Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Special Committee Wildlife Bill, 1975 díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1976

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: " That section 42 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with damage by wild birds and so on. It is designed to provide safeguards, mainly in the interests of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and game propagation, against damage to property by protected wild birds and wild animals. The situation would normally be dealt with either by direct action on the part of the Minister through his own local staff or by giving permission to the owner of the property being damaged to take remedial action himself.

Sections 22 (6) and 23 (8) enable a person engaged in activities of the kind mentioned to take immediate remedial action to protect his property where circumstances are so urgent that it would not be practicable for him to apply under section 42 for prior permission to deal with the predators. The only exception to that emergency concession is where the special category of protected wild birds and animals in the Fourth Schedule, that is, rare species, are involved. The most likely source of damage in the context of this section is deer but there could be others, squirrels in relation to forestry, or hawks in relation to penned game birds and so on.

There are opposing views as to the damage which otters cause to fisheries. On the one hand, otters are the subject of bounties paid by boards of fishery conservators but there is another school of thought which suggests that otters are a friend of fish such as salmon and trout by devouring eels which prey on their spawn and young. The proposed protection of the otter under the Bill is not being opposed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. That in a nutshell is the object of the section.

This is a good section. The expedition with which this permission can be got is important.

It will not have to be written permission. It can be got over the telephone from the Department or I can be got from the local forest In an emergency the farmer can despatch the offending fauna concerned.

Certainly in the west the farmers are inclined to attack the deer themselves. They are not equipped to shoot deer. They only wound them and they are straying around the place then. You would want to be a good shot to shoot a deer. I think they should call in the forestry people.

Mr. Kitt

I would support what Deputy Hogan O'Higgins says. It is also very important that remedial action would be taken quickly in the case of the deer, as Deputy Brennan says. In regard to agriculture, forestry and fisheries, I would hope that where there are conflicting interests between the Department of Agriculture and the people in forestry, quick consultation could take place to take remedial action especially in regard to deer straying into farmers' fields and destroying crops.

I am told we are operating a system in regard to deer at Ballygar at the moment even without the legislation. We are co-operating with the local farmers there in despatching offending deer.

Mr. Kitt

As Clonbroch is near Ballygar——

Will the provisions of this section facilitate dealing with deer?

Yes. That is the object.

I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether this is relevant or not but we have this problem—I do not know if other parts of the country have it, of a new kind of pest, the escaped mink. We have a number of mink farmers and the mink escape no matter how well they are protected. In one case a storm knocked over a few mink pens and mink went all over the place. Then they breed out of captivity and are a dangerous pest bringing harm——

That is just the way we regard it at the moment, as a pest. They are not protected at all.

People are free to take what action they can, the same as with rats?

If I may go back to the particular damage which deer cause, I would like to be sure that this section will give adequate protection to farmers, particularly those who have silage clamps and so on, that immediate action will be taken. I have not seen it done to the satisfaction of farmers who have suffered up to this. I hope that, in fact, this will bring a rapid remedy, because it has occurred too frequently that a man's winter fodder has been destroyed by deer. Prompt action has not been taken, as far as I know, up to this. Some remedy has to be found for the roaming of deer. While there is damage to tillage, grass, meadows and so on; I refer particularly to silage clamps where I have known too much damage to be caused.

I fully appreciate the points made by Deputy Taylor. They were raised in the Seanad by a number of Senators. The whole object of the section is to deal with situations such as those outlined, and we are satisfied that the section as drafted will lead to the prevention of this sort of damage.

One question I would like to ask here, although I might be at variance with the farmer and the fisherman, is in respect of the protected animal referred to in Part II under section 23 (8); there is the pine marten. He is not very plentiful in the country, is he?

He is in the western areas, I understand, in Portumna.

But generally speaking, the population is not so——

I am sorry for interrupting Deputy Tunney, but the pine marten is specially protected. If you go to Part II of the Fourth Schedule you will see that the pine marten, the red deer, seals and whales are specially protected, and, while under section 23 (8) a farmer can despatch certain animals that are doing damage without the authority of anybody, he could not, for instance, shoot a pine marten without getting permission to do so.

The latter half of my case was in respect of the whale. I do not think that whales do such damage to fish, and I would not like to see a situation where anybody would feel that he could get a licence to kill a whale.

He certainly cannot destroy it without a licence.

It seems to me that there is conflict here between the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture. As you have already mentioned the fisheries boards pay bounties for the destruction of seals and otters which are protected under the Bill by the Minister for Lands. Can this be regulated?

Our information is that it is the intention of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to discontinue these bounties.

Apparently the Department have changed their mind about otters because they destroy eels. Eels are very valuable fish at the moment. The reason is that the otter destroys eels.

The otter has never been protected up to now. I am told the Department of Agriculture intend to discontinue payments for otters.

Under this Bill if a fisherman came to the Minister as a representative of the district and pointed out that otters were destroying his fishery, could he get permission to destroy them?

Could a fishery board get permission to destroy them?

He could bump them off himself if he was satisfied they were doing irreparable damage that could not await permission.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn