that no trace of birdlime remains on them. There is a way out of the difficulty by insisting on the older form of birdlime.
As has been pointed out, there are other ways of catching birds for those who are making a trade of it. There is netting and other ways. I think we should not be behind other nations in doing away with a system which lays itself open to the charge that it cannot always be done without very gross cases of cruelty, such as the instance Deputy Rice mentioned just now. Of course, in the hands of expert people it might not be so bad. Even with them great suffering may be caused, but in the case of inexpert people untold suffering might be caused, and I think we have no right to run any risks of that kind. We are bound to protect the creatures under our control in every way from suffering. Certainly birdlime is not a thing that commends itself to me, or to anybody that has much to do with animals or any regard for them. We are not the only country in the world that has forbidden the use of birdlime, and I hope we will not be backward in putting an end to its use when other ways of trapping birds are available which are quite sufficient to meet the case of those who go in for trafficking in birds.
Owing to the capture of this kind of bird being prohibited in England this country is being exploited to such an extent that the birds are rapidly becoming extinet. We should preserve those birds. They are an asset to the country and make it brighter than it might be. What is more beautiful than to hear those birds singing in the springtime? Instead of exporting and catching them with birdlime——
There is nothing in this amendment preventing the export of birds.
We are exporting them at present to such an extent that they are rapidly becoming extinct. I say we should do everything possible to protect them instead of catching them with birdlime and imprisoning them in cages or exporting them.
Certainly anyone who is out capturing birds does not want to inflict hardship on them. Birdlime might be a bit severe. We have it from the professional bird-catcher, Deputy Rice, and it must be. Has anyone seen a hare die in a form after a long course? There is nothing about that. I have seen hares die in their forms. Has anyone caught a bird that has been winged by a sportsman who has a game licence? He fires and wounds the bird and it dies. Which is the greater punishment to put birdlime on a stick and catch a bird, to wound a bird on the wing, or to hunt a hare to the extent that it dies in the form? I have a great deal of sympathy with the wording in the Bill, and I think something should be done to meet the case.
I think this section is a very important one in the Bill, and that the real point about birdlime is that if every bird that had alighted on the birdlime was a bird that the professional catcher wished to keep he would clean it. Any bird he does not wish to keep he cleanses and lets go. If that was always done there would be no cruelty in birdlime but the real point is that birds get on the birdlime and get away and that is a terribly cruel game. They die and they transmit the birdlime to other birds by alighting on hedges and twigs. Other birds get on and they die. The minutest bit will seal their bills and they will die of starvation.
Would Deputy O'Mahony say if he has any proof that what he has said happens?
I have listened to this discussion with more than usual interest because, frankly, it is a subject upon which I myself have no personal knowledge. In my part of the country I think there is very little catching of wild birds at all. I brought to this discussion a completely open mind. It did appear to me, however, that a strong case has been made out against birdlime and it does appear to me that no really strong case has been made out in favour of its use. It has been stated that the prohibition of the use of birdlime would put a large number of persons out of employment. Why that should follow has not been made anyway clear. I heard it stated here, and it appears to me to be sound, that an expert bird-catcher can more humanely and more efficiently catch birds by means of the decoy and the net than he could by means of birdlime. The decoy and the net are perfectly harmless and inflict no cruelty, and if there is a humane method of catching birds which is even more efficient than the one which is not humane then surely it is no hardship upon anybody to prohibit the one and to leave the other open. That is to say, to prohibit birdlime and leave the netting open, as it is left open under this Bill. That there is a class of bird which can be caught by birdlime and not be caught by net is an argument that has not even been advanced and, therefore, I cannot see any reason why this method of birdliming should be continued. It is admitted by the advocates of birdlime that there is a form of birdlime which should not be used, which is a form of birdlime which inflicts very unnecessary suffering, but that is the birdlime which we are told is now in constant use. That appears, to my mind, to refute any argument which has been put forward, because in one breath the advocates of birdlime say that birdlime users are all persons who are anxious not to inflict suffering and who do everything that lies in their power to prevent birds from suffering, and in the very next breath they tell us they are using a form of birdlime which is cruel, when they could use a form of birdlime which is not cruel. The one argument seems altogether overwhelmingly to answer the other. Of course, it is for the House to decide, but I, personally, will vote that the words stand.
