How long is there to run on this motion?
Private Members' Business. - Preservation of Game Birds—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That, with a view to preserving the stock of game birds and to prevent poaching, Dáil Éireann is of opinion:—
(a) that the sale or purchase of all game birds and wild fowl should be prohibited for a period of 21 days after the opening day of the appropriate shooting-season;
(b) that the open season in respect of the following birds should be:—
(1) wild duck, geese or plover— 1st September to 12th February;
(2) partridge—Ist November to 30th November;
(3) pheasant—Ist November to 31st January;
(c) that, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, there should attach to a conviction for the offence of shooting or taking any game out of season, an obligatory suspension of the gun licence of the offender for a minimum period of 12 months, the offender to have the right, after the expiration of three months after conviction, to apply to the court for the removal of the suspension, and
(d) that, in addition to any other penalty which may be imposed, there should attach to the conviction of the holder of a game dealer's licence for the offence of purchasing any game birds or wild fowl out of season an obligatory suspension of such licence for a minimum period of six months.
An hour and a quarter.
Will we be allowed the usual quarter of an hour to reply?
All I can say is that there is an hour and a quarter to run. The mover and seconder have spoken and accordingly have lost their right to reply. However, it all depends on how other speakers offer themselves. Deputy McQuillan is in possession.
I shall not keep Deputy Donegan, or the other Deputies who wish to speak, very long. Last week, I was endeavouring to convince the Deputies who put their names to this motion that, although they may in their own hearts believe that the implementation of this motion through legislation would help the ordinary man in the rural areas who has an interest in sport, its real effect would be to preserve intact the privileges which have been bestowed on the gentry, as I described them, in this country.
I really want to be very fair to Deputy Finlay and Deputy Donegan on this. It is rather difficult to criticise this motion as severely as I would like in view of the fact that I understand myself what Deputies Donegan and Finlay desire to do. But my criticism is that what they really desire to see accomplished will not happen if this motion is accepted. That is my charitable interpretation of their minds. If I am to deal with the motion on the face of it, there is no doubt whatever that the case which can be put forward against acceptance is a very strong one. Apart altogether from conferring a benefit on the privileged section in this country and others that are not dwelling here, I maintain that it shows no constructive approach towards the real preservation of game.
There are certain penalties included in this motion for a breach of the legislation if such is enacted. I want seriously to ask those Deputies, some of whom are legal men well acquainted with drafting Bills, how they propose to implement those penalties or have them carried into effect? Legislation that cannot be enforced is bad legislation, as we all know. We have the example in many spheres, for instance in regard to the licensing laws, which are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If the penalties imposed and the restrictions suggested in this motion are put into the form of legislation there will be no respect in the rural areas for that type of legislation.
The suggestion is made that no game be sold until 21 days have elapsed from the opening date of the season. Let us take the position of an hotel that has a certain extent of rough shooting, its own preserve. A number of guests stay in that hotel and on the first day the season opens four or five of the guests have a considerable bag. They are not going to eat all the birds they shoot. Is it suggested that some of these sportsmen—many of them perhaps are men who have been invited in by the hotel proprietor for the shoot—will not be entitled to sell what they shoot? Is it suggested that from the opening day of the shoot, if there is game on the menu in every hotel, an inspector or member of the Garda Síochána must walk into that hotel and ask the proprietor: "Where did you get that pheasant that I see Mr. So-and-So eating for his lunch?" Is that not the logical follow-up to a measure like this? The proposal to put a penalty on the game dealer or the hotel proprietor is nonsensical.
The individual who goes out a day before the opening day of a shoot is a man for whom I have no respect and I believe that that individual—describe him in any terms you like—is not popular with sportsmen down the country. I want to see that gentleman's activities restricted, the gentleman who goes out and has his own unofficial shoot the day before the opening of the season. I want to see him dealt with, but I am convinced that this is not the way to deal with him. In trying to deal with that gentleman under this motion you are hitting the decent sportsman as a whole down the country.
The right way to deal with that person is this. If you have formed in a rural area a gun club with a good secretary and a good committee who are interested in having a shoot over a certain area, those men will get the co-operation of the local farmers. Many of the local farmers will be members of this gun club and I may tell you, if the local farmers have themselves an interest in the shoot, they will ensure that no illegal shooting takes place the night before the opening, because it is to their own benefit. But if you introduce legislation that will confer a benefit on the gentry or on the people behind the demesne walls, you will lose the sympathy of the ordinary man down the country who will say: "I do not mind So-and-So getting all he can out of that demesne. I cannot shoot in it."
