Can someone clear up the magpie & greycrow situation please

johngalway

What is their status please?
Under what conditions can they be shot?
Is a licence needed?
Do they have a season?

Informed comment only please.

Grizzly 45

Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
Season ;No
Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

johngalway

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
Season ;No
Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

That is the assumption I was under myself. Thanks Grizzly.

However it's being disputed on another site, which is why I ask the question here.

If anyone has anything further to add, again please only informed comment, I would appreciate it.

ivanthehunter

What about derogation.

AFAIK and its IMO that derogation is an EU directive that forces the Irish Gov to monitor Irish wild bird (mainly unprotected in as far as the 76 act goes) population.
A group of wildlife experts then look at the population trends and then decide whether or not to allow hunting of any of the unprotected species.

johngalway

And as long as the derogation is signed, which I believe it was? Then it's aim, squeeze, pop/bang - thump.

BryanL

i'd like to hear from the rangers on this, i didn't think the derogation was a one time thing? but i'm open to correction;)

johngalway

Going from memory on the last time this was discussed. I believe that even if a derogation isn't signed, once the rangers aren't directed to take action against someone shooting greycrows/magpies then it's still fine to do so, sort of like the previous derogation still standing? There may have been other particulars I have forgotten since that discussion but I believe that was what was basically said. That said, the derogation was eventually signed I believe.

Either way, I don't want to descend into history etc. Just interested in the situation as it stands at the moment.

thehair

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
Season ;No
Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

i shoot them:eek: why they are vermin:) steve

thehair

can you image a garda in court with a black or grey crow judge this man
or women shoot this bird:D

Grizzly 45

Termed that way in the act.Proably cos in the days of non political correctness,said critters robbed,and stole chicks and crop seeds at will??

Grizzly 45

ivanthehunter wrote: »

What about derogation.

AFAIK and its IMO that derogation is an EU directive that forces the Irish Gov to monitor Irish wild bird (mainly unprotected in as far as the 76 act goes) population.
A group of wildlife experts then look at the population trends and then decide whether or not to allow hunting of any of the unprotected species.

Yeah more reasons why the EU needs a good kick in the you know what.
This sort of act and surveys are fine in Continental Europe,where years of intensive agriculture and pesticides have denuded plenty of species that we take for granted and are in plentiful supply here,EG the Common Crow,Jackdaw,Magpie.
Of course if Professor Schmidt,does a crow count and finds that there are not very many in Oberdonnerhaufen Germany,the assumption must be that in all the EU there is a dearth of Crows or whatever.
While in Rathnafeck Ireland the scenario is akin to the famous FR Ted scene of being attacked by flocks of Crows when they leave the parochial house!!!:)
Off goes Prof Schmidt to his boss ,who reports the findings up the chain till it reaches Brussles and a weighty edict is prononced that a certain species must be protected at all costs.This was the story with the Woodies if I remember correctly.Why we now have a protected season on one of the most prolifigate birds and a survivor if there ever was one .
So expect before long that Crows will have an open season as well!:rolleyes:

meathstevie

The situation Grizzly is sketching exists in Belgium where my dad does his shooting. They have to apply for an open season derogation permit specific to a locality if they want to destroy corvid or other agricultural nuisances out of season. The way it works there is that the chap who holds the shooting rights applies jointly with the landowner to the town council who mostly just stamps the form. Most of the time the permits are granted on a month by month basis for a specific species be it woodpigeon or magpie or crow,...

As for our jolly selves here John I think it's very much business as usual. I personally haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary.

J.R.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976 protected unless causing damage
Season ;No YES
Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC. but must be causing damage
Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

only if causing damage





As far as I'm aware derogation still applies. Although the date above has expired the principle is still in force....just has to be updated on the dates.

My intepration of derogation is as follows below.

I double checked this with the local wildlife ranger and below is his intepretation of the law, as it stands.

All birds, in effect, now have a season including 'vermin'.......crows, magpies, rooks, jackdaws, greycrows & pigeons.

You are only allowed to shoot them if they are causing damage to flora, fauna, crops, livestock, aircraft etc. or pose a public health threat.

Walking up through a farm and you shoot a magpie that rises from the bushes and you're technically breaking the law as the onus is on you to prove it was causing damage when you shot it.