The Minister misunderstood what the advocates of birdlime have said. The advocates of birdlime did not say that those who used birdlime are liable to use an objectionable form of birdlime. What I meant to say and what I did say was that the professional bird-catcher used a form of birdlime that did not inflict any pain on the bird and that was not followed by any ill effects, but that others may have used a form of birdlime that the same could not be said for. In my experience, I never saw the other form of birdlime. I said if it could be proved to me that an alternative method of catching birds was as effective for those engaged in this occupation I would be satisfied, but I am afraid no very convincing case has been made that catching birds by nets is as effective as catching them by birdlime. I certainly am not satisfied with the arguments that have been put up against the amendment.
Is there any type of bird that could not be caught by nets?
There are places that birds resort to where they can only be caught by the use of birdlime.
Birds get on the tops of small shrubs where you cannot set a net for them.
You can set it on the ground beside them.
They would not come down.
They will, if there is feeding.
Question—"That paragraph C. stand"—put and agreed to.
The next three amendments (11, 12 and 13) all refer to the question of penalty and they can be discussed together.
The following are the amendments:—
11. To delete lines 63 and 64 and substitute therefor the words "one shilling."—John T. Nolan.
12. To delete lines 63 and 64 and substitute therefor the words "ten shillings."—Edward Doyle, Séamus O Riain.
13. To delete lines 63 and 64 and substitute the words "five pounds or at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding fourteen days."—Aire Dlí agus Cirt.
The Minister said that where a District Justice put on the maximum penalty he would be prepared to receive a petition.
Not necessarily to grant it. It depends on the merits.
I was very much surprised at such a statement coming from the Minister for Justice. I think it is laying down a very bad principle, and might mean that he will have the petitions every other day in other cases. The penalties here are so severe that I think this is really a matter for the Minister for Finance and not for the Minister for Justice.
The Minister for Finance gets the fines.
The Minister for Finance should be in charge of the Bill.
I personally think that the penalties in Section 4 are unduly high—that is to say, for an offence under that section a person should be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding £25, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months. I suggest to the House the amendment in my name. I think fourteen days' imprisonment and five pounds fine would be ample and would suit the circumstances of the case. If amendment 13 is agreed to, I take it amendment 12 would not be moved.
Would the Minister consider bringing in on Report that he would not make the penalty so severe for a first offence and his amendment could be agreed to?
Of course, in a first offence it lies in the discretion of the District Justice as to whether he will punish or not. He can always use the Probation of Offenders Act. Of course, even in a first offence there may be a considerable case of cruelty. There is one thing that I myself would like to see put down very much, and that is the catching of birds with hooks. I think that is a very unpleasant form of amusement, and I should like to put it down.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 11 and 12, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Every person who shall export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported or attempted to be exported, from Saorstát Eireann for the purpose of sale any live wild bird of any of the kinds of wild birds specified in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence to a penalty not exceeding ten shillings for each bird in respect of which the offence was committed and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding two pounds for each bird in respect of which the offence was committed or alternatively or in addition to such last-mentioned penalty to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three months.
I move:
In line 45 after the word "shall" to insert the words "between the 15th day of March and the 1st day of November, both days inclusive."