I dealt last week with the fundamental trouble in regard to both game and fishing, and said that there is no appreciation or respect in Ireland for either or those forms of sport for the simple reason that when land division and the allocation of bogs took place, the tenants were not vested with the shooting and fishing rights that were attached to their holdings. If that had been done at the time, the best protection against poachers would be the smallholder. If the smallholder has ten or 15 acres of bog on which there is game, he will ensure that no poacher will get in before him. If the small farmer finds that he has only the agricultural rights on the land and that the fishing and shooting rights are held by Colonel So-and-So in London, he will not give a damn who shoots over his stretch of bog or land and, the remedy sought in this motion for the depletion of game will prove worse than the evil itself.
I am perfectly convinced that the Minister, being a very sensible man, has not the slightest intention of accepting the motion. Therefore, I do not propose to delay much longer. The movers of the motion want the opening day for pheasant shooting changed from 15th October to 1st November. I listened very carefully to the reasons outlined by Deputies as to the desirability of making that change. To give them their due, they suggested that they would leave this as an open matter. I have not got any reason for the suggestion of the 1st November as the opening day for pheasant shooting. Pheasant shooting is very attractive and pheasant is a very attractive meal. The argument is put forward that, very often, pheasant hatch and rear their young away from the preserve, and that, around the end of October and very early in November, the old birds take the young into the preserve. That is a point of view that is very strongly held. If that point of view is maintained, on whom will we confer the benefit by changing the date from 15th October to 1st November? Put it this way: the pheasants will hatch the young outside the preserve or demesne, and, around the end of October, will bring the youngsters into the demesne where Colonel So-and-So will have arrived from London or a senior counsel will come down from Dublin and have his pot at them.
It was the 1st November and that was changed.
Whereas, if it is left the 15th October, the man down the country will have his chance to have a go before the pheasant brings the young into the demesne.
It has been the 1st November. It was changed to 15th October.
I want the reasons for the suggestion to change back to 1st November.
Your argument is a valid one against 1st November.
There are quite a number of views on this. I should like the Deputies who put down the motion to consider my suggestion, that, instead of dealing with this problem of game rights and the preservation of game and so forth in a limited way, why not ask the Minister to go the whole hog and carry out an investigation into the whole problem of game and fishing rights? It may sound rather time at this stage to suggest that a commission should be set up.
Spare us. There is a rash of them.
I know there is no shortage of commissions, but I do believe that it is necessary to make changes with regard to the whole situation. We should not confine the changes to sporting rights. Fishing rights should be included. The basis of any inquiry should be that the desirable situation we should like to see established is that the shooting and fishing rights be vested in the holders in Ireland, the powers vested in the Land Commission and other bodies acquired and these rights handed over to the small farmers and the big farmers. The greatest incentive that can be given to the development of these two desirable sports is to give the right to the occupiers of the holdings.
I would suggest that if the Minister is not prepared—I hope he is not—to accept the motion, he should throw out the offer to the Deputies concerned to put down another motion and widen the scope of the discussion, so that practical steps may be taken to deal with the problem at the base. If that is done, I have no doubt that such a motion will get the support of all Deputies.
Deputy McQuillan has asked a number of questions in relation to the attitude of Deputies supporting this motion. The answer to a great number of Deputy McQuillan's questions is that the motion has nothing to do with them, good, bad or indifferent. This motion was put down for the purpose of dealing with the question of preserving the stock of game birds in this country and preventing poaching. It was not intended to deal with sporting rights. It was not intended to seek a commission to examine the position regarding fisheries, sporting or shooting rights generally.
I think a great many of the difficulties which Deputy McQuillan foresees are unreal difficulties if he relates them to this motion. They are difficulties that are in existence at the moment and with which this motion does not deal at all. I should like at the outset to try to emphasise a distinction which has been referred to by Deputies Finlay and Donegan. In this motion we are endeavouring to deal with one kind of poacher only—that is the person who commits the offence of shooting and taking game out of season.
We are not endeavouring to make any suggestions whatever with regard to the other type of poaching—the person you may call a poacher who trespasses in pursuit of game. The person who trespasses is doing an injury to somebody else but it lies between the two parties. If I trespass on Deputy McQuillan's land, I am injuring Deputy McQuillan. Deputy McQuillan has a grievance against me. Deputy McQuillan can take his remedy but the person who would shoot out of season is not merely injuring some other individual; he is cheating the entire community and he can be properly dubbed a cheater and a person who is double-crossing every other person interested in this type of sport.
I want to make that distinction quite clear because it is a distinction which is very often overlooked when people talk about poaching. People very often refer to the person who has been guilty of the offence of trespassing and while trespassing shooting game on somebody's land——
Is the Deputy not penalising him also under this motion?