Vegeta

I know its a bit of corvid profiling but could it not be argued that by simply being a grey crow or magpie that they are a constant threat to fauna.

Very simplistic I know

johngalway

Good God. The sooner those no good Greens get put out of our misery the better :mad:

Thanks for all the replies fellas

Grizzly 45

[quo

All birds, in effect, now have a season including 'vermin'.......crows, magpies, rooks, jackdaws, greycrows & pigeons.

You are only allowed to shoot them if they are causing damage to flora, fauna, crops, livestock, aircraft etc. or pose a public health threat.

Posing a public health threat. QED Soo if you see crows on your local dump and then shoot them at your property.You are perfectly legal,as they are scavangers and can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera spring to mind.All you have to see them is eating garbage.
All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

Gunter Mauser

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[quo



Posing a public health threat. QED Soo if you see crows on your local dump and then shoot them at your property.You are perfectly legal,as they are scavangers and can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera spring to mind.All you have to see them is eating garbage.
All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

John Gormley, Grizzly 45 wants to shoot Crows & magpies rooks etc because they can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera may break out any time soon and the legisation is wooley what are you going to do about it.:mad:

john.gormley@oireachtas.ie Homepage: http://www.johngormley.com Postal Address: Leinster House, Dublin 2, Ireland.

J.R.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[quo

All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

I agree with you entirely about the loosely worded legislation.

It also states that landowners can control the species if causing damage.......doesn't mention shooters or anybody who has shooting rights on the land or anybody who has the landowner's permission!

meathstevie

J.R. wrote: »

I agree with you entirely about the loosely worded legislation.

It also states that landowners can control the species if causing damage.......doesn't mention shooters or anybody who has shooting rights on the land or anybody who has the landowner's permission!

To the best of my knowledge landowners can also ask or allow someone to do that for them.

NoNameRanger

Fair play to JR for digging out the derogation, we've discussed this several times here before. But those threads were probably deleted, probably too informative.:D;) I don't see whats wooly about this piece of legislation. A farmer can control these spiecies by nominating who ever he sees fit to control them. A gun club or an individual can control these species on their ground if the are protecting fauna ( that includes pheasants!). This legislation was about long before the Greens took power, you can't blame Gormley for this one. Its quite a fine bit of legislation if you want to control these species if you ask me. I think the Greens have learned alot since they got power, they've seen a bit of how life works in the countryside and they see things are not as black and white as they once thought they were. They haven't changed much have they, even the one thing they've lobbied on for years, the Ward Union! The saying goes keep your friends close and your enemies even closer:D:)

Vegeta

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Fair play to JR for digging out the derogation, we've discussed this several times here before. But those threads were probably deleted, probably too informative.:D;)

Thanks for your input NNR, its always welcome.

As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.

IRLConor

Vegeta wrote: »

As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.

I can find a total of 18 threads which mention the word "derogation". Out of those threads, 3 of them have deleted posts:

Restricted List out
- The word derogation in this thread did not refer to the hunting derogation
Can you hunt rabbits with Air rifle
- There were 3 deleted posts in that thread, all deleted by DeVore. None of them include useful information.
Criminal Justice Bill 2004
- The word derogation in this thread did not refer to the hunting derogation

Another tip on this point: I always wondered if old posts disappear, but the forum by default will make threads invisible if there has been no activity in them for a while. If you want to always see all threads, edit your options and change the "Default Thread Age Cut Off" option.

NoNameRanger

Vegeta wrote: »

Thanks for your input NNR, its always welcome.

As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.

I was referring to a time before the new mods when several threads just vanished without a word after some body would start saying things they shouldn't, so instead of deleting what they said the whole thread would disappear, I can't remember the topics. I hope this has stopped since the new mods took over.
It's part of the reason i haven't been so active lately. Didn't see the point of putting up information only to have it deleted once a troll started messing about. Anyways this is way off topic so i'll say no more.


As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation. So basically there are no legally recognised vermin in this country as far as i can see. To refer to such noble sporting quarry as the Rabbit and Fox as vermin is unfair, i think unprotected species does them more justice, although i think there should be a closed season for breeding on all species unless they are causing damage like in the derogation for birds.

J.R.

NoNameRanger wrote: »

As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation.