I do not know what the real objection of the framers of this Bill was to the export of wild birds. I heard certain Deputies express the view that we should preserve wild birds, such as goldfinches, linnets, etc., in order to beautify the country. I do not know if that is the object. When putting down this amendment, however, I thought the object was to prevent cruelty during export, because I believe, a large number of goldfinches die on the voyage across. I have been told by experts in this business that these birds usually die because they are very young and are suddenly put on a diet of hard grain, such as bird seed, for which they are not able. I am told that when the birds reach a certain age they can be safely put on this diet of bird seed and are able to stand the journey across. If export was forbidden between the 15th March and 1st November there would be no hardship inflicted. By 1st November the birds would have reached a certain age and would be able for the journey. I think the reason for putting in the section was to prevent this cruelty. If the framers of the Bill or Deputies have other objects in view, for instance, that these birds should be preserved here as they are an attraction and an asset to the country, of course this amendment does not meet their point. Still, I believe that if men are earning a livelihood from this, and we prevent them from earning that livelihood by stopping the exports, we will be committing a hardship on human beings, and we ought to be more particular about human suffering than about the suffering of birds.
This only applies to a certain class of birds mentioned in the second schedule. I understand the general view of the country is that this particular type of bird is in danger of becoming extinct, and that they would be, not merely from the point of view of the amenities of country life, but also from the point of view of utility, a considerable loss. A great number of these birds perform a very useful function in destroying insects. Of course, we will have to discuss the actual birds to be safeguarded when we come to the second schedule, but it is a pity that some of our native wild birds should be completely exterminated by export, and I ask the House to let the Bill stand as it is.
I was recently reading an account of the Manchester public parks which are being enlarged for the benefit of poor people to a very much greater extent than in any other district in England or Ireland. In this report special attention was given to the question of wild birds, and it was deplored that almost all the wild birds had become extinct. It is difficult to say how they can possibly be reinstated. It is very important that we should look ahead before a similar thing happens here, and preserve the wild birds which are an attraction to our countryside.
Mr. Doyle
In support of Deputy Ryan's amendment, I fail to see how Deputies can show that certain birds are extinct because of so many being caught and exported. Take the case of the wren, which is supposed to be the king of all birds. That bird breeds twice in the year and brings out clutches of from 15 to 18.
The wren is not mentioned in this Bill at all.
Mr. Doyle
I know that, but why is it not mentioned? There is hardly as scarce a bird to-day as the wren, in spite of the large clutches that it brings out twice a year. The bullfinch also breeds twice a year, and yet it is a very scarce bird, but nobody argues that it is because so many of these birds are exported that they are so scarce. It is an entire fallacy. It is simply for the sake of making a case because somebody said somewhere that these birds were getting extinct. Take my own county. There is one bird mentioned in the second schedule to the Bill which will not be allowed to be exported that I never saw in my life. Some of the oldest professional bird-catchers live near me, and they never caught one of those birds in their lives, and yet we are assured that they are becoming extinct as a consequence of the bird-catchers.
Is not the robin a scarce bird? It is a very scarce bird, and I should like to hear from some of the experts why it is scarce. I know the reason, but it is not because of the bird-catchers. More goldfinches died during the snow twelve months ago from starvation and hunger than the bird-catchers could do away with in ten years; yet there are fanatics in this country, men and women, weeping and wailing and getting this Chamber turned into a vapour bath about the little birds, who did nothing to save them from starvation during the snow.
On the Second Reading of this Bill some Deputy, whether it was Deputy Doyle or not I do not know, but someone of the same mentality, discovered that the scarcity of goldfinches was due to the iniquities of the Minister for Agriculture because he had destroyed thistles throughout the country, and that because of that he was to blame for the scarcity of goldfinches. I am glad now that Deputy Doyle thinks that it was owing to the big snow a year ago that the scarcity is due. Undoubtedly the goldfinch, which is one of the most beautiful birds in this country, has become and is becoming rarer than it was before. Twenty or thirty years ago the price of the goldfinch was 6d. and 1/-, whereas at the present time they are sold for from 8/- to 10/- each, and the reason is because of the wholesale export of these birds to England at the present time. We can consider at a later stage what birds ought to be included, and whether all the birds in the Second Schedule should be kept in it or not, but if this is not passed the goldfinch will disappear altogether from among the birds of this country.
I would like to ask whether the vote moved by the Minister for Finance some time ago will be used to cover the point made by Deputy Doyle in case of another big snowfall.
[Mr. Fahy took the Chair.]