We are not.
Under this motion, he may not sell what he shoots.
We are penalising the cheater, if we can.
What about the other man?
Wait a second. Look at it this way. If you have two people down the country, each of whom is interested in going into Lord So-and-So's preserves and getting a shot, whatever sympathy one might have with the person who goes in when the season is open, will you have any sympathy at all with the person who sneaks in before the season opens and double-crosses his companion who is prepared to wait?
You are penalising the man who waits until the season opens in the same way as the other.
Oh, you are.
Not to the same extent.
The 21 days.
I am not prepared to debate this on the basis of question and answer. If you accept the motion and the spirit behind it, you are making an honest effort to crush out and take away the fruits from the man who will deliberately go in before the season opens and cheat his neighbour and everybody else interested in preserving the stock of game birds in this country. I have taken the case of two people who were poaching in the sense of trespassing. I do not hold a brief for either but I would far prefer to stand over the man who is at least prepared to wait to do the honest and decent thing before he does his trespassing. That, I think, is an important point which should be borne in mind. Under this motion, we are endeavouring to deal only with the activities of the person I have described as a cheater—the individual who endeavours to shoot or take game out of season.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but I should like to know how he is going to segregate the two. Perhaps I am terribly dense. How is he going to segregate the man who goes in after the season opens from the man who sneaks in prior to the opening of the season? Where do the 21 days come in?
In this way: the fellow who waits until the season opens and who takes a shot will not be liable to the provision we are suggesting under which his gun is compulsorily taken from him whereas the man who goes in before the season opens will have his gun taken away.
How can you know when you walk into an hotel proprietor——
I shall deal with that later. The answers I have been giving the Deputy show that if this motion is carried, a way of dealing with one as distinct from the other will be found. I am sorry the unfortunate Minister for Justice is the man in charge of this. I do not believe the question of preserving the stock of game birds should rest with the Minister for Justice. I do not know what connection the Department of Justice have with this question at all, other than a completely accidental connection in that the Department of Justice are responsible for the issuing of shotgun certificates.
And collecting the money.
Apart from that I do not see that the Department of Justice should have any interest, good, bad, or indifferent, in the question with which we are trying to deal— the question of preserving the stock of game birds. I do not say this in criticism of the Minister or of his officials. I think, however, it would be preferable if the whole question of game protection were taken away from the Department of Justice and given, say, to the Department of Agriculture, because a number of the questions that have been raised on this motion and which must be raised in any discussion on game protection are questions which are linked to a great extent with the Department of Agriculture.
I have borne in mind Deputy McQuillan's and Deputy Corry's points. They quite properly pointed to the problem of the landowners, the farmers throughout the country. In many instances the co-operation of these people is very readily forthcoming. Deputy Corry's argument about the fact that you are preventing the farmer from protecting his barley or oats crop by putting back the duck-shooting date to the 1st September may be a fair one. I know that in some parts of the country it would be a fair argument but I want to point out that we introduced this motion for the purpose of dealing with the preservation of game birds.
We did not introduce the motion from the point of view of protecting the crop of barley and still less for the purpose of protecting the poachers. We introduced it for the purpose of preserving the stock of game birds. However, Deputy Corry made that point and I think that in some parts of the country it is a point of view that is of much importance and one that would have to be taken into account. If implemented in full, this motion would not rule out the possibility of taking into account points such as that made by Deputy Corry even under the existing law—under the Act of 1930. Provision is made, even where there is a Game Protection Order in force, for securing the written permission of the Garda superintendent in any given area to take or shoot game during the existence of that Order.
I do not think it would be extending any great licence to enable the farmers in those localities to have a shot at duck in August even if the duck shooting season does not come into operation until the 1st September. I mention that for the purpose of showing that there is not any real obstacle to the motion in the point of view put forward by Deputy Corry. One thing is significant in the discussion on this motion and it is that there seems to be agreement on all sides that it is necessary to do something in order to preserve the stock of game birds in this country. It seems to be agreed on all sides that the depletion of the stock of game birds has been going on for some time and it certainly has been aggravated in the last year or two by the scourge of myxomatosis. That accelerated the process, I think, in two ways—one, by depriving the fox population of its natural diet, with the result that foxes turned their attention to a very great degree to feathered game and, two, by bringing about the situation where the holder of a gun certificate, a person who in past years was content to go out after rabbits, was forced into a concentration on feathered game. In the past couple of years, that situation has developed and, I think, has done a great deal to accelerate the depletion of the stock of game birds.