WILDLIFE ACT (ammendment) 2000

43.—Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—


Prohibited:


(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not—

(c) use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wood pigeons, wild duck and wild geese, or


“(d) use an electrical or other instrument or appliance (including recording apparatus) emitting sound, for the purpose of hunting any wild bird or any wild animal.”,


Trying to clear up a matter:

Some friends and I in the gun club beg to differ on the intepretation of the following:

My question is
(a) if all birds are now classed as protected then, under derogation, is one still allowed to use crow decoys to entice birds in
and
(b) are electronic crow callers permitted to decoy them in when they're attacking a crop?

NoNameRanger

J.R. wrote: »

NoNameRanger wrote: »

As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation.

WILDLIFE ACT (ammendment) 2000

43.—Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—


Prohibited:


(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not—

(c) use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wood pigeons, wild duck and wild geese, or


“(d) use an electrical or other instrument or appliance (including recording apparatus) emitting sound, for the purpose of hunting any wild bird or any wild animal.”,


Trying to clear up a matter:

Some friends and I in the gun club beg to differ on the intepretation of the following:

My question is
(a) if all birds are now classed as protected then, under derogation, is one still allowed to use crow decoys to entice birds in
and
(b) are electronic crow callers permitted to decoy them in when they're attacking a crop?

Electronic callers are not permitted for any species of bird according to the act. They may be used in conjunction with a section 42 licence when included in the licence as a condition of the licence. So basically it is possible to get a licence to use a crow call in certain circumstances. Crow decoys are not permitted under the act but again they could be permitted with a section 42 licence. Hope this answers your question.

Terrier

Good stuff to know lads! Had a few to many anti's giving out lately.
My 18 Lasen traps out all over my clubs lands are legal so

J.R.

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Electronic callers are not permitted for any species of bird according to the act. They may be used in conjunction with a section 42 licence when included in the licence as a condition of the licence. So basically it is possible to get a licence to use a crow call in certain circumstances. Crow decoys are not permitted under the act but again they could be permitted with a section 42 licence. Hope this answers your question.

Very clear concise answer - exactly to the point ....which is brilliant!

Just wondering how shooting supply shops are selling crow / greycrow / magpie decoys if they're illegal? (unless having a section 42 licence for crows)

Have any shooters ever applied for a section 42 licence to use decoy crows and an electronic caller?

NoNameRanger

J.R. wrote: »

Very clear concise answer - exactly to the point ....which is brilliant!

Just wondering how shooting supply shops are selling crow / greycrow / magpie decoys if they're illegal? (unless having a section 42 licence for crows)

Have any shooters ever applied for a section 42 licence to use decoy crows and an electronic caller?

Illegal to use the decoys without a licence but not to own them or sell them, the same applies to callers. S42's have been issued for this purpose, mainly to NPWS and NGO staff who need to be whiter than white for conservation projects in the public eye.

johngalway

I'm not particularly quibbling or anguing with anyone here I just find one thing curious. That decoys can be used without licence for certain game birds, ducks, geese and woodies. Yet to use them against species such as greycrows and magpies requires a licence. Naturally I understand why one would want to use them wildfowling and pigeon shooting and I think it's right you can. Thing is, with all the damage greycrows and magpies cause both to other wildlife and to stock it puzzles me why a licence would be needed in the first place. I know greycrows aren't in all parts, or at least I'm told that, around here however their population is extremely high. I remember driving along the coast from where I live up to north Mayo and again it's the same story. Magpies aren't in any shortage either.

Now I know I'll be told well get a licence then. That's not my point. My point being it doesn't seem to make sense to me why a licence is needed in the first place for those two species. The reasoning behind it seems flawed.

NoNameRanger

johngalway wrote: »

I'm not particularly quibbling or anguing with anyone here I just find one thing curious. That decoys can be used without licence for certain game birds, ducks, geese and woodies. Yet to use them against species such as greycrows and magpies requires a licence. Naturally I understand why one would want to use them wildfowling and pigeon shooting and I think it's right you can. Thing is, with all the damage greycrows and magpies cause both to other wildlife and to stock it puzzles me why a licence would be needed in the first place. I know greycrows aren't in all parts, or at least I'm told that, around here however their population is extremely high. I remember driving along the coast from where I live up to north Mayo and again it's the same story. Magpies aren't in any shortage either.