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killiea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
- White, John.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John. James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Little; Níl, Deputies Rice and Beckett.
Amendment declared lost.
[Professor Thrift took the Chair.]
I am not moving amendments 20 and 21, but I move amendment 22, namely:—
"In line 54 to delete all words from and including the word ‘or' to the end of the section."
Provision is made for summary jurisdiction in this section and I suggest that the Minister should accept this amendment. I need not repeat the arguments which I have previously put forward.
I think that three months is an oversight and should have been reduced, as in the other sections, to fourteen days. I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to reduce the term of imprisonment.
Imprisonment should be knocked out altogether. The fine is enough.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 9 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Where any person shall be found committing an offence under this Act it shall be lawful for any person to require the person so offending to give his Christian name, surname and place of abode, and in case the person so offending shall, after being so required, refuse to give his real name or place of abode or shall give a false or misleading name or place of abode he shall be liable, on being convicted of such offence and in addition to the penalties imposed therefor by this Act, to an additional penalty not exceeding one pound.
I think that this is a very bad principle which is creeping into legislation in this country. In the Game Preservation Bill a section was inserted whereby the holder of a £2 licence could hold up anybody he suspected of committing an offence under the Act, and ask him for his name, address and licence. Now you introduce a principle by which anybody can stop another person, accuse him of committing an offence under this Act and get his name and address, and if such person does not give his name and address he is liable to a penalty. That is a very serious matter. If a person has a private spite against another he can hold him up, accuse him of robbing a bird's nest, or something like that, get his name and address, and, in fact, ask him all sorts of vexatious questions and cause any amount of trouble.
As previously pointed out, there are people in this country who are a little bit over-enthusiastic about cruelty to wild birds and animals, perhaps much more so than they are to the obvious cruelty directed against human beings. We received circulars and letters from all sorts of people, as Deputy Doyle said from cranky old maids, asking us to give our support to the Bill. If you are going to allow these people to go around the country holding up boys and men, who may be out, perhaps, only for a picnic or who may be merely picking flowers in the hedges, and allow them to demand their names and addresses and ask them whether they have been inflicting cruelty on wild birds, you will make it impossible for anyone to live in the country. It is hard enough for anyone to live in it at present, but this section, if allowed to stand, will make it much harder. If you have Bills like this passed into law you cannot go anywhere without being liable to be asked your business by people who have a fad in that direction. I do not see any necessity for the section and I think that the Minister should remove it in the interests of law and order.
I agree with Deputy Dr. Ryan when he says that the section goes altogether too far. In my view the House should delete the section. I am more strongly urged to take that attitude owing to what Dr. Ryan has said because otherwise this House and this country would lose Dr. Ryan and his friends. That certainly would be a catastrophe which I should not hope to see befall the country.
Delete the section and save the Deputy for the nation.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill,"—put and negatived.
SECTION 11 (1).
(1) Every order made by the Minister under this Act shall be published in the "Iris Oifigiúil" and a copy of the "Iris Oifigiúil" containing any such order shall be evidence of the same having been made and of the contents thereof.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), page 5, line 19, to insert in brackets after the word "Act" the words "(other than an order made on the application of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries)". This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 6.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The Minister for Lands and Fisheries may give or cause to be given such (if any) public notice of any order made under this Act upon his application as he may think fit."
I suggest that this amendment is necessary. If the Minister for Lands and Fisheries makes an order enabling certain classes of birds to be destroyed it is only right that the public should know it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—put and agreed to.
SECTION 12
I move:—
To insert at the beginning of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) Any expenses incurred by the Minister or by the Minister for Lands and Fisheries in carrying this Act into effect shall to such extent as shall be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas."
This is a necessary amendment. The House has already passed the Money Resolution. If orders are made by the Minister for Justice at the instigation of the county council or made by the Minister for Lands and Fisheries the cost of publishing them should be met. That is all the section provides.
I suggest that the penalties imposed should go to the benefit of the county council if the poor rate has to defray the expenses.