I do not want to repeat what Deputy Finlay and Deputy Donegan have said. They have dealt in detail with a number of the reasons which have brought about the present situation. I think they have covered that ground adequately. The position is that the depletion of the stock of game birds has taken place, and, if we want to do anything at all, some step must be taken. If it were left to me to suggest what is the most important step that should be taken, I do not believe that setting up a commission would give the answer. I think that it would be helpful to take this whole affair out of the Department of Justice and give it to the Department of Agriculture to deal with.
Do not give it to Lands, anyway.
With regard to the actual motion, Deputy McQuillan is disturbed about the 21 days, for the reasons he has given. I do not agree with his reasoning. Deputy Corry, while he criticised the motion, did concede that there was some merit in the proposal and he stated that, if instead of the 21 days suggested, there should be this period of prohibition for a week only, he would support it. I want to say, in relation to the 21 days, my own personal view is that that would be the minimum effective period, but there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about the period of 21 days and I would be happy if the Minister would agree to introduce this prohibition clause, even for a period of seven days. I do not believe seven days would fill the bill at all. Nowadays, with a system of cold rooms and refrigeration and so on, birds can be kept indefinitely. In any event, as Deputy Finlay pointed out, with most of the wild birds or game birds that you shoot in this country, you must hang them for a period of about ten days before they are in proper condition for eating, and for that reason I do not think that a period as short as seven days would be sufficient, but it would help. Even if the Minister did agree to some period of prohibition, I think those of us who put our names to this motion would feel that we had achieved something.
Deputy McQuillan raised another point with regard to the opening of the pheasant season and I think the argument he made is a valid argument, as I said in interjection to him. I think it is a valid argument against pushing the opening of the pheasant season back to the 1st November. Again it is a question of one's point of view, because if you look at this motion from the point of view of endeavouring to do something to preserve stocks of game birds in this country, then Deputy McQuillan's argument is not an adequate one; but if you view it from the point of view of trying to balance up the shooting opportunities as between the bigger and smaller people in the community, then I think there is a lot to be said for it.
I think it is true that when the harder weather comes, the young pheasants go back into the more heavily wooded country and, by reason of that fact, the later you leave the opening season, the more you are favouring the person who is fortunate enough and wealthy enough to own a preserve or to be able to rent one. I see that that argument does exist and I concede that Deputy McQuillan is right in it, but I want to point out that he is wrong, if you are looking at it again from the point of view of trying to preserve the stock of game.
Preserve them for whom. That is my argument.
I take it, if you preserve them at all, you will preserve them for everyone.
I am not that innocent.
If the Deputy looks back over what has happened in this country even in recent years he will see that there has been a complete prohibition on the shooting of hen pheasants for some years past. That has done a lot of good. Most people who go out with a gun nowadays will see anything from six to eight hen pheasants for every one cock they see. It has preserved the population of hen pheasants, and if there was complete prohibition on shooting of either cock or hen pheasants for three or four years, I believe it would bring back the pheasant population of this country to a very great extent. That was done in the case of partridge and for a number of years the shooting of partridge was completely prohibited. I do not know that the prohibition was left on sufficiently long, but, for the last few years, the open season for partridge has been only one month, and I do not think any great damage is done within the month. Partridge in many parts of the country, in the west of Ireland particularly—I think I am right in saying—had practically died out.
I have dealt with the 21 days. With regard to section (b) of this motion, there is not really any great justification for leaving grouse out of this motion. The only reason that is done was that the 12th August has been the traditional opening day for grouse shooting practically from time immemorial, and we felt that if we suggested that that should be altered, many people would feel it was too drastic a break with tradition.
I do not know that there is anything else requiring to be said on this motion. I should like to assure Deputy McQuillan that this motion has some merit that should appeal to the Minister and to the Government, and it is this, that the implementation of this motion would not cost one penny piece. We are not asking for money to be spent. Other Departments of the Government are spending money endeavouring to preserve the stock of game birds.
An Bord Fáilte have initiated a scheme of giving hoteliers pheasants' eggs for hatching and rearing. Money is being spent and the attention of the Tourist Board has been drawn to the fact that this depletion has been going on for some time and that it is necessary to do something about it. I believe that if this motion is implemented, even in a modified form, the House will be doing something about it and doing that without costing the people as much as a penny piece.
Deputy McQuillan asked how you would be able to implement the penalty provisions of this motion if the motion were adopted. That would be the least of our worries. Under Section 17, I think, of the present Game Preservation Act, 1930, the penalties we suggest are already there, the only difference being that they are discretionary. We suggest that for the particular offence of taking, selling or buying game out of season there should be a suspension which, for a particular period, would be obligatory. In other words, that to that extent, and in relation to that offence only, the discretion which at present exists under Section 17 of the 1930 Act should be withdrawn from the district justice.
