Section 34 is a rather long section. It is a very technical section. The purpose of this section is to prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, the use of traps, snares, nets, lines, hooks, arrows and other such devices, and stupefying or poisonous baits for the capturing or killing of wild fauna. The section is complementary to section 44—unlawful trespass—in that both are aimed essentially at the poacher.
SECTION 34.
Question proposed: " That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
I am not too happy about stupefying bait here.
I know there are times when it is necessary, and I know the type of case the Deputy has in mind and it can be used then under licence.
In that the Minister is missing the odd crow. It can be used under section 42. The stupefying bait can also be used for laying down in dealing with crows. It can be very deadly. Is that covered?
Section 42 deals with it. The second line says " subject to section 42 ".
In general this section in subsection (1), paragraph (a), deals with the use of traps which would cause pain or cruelty. That does not apply to stupefying.
Stupefying bait could be used by poachers and it is one of the weapons used by them.
The purpose of section 34 is to avoid cruelty even to vermin and scavengers and so on, and of course we do not want certain very painful and cruel traps used.
To outlaw indiscriminate killing as well.
I feel that stupefying bait is a mistake in there, because very often a person who wants to get rid of a scavenger or predator will use stupefying bait in order to be humane. Is that not so?
Yes, stupefying bait, properly used can be a very humane way of dispatching fauna, but in the hands of the poacher or in the hands of the evil minded person it can be dangerous.
In relation to section 42 I will put the same argument that I had about the seals in section 30. Section 42 will only let out protected fauna. Here this flaw arises again. If I want to use stupefying bait to go after a scavenger——
I put it to the Deputy that we should deal with that when we come to section 42 and I promise to give it full consideration.
Does the Minister see my point?
Yes, I see it immediately, but we will consider it when we come to section 42.
In section 34, I would have thought in relation to the use of stupefying bait we were not so much concerned about the ill-treating of the bird but we were concerned that a poacher or somebody like that would use this to capture birds. We were not concerned about whether it was humane or not.
I would not say that.
Our main concern is use of this?
Exactly.
It is not what we are giving the impression of?
Would it be illegal to hypnotise them?
I do not know.
Any further questions on the section?
No. I am completely in favour ruling out all sorts of traps, snares, and nets, and so on. The section is absolutely essential and not harmful.
It is no harm to mention that once upon a time these very traps were used to capture human beings.
In slightly larger dimensions, yes.
Question put and agreed to.