Acting-Chairman
That does not come under the amendment we are dealing with. You can mention the matter when the section is being put.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Every order made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order."
I would like to know if the Minister is accepting this amendment. It is usual to have this provision in Bills of this kind.
I have no objection to the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Acting-Chairman
I shall now hear Deputy Nolan on the section.
I have already stated my objection to the section.
All fines are paid in the ordinary way, under a certain statute, into the Exchequer except in cases where they may be awarded otherwise by the magistrate. I really do not see what very great expenses any county council is going to incur in connection with this Act. Perhaps the Deputy will explain what expenses he fancies the county councils would have to incur. The only duty imposed on the county councils under this Bill is to make representations where they wish to have special orders made on their own behalf. That is the only expense they will have. I cannot see any strength in the Deputy's arguments. They do not prosecute, and they do not pay the cost of the prosecution.
They have to bear the expenses of administration. The section states:—
"Any expenses incurred by the Council of a County Borough in carrying this Act into effect shall be raised by means of the poor rate, and in the case of a County as a County-at-large charge."
The expenses will be in fact nil.
If the expenses be nil, why put that there?
The expenses will be practically negligible, but in order to enable the county council to meet any charge that may be imposed upon it we must give it authority under some Act. It may be only a sixpence for a postage stamp in connection with an alteration of dates, but you must give them authority to incur that expense.
Would they not be entitled to some of the fines to meet that?
There are going to be 300 bird fanciers thrown on the rates as a result of this Bill, and therefore this money should be given for the relief of the rates.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, and 14 put and agreed to.
|
FIRST SCHEDULE.
|
|
Avocet
|
Nightjar
|
|
Bee-eater
|
Osprey
|
|
Bittern
|
Owl (all kinds)
|
|
Blackbird
|
Oyster-catcher
|
|
Black cap
|
or Seapie
|
|
Black Guillemot
|
Peregrine Falcon
|
|
Bunting
|
Petrel (all kinds)
|
|
Bustard (all kinds)
|
Phalarope Pied Flycatcher
|
|
Californian
|
Puffin or
|
|
Quail
|
Sea-Parrot
|
|
Chough
|
Razorbill
|
|
Crossbill
|
Redshank
|
|
Cuckoo
|
Redstart
|
|
Curlew
|
Red-throated
|
|
Dipper or Water-Ousel
|
Diver Reed-Sparrow
|
|
Dotterel
|
Reed-Warbler
|
|
Dunlin or Sea-lark
|
Ringed Plover Rock-Dove
|
|
Finch (all kinds)
|
Roller
|
|
Fulmar
|
Sand-Grouse
|
|
Gannet Golden Oriole
|
Sandpiper (all kinds)
|
|
Goldfinch
|
Shearwater or
|
|
Grebe (all kinds)
|
Mackerel-Cock
|
|
Greenshank
|
Sheldrake
|
|
Guillemot (all kinds)
|
Shrike Siskin
|
|
Heron
|
Spoonbill
|
|
Hobby
|
Spotted Crake
|
|
Hoopoe
|
Stock-Dove
|
|
Kingfisher
|
Stonechatter
|
|
Kittiwake
|
Stone-Curlew
|
|
Lark (all kinds)
|
Stonehammer
|
|
Linnet (all kinds)
|
Swallow
|
|
Martin
|
Swan
|
|
Merlin
|
Swift
|
|
Tern (all kinds)
|
Wagtail (all
|
|
Thrush (all kinds)
|
kinds) Water-Rail
|
|
Tit (all kinds)
|
Wood-lark
|
|
Tree-Sparrow
|
Woodpecker
|
|
Turtle-Dove
|
Wryneck
|
|
Yellow-hammer
|
I move to delete the word "heron." I understand that the heron is an epicure and that it feeds on salmon fry, so when it comes to a question of protecting the heron or protecting salmon fry, I would ask the Committee to say that the balance of advantage lies in the protection of salmon fry.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I gave the reasons why I thought the word "heron" should be taken out of the first schedule. The only point I would like to add now is that I have a heronry of my own and I know the damage they have done to my property. Perhaps it is just as well for my own peace of mind that I do not know the damage they have done in the surrounding districts. There is no question that herons do untold damage to fisheries and I think a wise restriction should be made with regard to how many herons we are going to allow loose in the country. After all, the fishing industry has become one of our most valuable assets. Every year it has increased in value and I think everything should be done to protect it. That is why I consider the word "heron" should be taken out of the first schedule.