I must confess that I did not follow in detail the discussions on this motion but, having read it, I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the movers are trying to achieve. I have a feeling that we are putting the cart before the horse in connection with the whole question. I realise that the matter of our game rights could be a matter of great national importance. In addition to our inland fisheries, which we have been neglecting very much up to very recent times, the game rights are most important from a tourist point of view as well as from the point of view of the local man with his gun. They could be made an attraction in this country and a very good inducement from the tourist point of view.
The whole trouble with this matter is largely bound up with the history of this country. The trouble confronting people interested in running game clubs is the fact that, by virtue of our history, there is a strong public opinion which is very much opposed to preservation because the preserves in the main were behind the big walls of the estates throughout the length and breadth of the land. You have throughout the country a certain amount of public opinion in favour of the poacher when he gets his chance. Consequently, when you have the remnants of the "Big Houses" carrying out their shoots you have the ordinary local man waiting outside the walls with his gun to have a crack at the pheasants when they come out in the open from behind the demesne walls.
In the case of fishing, you have an Inland Fisheries Trust, and something of the same kind is needed for gaming. Until we have a national board to take over gaming rights as a whole, so that ordinary "democratic" gun and game clubs can get a lease of the shooting rights from such a national board, we are largely wasting our time in discussing either the prevention of poaching or stopping people shooting out of season.
I see no reason why, if the importance of this matter is recognised by the Government, some lead should not be given by setting up some body to acquire the game rights in the whole country. The system at the present moment is completely unworkable, no matter how local clubs interested in the matter may try to operate preserves or preserve shoots. In one stretch of the country, you have a section of land in which the tenants who own the land also own the game rights. Mixed up with that you have another section of land where the game rights are reserved to the Land Commission. That body leases the game rights rather peculiarly from time to time for reasons which nobody but the Land Commission can understand.
You have a third section where the demesne lord of the manor still exists and has his own preserves. Naturally enough, people living near him do not forget the time when it was an offence, for which you could be transported or possibly hanged, to take anything off one of these preserves behind the big wall. That feeling is still there and must be got rid of before you can have any kind of general satisfaction as far as this whole question is concerned.
It would be impossible in my view, no matter how you amend the law or how severe you make the penalties, to improve the position in view of the present chaotic state of the whole business. In many cases the Land Commission, on the acquisition of estates, have reserved the game rights for themselves, their assignees or their nominees for the future and I can see no reason why, through legislation, the game rights of the whole State should not be nationalised. Having nationalised the game rights, the Government should lease out their rights to local democratic gun and game clubs just the same as fishing clubs can now acquire a certain amount of fishing.
It is only by democratising the whole business and enabling the ordinary man in the street to come into a gun and game club and, through the gun and game club, enabling him to get shooting rights and in that way build up a healthy public opinion that you will make it the duty of everybody to protect game. It is only by creating a healthy public opinion you can do that.
As far as the fisheries are concerned, this House, as long ago as 1939, took over the power to acquire inland fisheries and salmon fisheries. It was expected at the time of the passage of that legislation through this House that this country long ago would have taken over many of these fisheries and that ordinary people could fish rivers flowing through their own land. Unfortunately, that day has not come.
The question of fisheries does not arise on this motion.
I am only pointing out that the same considerations would not apply if the State nationalised game. The obvious reason why the legislation enacted by this House was not given effect to in the case of fisheries was the question of the cost. To take over many of the fisheries would cost millions, whereas in nationalising game it would in my view, cost little or nothing because you have not the big commercial interests concerned with game that are concerned with fisheries. It would be a question purely of passing legislation and the amount of compensation that could possibly be claimed by many of these people with preserves would be largely nominal.
That is why I am suggesting that here is something that the State could well nationalise without any great cost to the taxpayer. I believe that unless and until this is done on a national scale—so that the one body will have control and you will not have, as I have pointed out, three or four different interests having gaming rights in the very same townland—it will be completely impossible either to preserve game in this country or to work out any satisfactory solution of this problem.