Now I know I'll be told well get a licence then. That's not my point. My point being it doesn't seem to make sense to me why a licence is needed in the first place for those two species. The reasoning behind it seems flawed.

You are right John it is a flaw. Decoying was tradionally used on the game species mentioned and they were afforded protection by the wildlife act. When the wildlife act was first concieved in 1976 grey crows and magpies were not a protected species amongst a few others including the bullfinch. Decoying of greycrows and magpies was not a common practise either. Then we joined the EU and they said we had to protect all bird species. So we did. So the law then read:
S35(1)( c )Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wild duck and wild geese.
This made decoying both pigeons and crows illegal. This was addressed in the 2000 ammendment with the inclusion of woodpigeon in that sentance. The issue of crow decoying seems to have been overlooked and is something that needs changing. It could be covered by the derogation and should be easy to include decoys and electronic calls for corvids to the derogation especially if the IFA asked for it.:D

johngalway

NoNameRanger wrote: »

It could be covered by the derogation and should be easy to include decoys and electronic calls for corvids to the derogation especially if the IFA asked for it.:D [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

I have Padraig here on speed-dial

J.R.

NoNameRanger wrote: »

You are right John it is a flaw. Decoying was tradionally used on the game species mentioned and they were afforded protection by the wildlife act. When the wildlife act was first concieved in 1976 grey crows and magpies were not a protected species amongst a few others including the bullfinch. Decoying of greycrows and magpies was not a common practise either. Then we joined the EU and they said we had to protect all bird species. So we did. So the law then read:
S35(1)( c )Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wild duck and wild geese.
This made decoying both pigeons and crows illegal. This was addressed in the 2000 ammendment with the inclusion of woodpigeon in that sentance. The issue of crow decoying seems to have been overlooked and is something that needs changing. It could be covered by the derogation and should be easy to include decoys and electronic calls for corvids to the derogation especially if the IFA asked for it.:D

Hi NNR,

Great to get clear factual info.


I am no expert on the law, or would ever profess to be, but my layman's intepretation of the Wildlife Amendment Act was that pigeons were now included, along with ducks & geese, because they had now been granted an open season ....Nov 1st - Jan 31st.

My understanding of protected birds being discussed in the act was birds that have a designated open / closed season. Therefore that's why these three species were mentioned for decoying......no need to mention
greycrows / magpies / rooks & jackdaws as they do not have a designated open / closed season like pigeon now have.

Greycrows / magpies / rooks & jackdaws are mentioned in the fifth schedule.

That was my understanding of why pigeons & not corvids were added for decoying.

My understanding was that decoys could be used for corvids because the section of the act discussing decoys was referring to birds on the open season list.......pheasants, woodcock, snipe, duck, geese, pigeons etc. It was stating that only three of these species could be decoying and was not referring to corvids.

I'm probably interpreting it all wrong!!!

It wasn't me!

Pretty sure this is okay, but just to get some confirmation:

A farmer I know farms barley, which suffers due to crow and pigeon predation. (The field is at the edge of a forest). Is it okay for me to shoot the crows and pigeons when the barley ripens to protect the crop, as it has suffered quite badly in previous years?

Edit: Not really any intention of using callers or decoys, just a hide, a shotgun and a stack of cartridges, so it's more the basic legality.

NoNameRanger

J.R. wrote: »

Hi NNR,

Great to get clear factual info.


I am no expert on the law, or would ever profess to be, but my layman's intepretation of the Wildlife Amendment Act was that pigeons were now included, along with ducks & geese, because they had now been granted an open season ....Nov 1st - Jan 31st.

My understanding of protected birds being discussed in the act was birds that have a designated open / closed season. Therefore that's why these three species were mentioned for decoying......no need to mention
greycrows / magpies / rooks & jackdaws as they do not have a designated open / closed season like pigeon now have.

Greycrows / magpies / rooks & jackdaws are mentioned in the fifth schedule.

That was my understanding of why pigeons & not corvids were added for decoying.

My understanding was that decoys could be used for corvids because the section of the act discussing decoys was referring to birds on the open season list.......pheasants, woodcock, snipe, duck, geese, pigeons etc. It was stating that only three of these species could be decoying and was not referring to corvids.