It is somewhat surprising that the promoters of the Bill include "heron" in the schedule because as has been pointed out by Deputy Murphy, the heron undoubtedly does considerable damage amongst salmon and trout during the spawning season. It is not an uncommon experience for anglers when they catch trout to find that the trout bears marks made on it by the heron. The method of the heron is to combine patience with the perfect camouflage of its grey colour. The usual procedure is that he waits on the bank of a stream until such time as an unsuspecting fish comes within reach. Immediately his murderous beak flashes out and the unsuspecting fish becomes a victim. It is also well-known that the heron will wait for hours on the bank of a river. It will even follow up spawning fish and wait until such time as the female fish drops the spawn which it will then eat up. I can assure the House that it does considerable damage as far as trout and salmon are concerned and I hope the Minister, in view of these indisputable facts, will see his way to accept the amendment.
I think in fairness to the promoters of the Bill I should say that heron was not originally in the schedule and the promoters objected to heron being put in. It was put in against their wishes. I have consulted some experts and various other persons and I never heard anybody say a good word for this bird.
Is the amendment going to be accepted?
Then there is no use in saying any more about it.
Question—"That the word ‘heron' stand part of the Schedule"—put and negatived.
Amendment declared carried.
I move to delete the word "sheldrake." Sheldrake really comes under the description contained in the Game Preservation Bill, and it is inconsistent with this Bill that a bird referred to in the Game Preservation Bill should appear in the Schedule.
I have consulted certain naturalists, especially one well-known naturalist, possibly the best known naturalist in this country, about various classes of birds, because while there are some birds that we all know, there are various other birds that we do not know; even by name we have not an acquaintance with them, much less do we know their appearance. I have here information that certainly some birds in the First Schedule should be deleted, and also that some should be deleted from the Second Schedule. The principal one in the Second Schedule is the bullfinch. That appears to be a very pernicious bird, but he is one of the most beautiful of our small birds. His piping is very pleasant, but the damage which he does in our gardens is very considerable, and there seems to be an agreement on that matter. I would like to have the bullfinch taken out of the Second Schedule. I am also told that amongst the tit there is a bird called the great tit that does a great deal of damage and kills a considerable number of the smaller birds. This bird also does considerable damage to bee-keepers. He robs the bee-hives and kills the bees on the wing and generally makes himself most objectionable. I would therefore like the permission of the House to bring in some amendments on the Report Stage, when I will have further information at my disposal. I suggest to the House the deletion of two or three birds that are mentioned in the Schedule.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us what the sheldrake is?
The sheldrake is a diver, a duck with a white bar on its wing. This bird is quite common in the big lakes of the west of Ireland. I know the bird very well.
I know a great deal about those birds. They frequent the lakes. They are very useless birds, nothing but skin and bone. I do not know that they do any harm, but they certainly do not do any good. They cannot be eaten or used in any way. I suppose they feed on fish.
I hope that the bullfinch will not be put out of the Schedule. It is a very beautiful bird.
It is not suggested by me at the moment to delete it from the Schedule.
Deal with the First Schedule first.
Acting Chairman
The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to— that is to delete the word "sheldrake" from the First Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
Before the First Schedule is put I want to say that the bullfinch has been mentioned as a very destructive bird. I am aware that it does a good deal of injury in gardens. For instance, it eats the buds of the currant bushes and it is especially troublesome in the garden. But it is a most beautiful bird. It brings colour and brightness to every place. I would much prefer to see currants destroyed than to see the bullfinch go. But it is very easy to net your currants. Everyone who has a garden and who is wise puts nets over his currants. In that way the bullfinch can be quite easily kept from the bushes. These birds are really a very great asset. They add brightness and beauty to the countryside. I am aware that they do damage in our gardens. I do not deny that for a moment, but it would be a pity to see them wiped out.