In regard to the solutions suggested here, I cannot see any great argument against them, but I do not believe that they are going to be effective for the reasons I have given. I am told, though I do not know how correct it is—no doubt the Minister for Justice will tell us in time—that, as far as pheasant shooting is concerned, the Minister for Justice has been dishing out licences ad lib for the purpose of shooting hen pheasants. I do not know what the figures are but no doubt the Minister for Justice will tell us. As far as the penalties provided here with the idea of preserving game are concerned, I believe that the movers are, no doubt, sincere in what they are trying to do, but without the effective co-operation of the public any penalties we provide here will not help to solve the problem which the movers of this motion have in mind. I further think that a far greater amount of damage, certainly as great, is done by the scald crow and other pests than by many poachers. That bird is very elusive to the man with the gun and very difficult to get.
Again, unless you have the goodwill and co-operation of the people on the land, the farmers, you will make no great progress in preserving the game from the point of view of restocking or of any of the methods usually employed elsewhere to preserve game. You will never achieve success by any of these methods. You will find yourself driven back to the question of co-operation with the landowners, the tenant farmers who own the land over which we all must shoot. I see every reason why this matter should be tackled, but the root of the problem is the question of having game rights nationalised, to enable the ordinary sporting clubs throughout the land to lease sporting rights from the State. Then you will have the co-operation of the farmers and the local people, and, having got that co-operation, you will be able to tackle the poachers, and there will be some game left to shoot in the future.
This has been one of the most interesting motions to come before the House for a considerable time. All Deputies were sincere in the wishes they expressed for the preservation of game, and in their lack of sympathy with the poacher. Their whole desire, though they expressed their views in different ways, was the preservation of game and elimination of the poacher. Deputies can, however, conceive the problem with which I was faced. I met representatives of a large number of gun clubs, and not one club agreed with the views expressed by the previous deputation. They all wanted different months, some wanted total prohibition for some birds for a year, others for a longer period. Deputy O'Higgins in a clear and lucid way has pointed out some of the difficulties with which I was faced. Deputy Corry put up a very fair proposition, that to carry out the terms of the motion and to have the season for shooting wild duck shortened to 1st September until 12th February would have a serious effect upon the small farmer who is a producer of barley. I agree with Deputy Corry as regards the opening date. Experts have advised that we should not have the open season later than the middle of February, because the mating season for wild duck commences in February.
I was questioned why I selected the 15th October instead of the 1st November as the opening date for the shooting of pheasants. I met representatives of a very large number of preserves and of gun clubs. Some of them were insistent on the 1st November. On the other hand, the representatives of the small working farmers and road workers, shopkeepers and others in the country places, who were not the owners of large sheltered preserves, wanted it from 1st October and, very rightly, put up a very good case that October is often a very severe month and if they did not get an opportunity in October of shooting they would have no chance after 1st November as the birds would have gone into shelter in the woods in the preserves. Considering the representations from all sides, and trying to be fair to all sections, I compromised by putting the date at the 15th October, and I have found no strong opposition up to the present time to it.
The suggestion put forward in some portions of the motion would require fresh legislation. Having regard to the various opinions expressed in this House, if I were willing to bring in such legislation, Deputies can see the difficulty we would have in getting it passed. I am not in favour of giving more powers to the Guards in the matter, as some would have us do, enabling them to go into houses to see whether pheasants were there for 21 days. They have certain power at the present time, and I am not going, as a Minister, to be a party to giving the Guards extra duties or extra powers in relation to game preservation at the present time. About sales at the start of the season, I feel that the owners of preserves should not be prevented from selling at the time they can get the best price. They breed and rear game birds as a commercial proposition and we should be slow to introduce legislation which would interfere with their way of living. To prohibit this trade completely for 21 days might have a serious effect on their business.
Without bringing in any fresh legislation we all agree, I think, with the principle of the motion—that is the importance of trying to carry on the preservation of game and, as I said, showing no sympathy for the recognised poacher. Very few Deputies who have had a gun, have not at some time or other crossed a ditch into another man's land. They could be described as poachers, but nobody would refuse the chance of going across that ditch although he might be termed a poacher. He is not a real poacher. It is the professional poachers who make a living going from one place to another at whom we want to get, and for that we require the co-operation of farmers and workers. We have a large number of gun clubs now established all over the country. I was, as a matter of fact, at a very interesting meeting last night at which pictures from Bord Fáilte were shown dealing with the preservation of game in other countries. They were very pleasant to see. You have the road worker, the farmer, the shopkeeper, etc., all members of the gun club, their one purpose being the preservation of game in the interest of sport. One farmer very rightly pointed out that he looked upon the shooting of game as in the nature of an extra crop which supported him on his land. "It is to my interest," he said, "to preserve it and to see that there are no poachers."
The motion wants the Guards to come in as gamekeepers everywhere. I do not think that would be reasonable. I accept the principle of the motion, and I will consult, not one section, but all the game protection associations. I will put the views I have heard here from the representatives of various Parties before them and get their opinion and ask for their co-operation.