I'm probably interpreting it all wrong!!!

Thats the beauty of it all, you can interpret it in so many ways. Provided the judge your infront of at the end of the day interprets it your way then your fine:D:).

Decoying can be used on more than game species for various different reasons e.g. finching. The law was made to prevent it being used on species other those tradionally hunted in this manner such as ducks, geese and woodpigeon. When wood pigeon became a protected species with the other pest species it then needed to be included otherwise decoying pigeons would be illegal.
But thats just my interpretation:D;)

NoNameRanger

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Pretty sure this is okay, but just to get some confirmation:

A farmer I know farms barley, which suffers due to crow and pigeon predation. (The field is at the edge of a forest). Is it okay for me to shoot the crows and pigeons when the barley ripens to protect the crop, as it has suffered quite badly in previous years?

Edit: Not really any intention of using callers or decoys, just a hide, a shotgun and a stack of cartridges, so it's more the basic legality.

I see no problem with this. Have fun.

Grizzly 45

NoNameRanger wrote: »

This legislation was about long before the Greens took power, you can't blame Gormley for this one. Its quite a fine bit of legislation if you want to control these species if you ask me. I think the Greens have learned alot since they got power, they've seen a bit of how life works in the countryside and they see things are not as black and white as they once thought they were. They haven't changed much have they, even the one thing they've lobbied on for years, the Ward Union! The saying goes keep your friends close and your enemies even closer:D:)

BUT it was concocted by their Green colleuges on the Continent.Have they changed much,well apart from making simple light bulbs illegal and forcing us to buy dim,mercury filled, short lifed expensive CFL thingies,and Fukin up the motor tax to force us to buy crappy underpowerd,overpriced hybrid cars,that are more polluting to make than a Hummer,and banning patio heaters.....Not to mind advocating giant bird of prey mincers on every roof and hilltop in the land.Er ,yeah they have learned alot.:rolleyes:

NoNameRanger

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BUT it was concocted by their Green colleuges on the Continent.Have they changed much,well apart from making simple light bulbs illegal and forcing us to buy dim,mercury filled, short lifed expensive CFL thingies,and Fukin up the motor tax to force us to buy crappy underpowerd,overpriced hybrid cars,that are more polluting to make than a Hummer,and banning patio heaters.....Not to mind advocating giant bird of prey mincers on every roof and hilltop in the land.Er ,yeah they have learned alot.:rolleyes:

Firstly i'm not a Green and have never been inclined to vote that way. The point i was making was that since they started playing real politics they have changed their tune on a number of issues and by putting them in power it may have given them a taste of how the real world works. I'm all for protecting the environment so long as it's done by people that know what their doing and not causing more damage in the long run. The Greens spent far too much of their time concerned about the welfare of animals they considered to be persecuted and not enough on the bigger environmental issues. But remember your average do gooder bunny hugger votes the Greens in and they believe that by stopping hunting, doing a bit of recycling and buying organic veg that they will save the environment:rolleyes:. So they managed to increase the road tax, good move by FF, they get more taxes and they can blame the Greens, hopefully they will be able to secure some extra money in the coming years for conservation and concentrate on protecting and cleaning up the natural habitats we have been destroying for years. Hopefully they will sort out the shameful situation which almost every County council in the country is guilty of. That is, polluting our rivers by allowing development without the proper sewage treatment and by not providing sewage treatment plants capable of dealing with the growth in the population. The sh1t in our rivers is unbelieveable. Just look at the outflow of any sewage plant to a river in any major town in this country. And what they don't tell us is what they realease at high water.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BHave they changed much,well apart from making simple light bulbs illegal and forcing us to buy dim,mercury filled, short lifed expensive CFL thingies,and Fukin up the motor tax to force us to buy crappy underpowerd,overpriced hybrid cars,that are more polluting to make than a Hummer,and banning patio heaters.....Not to mind advocating giant bird of prey mincers on every roof and hilltop in the land.Er ,yeah they have learned alot.:rolleyes:

Y'know, we had arguments and complaints for months about how politics was ruining the forum, so the sub-forums got created to provide a politics-free zone...

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

Y'know, we had arguments and complaints for months about how politics was ruining the forum, so the sub-forums got created to provide a politics-free zone...