First Schedule as amended agreed to.
|
SECOND SCHEDULE.
|
|
Bullfinch
|
Quail
|
|
Chough
|
Redpoll
|
|
Crossbill
|
Siskin
|
|
Goldfinch
|
Sky-lark
|
|
Linnet
|
Twite
|
|
Peregrine Falcon
|
Woodlark
|
I beg to move Amendment 29—to delete the words "bullfinch, goldfinch, linnet." As Deputy Wolfe has stated, the bullfinch is a most injurious bird about trees. The Deputy admits that he would prefer to see all his currants destroyed sooner than that these beautiful birds would pass away. The people who have no gardens but who make a living out of these birds are very much concerned about the principle of this amendment and about these birds being deleted out of this Schedule.
The case is put up that the bullfinch is getting scarce. That is not because of the number of them that are exported out of the country. Of all the birds exported there are probably less bullfinches exported than any other class. If the Minister could give us some information as to the number of bullfinches that have been exported in one, two or three years we would be coming down to some definite facts as regards the bullfinches. There are numbers of people who earn a livelihood out of these birds and we ought not to take from them their means of living. I ask the House to accept the amendment and that is not asking too much. I know the case will be put up that the little birds are scarce because of exportation. If this amendment is accepted it will give the people an opportunity to eke out an existence. Little children with souls are of more importance than the little birds that Deputy Wolfe and other people like him are crying out about. Something ought to be done to enable people to look after their little children until the time arrives when full employment can be given to everybody in the country.
I find myself in a rather awkward position as far as this amendment is concerned because I would be prepared to vote for Deputy Doyle's amendment in so far as it deletes the word "bullfinch," but I would not support it if it includes goldfinch and linnets. As the amendment stands I would have to vote against it.
My view in this matter is the same as the Minister's. I would willingly exclude the bullfinch from the protection of the Bill but I would be inclined to draw the line at the goldfinch and the linnet. We hear a lot of talk about the preservation of birds, especially small birds. Attributing the scarcity of small birds to the work of the bird catchers is altogether wrong. Nature is the main cause of the scarcity of the small birds. If we have prolonged frosts lasting over three weeks, with a little snow, we find the larger birds preying on the smaller. The greatest offender is the common rook, known as the crow. Go out at the end of a fortnight's frost into any field and you will see around the fences heaps of feathers, all that are left of the little birds. The greatest offenders are the rooks, and they are large in numbers. Then we have the magpies, the bawks and other birds continually preying on the little ones that are too weak to get away. If you want to preserve the little birds you must make war on the undesirable birds that prey upon them. There is no doubt that the goldfinches have disappeared in large numbers. I am inclined to give this Bill a chance, and I am inclined to protect the goldfinches, at least for a period. The bullfinch does more harm to more than black currants. These birds do damage to all the buds of fruit trees, and they often pluck the buds. Although the birds have not been protected up to this there are still quite enough of them in the country. By not giving them the protection of this Bill you will still have the same number of birds. Deputy Wolfe will be likely to see an odd one now and again to charm his heart with its gay colour. Deputy Doyle would be well advised to leave out the goldfinch and the linnet and then the House will accept the amendment.
I agree with Deputy Gorey that the frost does more damage to the little birds than any other method of destruction. They die with the hunger; they have often died of hunger during frosty periods and no one came to the rescue, no one came to feed the little birds we hear so much about now. That is one reason why the birds are getting so scarce. One hard winter does away with more birds than all the bird-catchers would catch in twenty years. The rooks, magpies and hawks destroy little birds that are too weak to resist them. I would like the common sense of Deputies to prevail, and I ask them to support this amendment. There is too much wailing and weeping about the little birds, and the time of the House is being taken up unnecessarily. Deputies could be better employed discussing unemployment, housing or other works of importance to the nation than merely trotting out points about wild birds.