Deputy Donegan mentioned tourists. We have not had very many tourists here for shooting because, by reason of unlimited scope for poachers, very few birds have been left in the country.
With regard to the question of legislation which some Deputies desire in order to oblige district justices to suspend licences on convictions, I think anybody with any little experience at all with a gun knows that if a district justice suspends your licence for three months it is practically for the season. By the time the three months are up and you appeal back to the court to lift the suspension the season is practically at an end. I think we should leave full power to the justice to use his discretion as we do under existing law, rather than that we should make any hard and fast rule.
I can assure the movers of this motion and every member of this House that we are all anxious to preserve game in this country. I shall probably be able to come to some arrangement for improvements at the consultation which I shall have with the various representatives of the gun clubs but, Bill or no Bill, I am determined that, so long as I am here, I will bear in mind the interests of the small man in the rural areas. I know a number of men in rural areas who are fond of shooting game and I should like such men to have an opportunity of shooting on their own land from the 15th October until the 1st November before the birds migrate into the shelters of the large estates.
This motion has been very fairly debated by all Parties in the House. It has been a very useful motion and, as I have said already, the debate has been most interesting and most educational from my point of view. We have heard the advice of Deputies who have long experience of this sport and I can guarantee to the movers of the motion that the matter will be put forward and considered sympathetically so far as the representatives of the various gun clubs are concerned. When the matter has been fully considered, we will see what we can do by way of regulation. In view of the verious Bills which are before the Oireachtas at the present time, I can hold out no promise of bringing in a Bill to meet the various requirements in the motion.
We will consider Deputy Corry's suggestion about the shooting of wild duck before the 1st September. We will put all these points before men who are really interested in the sport —men whom I have described and men such as those whom I met last night. We want the co-operation of such men as, indeed, we want the co-operation of all sections of the community, particularly the rural community. Even the townsman who is a member of a gun club will recognise the importance of the co-operation of the small farmer.
We will go a long way towards trying to achieve the aims set out in the motion and the desire of Deputies on every side of the House. I guarantee to have the matter considered very carefully and, if I have the power, I will make regulations to meet some of the wishes of members but, for the reasons which I have already stated, I can hold out no hope of introducing a Bill on the lines set out by the movers of the motion.
Having listened to the Minister's speech on this motion, I am quite satisfied that we have his sympathy and support. It was time to put down this motion as it will focus attention on the fact that some action is needed to preserve the game of this country. We have heard a great deal about the poacher. I think the poacher plays a very mild part in this matter. There are three important factors in the decline of game in this country—(1) land acquisition and division, (2) land reclamation and (3) bog development. These are the things that have driven the game of this country almost to extinction. Consider for a moment the position as it relates to land division. Usually a large estate is involved where there was a preserve. That estate is divided up into small lots. Game are very timid. They will always move away from noise or civilisation. A pheasant will not live where there is much noise or civilisation. Therefore, we find that, according as land is divided up, the game keep moving away.
Then we have bog development. There are no grouse at all now. They have all gone. Big machines have taken their place. We have no lakes in the Midlands but, of course, we had rivulets and brooks where there used to be plenty of duck. With drainage and bog development, the duck have now gone. They used always lay their eggs at the little brooks but there are no brooks now. We have to wait for a few ducks to come in periodically. These are the things that have changed the whole life of the country so far as game is concerned.
I am quite satisfied that I could have had a great deal of sympathy 30 years ago with the speech Deputy McQuillan made so far as my county is concerned. In my young days, I found no greater sport than crashing across the demesne wall—but the demesne wall is there no longer in my part of the country. The preservation of game now rests on the small farmers and the middle-class farmers. We want a new sporting spirit. We want six, eight or ten farmers to join together and have the land more or less preserved. Furthermore, we need to have gun clubs again in the country. If we had that, we would have a hope of getting back a reasonable amount of game.
The wiping out of the rabbit with myxomatosis has resulted in one of the biggest menaces to game that ever existed. Whereas formerly the man with a gun could knock quite a lot of sport out of taking a shot at a rabbit, there are no rabbits for him to shoot now, with the result that he has to find some other form of game to shoot. A man fond of a gun will have to have a crack at something. There is nothing left now but a small amount of game and he will have a crack at that.
Deputy Donegan.