Politics between the different shooting groups, certain ones putting out certain info, the other disagreeing then infighting ensued. That's the bull**** everyone was complaining about. Not politics about our leglislators. The two are very different. If it were the case then Parlimentary questions etc would also have gotten the heave ho.

Sparks

Parlimentary Questions is in the main shooting forum though, which isn't a no-politics zone (the idea being that we do actually need a place to talk about the political crap lest it do bad things to us while noone is looking). As to actual political-party-type politics, that's what the Politics forum is for...

johngalway

Ah, I think to say discussing legislation relating to hunting should be in the politics forum is taking things to literally. I would think certain members of our great grand glorious civilisation would jump on those threads with petrol and matches to suit their own agendas. I'd agree the topic is deviating slightly but hunting is still being discussed. Knowing and discussing those working to hamper a lot of folks on this forum is no bad thing. Hunting and shooting both attract a large amount of bad press at times and certain types of politics do tie in with that.

The other type of politics were infighting between organisations which didn't get anyone anywhere except banned if memory serves. Never took sides in it myself and I'm delighted it's now a no go zone.

Sparks

Discussing legislation like the Wildlife Act would be one thing john, and I agree completely with you there - in fact I'd have left it in here rather than even move it to the main shooting forum. But this isn't discussing legislation, this is bashing a political party. Not saying don't do it, just not in this exact spot. This is a hunting forum, not a shielded part of the politics forum!

IRLConor

johngalway wrote: »

Ah, I think to say discussing legislation relating to hunting should be in the politics forum is taking things to literally. I would think certain members of our great grand glorious civilisation would jump on those threads with petrol and matches to suit their own agendas. I'd agree the topic is deviating slightly but hunting is still being discussed. Knowing and discussing those working to hamper a lot of folks on this forum is no bad thing. Hunting and shooting both attract a large amount of bad press at times and certain types of politics do tie in with that.

It's difficult to know where to draw the line.

Discussing legislation in the hunting forum is perfectly fine. The only problem is when it devolves into having a crack at the political parties that are involved in the legislation. Having a crack at them is fine by me, just here isn't the right place for it. The really fuzzy territory is when non-political lobby groups like ICABS get discussed.

johngalway wrote: »

The other type of politics were infighting between organisations which didn't get anyone anywhere except banned if memory serves. Never took sides in it myself and I'm delighted it's now a no go zone.

Discussion of them is not a no-go area (with qualifications) but it has to stay in the main shooting forum and not the subforums.

ivanthehunter

Its my belief that the bird of paradise was released into the Irish countryside 100 years ago. These birds are not native to our land.


Is it not the case that magpies cause massive amounts of harm to the indigenous wildlife. What views do wildlife agencies have on them and the damage they allegedly cause if any?

johngalway

I give a tounge in cheek reply about having Padraig Walsh on speed dial earlier. I'm not yet an IFA member (we left after they agreed with getting rid of compulsory sheep dipping). I am rejoining and I will write to them to see if they can get anything done.

Got a few things to do, will be back to reply later again.

Vegeta

johngalway wrote: »

I give a tounge in cheek reply about having Padraig Walsh on speed dial earlier. I'm not yet an IFA member (we left after they agreed with getting rid of compulsory sheep dipping). I am rejoining and I will write to them to see if they can get anything done.

Got a few things to do, will be back to reply later again.

Nice one John, does seem a little odd that greys and magpies are in this type of scenario.

Grizzly 45

Well I think Ol Gormey is going to have more to worry about down in Haulbowline at the moment as to what the fuzzy bunny brigade might have to say about things and which of us is shooting vermin:D.

J.R.

Just wondering, under EU derogation, as to where you stand when a magpie is captured in a larsen trap.

How are you to prove he was causing damage when you caught him?

ivanthehunter

J.R. wrote: »

Just wondering, under EU derogation, as to where you stand when a magpie is captured in a larsen trap.

How are you to prove he was causing damage when you caught him?

Well how do you prove that the bird wasn't causing damage.
The responsibility might be on the trap owner/user to prove that damage is possible or reasonably possible or on going, That IMO of course
I would think that such a trap can only be placed in the vicinity of crops etc that are ear marked for protection. Hence a bird in the area of the crops has the potential to damage those crop.