If the amendment is pressed in its present form it will be defeated, but if the Deputy agrees to leave out the word "bullfinch" I am sure it will be carried.
I could not agree to that.
Very well; the Minister will deal with the bullfinch, anyhow.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided. Tá, 66; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Broderick Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Tierney, Michael.
- Tubridy, John.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEóin, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Rice and Gorey; Níl, Deputies E. Doyle and Cassidy.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment 30:—
To delete the word "Quail".
Quail is a game bird and comes under the Game Preservation Bill. Therefore it does not properly find a place in the Second Schedule to this Bill.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 31:—
To delete the word "Siskin".
I do not think the case can be made that this bird has become extinct because of exportation or of bird-catching. I stated on a previous amendment that never in my life have I ever seen a siskin in my locality. That had also been the experience of people much older than me. The scarcity of these birds cannot be attributed to the fact that they are being caught and exported. People in other parts of Ireland have also told me that they have never seen a siskin. Why this bird should be put in the schedule as one that people will not be allowed to export surprises me. I think this bird ought not to be included in the schedule. I am of opinion that people should be at liberty to export them.
I do not think that the Deputy has made any case that the siskin is a pernicious bird. I fancy that the Deputy knows nothing at all about the habits of the siskin.
Mr. Doyle
And, therefore, the Deputy does not suggest that this poor siskin is in any way a harmful or a pernicious bird. If the siskin is almost extinct, as the Deputy says he is, and if he is a bird that does no harm, why not prohibit its exportation?
Has the Minister any information as to the number of these birds that have been exported from the country?
No. I do not think that any published statistics give details of the number of wild birds exported.
Mr. Doyle
Could the Minister tell us what kind of a bird the siskin is? Did he ever see one himself?
I assure the Deputy that I never saw a siskin. Since the Deputy is so anxious that the bird should be driven out of the country, I presume he knows all about its habits. I frankly confess that I do not. The Deputy says that the siskin should be eliminated from the schedule. Frankly, I know nothing about its habits.
The most characteristic thing about this Bill is that actually we are reduced to the absurdity of legislating on a thing that nobody in the House knows anything about.
We allow canaries to be brought in here and to be bred in the country. We allow a cross with canaries to be bred. I understand that this particular bird crosses with the canary and gives one of the best half-breeds that can be obtained both from the point of view of colour and ability to sing. I think what is aimed at is that liberty be given to obtain these birds—to people who need them for mating purposes.
Has the Deputy ever seen a siskin?
To my knowledge, I never saw one.
What shape is it? Is it triangular?
Has Deputy Little ever seen a peregrine falcon?
I have certainly seen various kinds of hawks and falcons, though I could not put names on them. I never saw a siskin.
Did the Deputy ever see a kingfisher?
I never have. The fact that I have never seen a bird does not seem to be any particular reason why that bird should be taken out of the Second Schedule.
I hope the drainage of the Barrow will not take away the kingfishers that are here.
Mr. Doyle
Deputy Little remarked that we were legislating here for something we have not seen and know nothing about. Some time later perhaps we may start legislating for Mars.
If Deputy Little would take the trouble of going over to the museum he would see on exhibit examples of Irish birds that are only to be seen in counties like Wicklow and Galway. People living in the inland counties cannot be blamed for not having seen such birds. There are birds to be found in the county Wicklow that one never sees in the inland counties. There are birds there that you never see in the midlands. There are birds, too, in the north of Ireland that we never heard of.
My point was that it was not merely a question of birds that we had not seen but of birds that we do not know anything about. The only Deputy who was able to throw any light on the subject was Deputy Gorey, and he has admitted that he never saw a siskin. The only reason that I intervened in this debate was because I feel very acutely the humiliation of wasting public time upon this measure when we were cut short, in the most atrocious way last week, on the Local Government Bill. But here we are wasting time upon wild birds that nobody knows anything about.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Second Schedule as amended agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for 27th March, 1930.