Something must be done about the whole situation. We want a sporting spirit in the country to get people to come together in gun clubs. We have that, in a reasonable way, in my county. There is one thing, however, which we do not want. When the Land Commission take over land, perhaps 300 or 400 acres of land on which there is game, for afforestation purposes, they take the gaming rights of that land. Our experience in the country is that those shootings are given overnight to a group of solicitors or somebody else in Dublin City and the country people do not have the slightest chance of bidding for the rights or of being the highest bidders for them. If the Land Commission continue in that way much longer I can only say that it will result in more poaching and I would not blame the country people for that. In my village, people have tried several times to get a shot on some of these lands. We always find that the officials in this Department or in the other Department have given the nod to a few boys in Dublin to get in and they get in as quickly as they can. We, down the country, are always behind time. We do not get the beck in time.
Gun shoots should be put up for public auction and given to the highest bidder; we have as much right to them at £10, £25 or £50 and the auction should be published in the public Press. Poaching will increase year by year so long as there are Government Departments playing into each other's hands. The only hope I see is for small farmers to form groups to preserve the game on their own land. I trust that they will not preserve it as the old landowners did, by putting a rigid wall around the farms. I hope there will be friendly rivalry with other clubs and that they will stock the lands for the benefit of the sporting clubs in the various areas.
The menace of the carrion crow must be tackled by every sportsman. The carrion crow does away with almost 80 per cent. of the game that is destroyed. The fox does not cause half the damage that the carrion crow does. If for the next three years we were to do nothing more than to try to eliminate the carrion crow, we would do an immense amount of good. Sportsmen and sporting clubs should devise some scheme to destroy the carrion crow the whole year round. If that were done, game would increase. The carrion crow is a menace to all types of game and attacks flocks of lambs.
This is a reasonable motion. It was put forward for discussion. It was not intended to be a bone of contention, which Deputy Corry tried to make of it. Deputy Corry showed very bad sportsmanship. I always heard he was a good gunman but I wonder in what respect he was a good gunman.
We must try to create a sporting spirit in order to develop sport. Only the small farmers can save game. The big demesne walls have been broken down. Farmers in County Meath have now their own shooting rights and it is in their own interest to preserve game. If they do not make every effort to do it, the day of the gun and the dog is finished.
I have only a few moments to conclude. Therefore I want to make a very brief and concise statement. We are very glad that the Minister has said that he will carefully consider the motion and its subject matter. This is not the last he has heard of it. He will be badgered by the Deputies who moved this motion from now until next season, in order to see how much we can get from him.
There are two points I want to make. I say, for the 51st time, this motion has nothing to do with trespass. It has everything to do with shooting game out of season and taking game illegally. It has absolutely nothing to do with demesne walls. It has nothing to do with trespass, nor does any of its provisions, the obligatory suspension of game licence and confiscation of the gun, pertain in any way to trespass. Its provisions apply only to shooting out of season or taking game illegally.
The second point is this. Great play has been made on the question as to whether or not pheasant shooting should start on the 15th October or the 1st November. An attempt has been made to put us on the side of the person who has a large demesne or a large preserve inasmuch as we put forward the 1st November as the commencing day. In my view, no matter who is shooting birds out in the field on the 1st October or 15th October, when many birds will be in an immature state, he would want to be blind to miss them. In such circumstances a man, if he is mean enough, can shake half a pound of barley on the ground and, after three mornings, can look across the hedge and shoot eight pheasants.
With regard to ducks, this matter has been totally exaggerated by Deputy Corry. His county is the earliest county for barley in Ireland. Deputy Corry said that, normally, the barley is cut from the 15th to the 20th August. Yet, he is greatly disturbed about the damage that would be done if the opening of the season were moved back to the 1st September. If the barley is cut from the 15th to the 20th August, the flighting of the ducks will not do any harm. Is not that true?
The Deputy does not know anything about it.
These are Deputy Corry's dates, not mine. He said barley was cut between 15th and 20th August. Ducks do not flight in any other part of the country until the middle of September. I want to impress these two dates on the Minister. I believe Deputy Corry has been deliberately mischievous on a nonpolitical motion. I say and believe, first, that this motion has nothing to do with trespass; secondly, that if the season is the 1st October or the 15th October, a blind man may shoot pheasants if he has a good dog, in stubble and, if he is dishonest enough to do it, a man can shoot a covey on the ground by putting out corn. Thirdly, I believe that Deputy Corry's insistence that damage is done before the 1st September by flighting duck is all poppycock. I want to impress that very clearly on the Minister. I ask him to investigate this matter to the very fullest.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MOTIONS NOT MOVED.
Motion No. 20, in the name of Deputy James Tully, not moved.
Motion No. 21, in the names of Deputies MacBride and John Tully, not moved.
Motion No. 22, in the names of Deputies MacBride and John Tully, not moved.