NPWS ranger running a shoot,???

Grizzly 45

Todays Sunday Times,30th may 09 online edition.Ireland news.

Author:John Mooney

The Department of the Environment has launched an internal investigation into allegations that some conservation rangers are organising shooting holidays for tourists.
The inquiry was ordered after The Sunday Times discovered that rangers employed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) are involved in the organisation of hunting holidays, even though they are prohibited from doing this under the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour.
Mark Byrne, a conservation ranger who patrols the north Galway region, offers deer-stalking holidays and accommodation for foreign clients. He has circulated material which states that he has brought hunters to remote land in Galway to stalk deer at a cost of between €150 and €700 each.
The promotional material, which shows pictures of slain deer, states that a hunting licence is included in the holiday package. Permits are issued by the NPWS, suggesting a possible conflict of interest.
The NPWS has already accused Robert Lundy, an NPWS ranger from Co Sligo, of compromising his position. He is involved in Tubbercurry Gun Club, which organises shooting holidays for foreign tourists.
Last year Lundy attended a meeting between the commercial gun club and members of an Irish deer-shooting syndicate that had acquired the shooting rights to Moy Forest in Co Sligo.
At the meeting Lundy objected to the syndicate’s members hunting on the land which is owned by Coillte, the state forestry agency. In a telephone conversation he had previously said the lands in question were of interest to his operation and that he would use his influence to ensure that the NPWS did not issue hunting licences to a member of the syndicate.
In a May 11 letter to Ahmed Salman, a member of the syndicate, Pat Warner, manager for the NPWS in the northern division, wrote that he wished to “apologise unreservedly” for Lundy’s conduct.
“There was no clear distinction between his role as an NPWS officer and whatever relationship he may have, in his personal capacity, as a member of the gun club. It is totally unacceptable to us in NPWS that a member of our staff would appear in this light,” wrote Warner. “You will understand, I hope, that I cannot give details of any procedure or sanction, but I can assure you that the matter was taken very seriously.”
Salman, a Dublin-based surgeon, said: “Lundy called me after my syndicate leased the deer-shooting rights to the land. He said my deer shooting would pose a safety issue, but then said we would be interfering with a commercial shoot for woodcock that he was operating on the same lands. He threatened to block my deer hunting licence and told me that he was the local wildlife ranger.”
Documents obtained by The Sunday Times show that Lundy acts as a contact point for foreign tourists who wish to shoot woodcock and snipe in Ireland. The tours are arranged through Orchape, a French tour operator. It gives Lundy’s name as the contact for tourist shooting in the northwest.
Des Crofton, chief executive of the National Association of Regional Game Clubs (NARGC), which represents 28,000 Irish hunters, said his organisation was aware that some wildlife rangers have been engaged in commercial hunting activities and had complained to the NPWS.
“We have passed information on this matter to the NPWS and we expect nothing less than a thorough investigation followed by appropriate action,” said Crofton.
He accused John Gormley, the environment minister, of failing to regulate commercial hunting in Ireland. “There are sections of the 2000 Wildlife Act that would require those involved in deriving financial gain from commercial hunting to obtain a licence. Unfortunately, almost nine years after its enactment by the Oireachtas, the relevant section of the act remains on the shelf.”
A spokesman for Gormley said the department was aware of allegations that involvement in commercial shooting by one or two NPWS staff gave rise to a conflict of interest.
“The department would have serious concerns about any activities of any staff which would constitute a conflict of interest or which would otherwise fall outside the requirements of the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour,” he said.
Lundy did not wish to comment. Calls to Byrne went unanswered

kakashka

Going on for years,and not just Galway!!!

jwshooter

cant see the problem my self as long as the ranger in question was not bring guests onto the national park.

if he has private ground why should he not take a guest on to it.

Discodog

Then contact your local Wildlife Officer who, according to the Sunday Times, can organise a shoot for you !
If the poor wildlife can't rely on the person who is tasked with preserving them then who's left ?.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6396369.ece

My name is URL

Ah ffs, what kind of muppets are the people in charge of hiring these gob****es.!

marlin vs

Bring a guest by all mean's, but shouldn't make a buissness out of it.

Morganna

That is crazy thanks Peter for posting it .

J.R.

Des Crofton, in his articles in the Irish Shooter's Digest mentioned this in this month's & last month's editions.

bunny shooter

jwshooter wrote: »

cant see the problem my self as long as the ranger in question was not bring guests onto the national park.

if he has private ground why should he not take a guest on to it.

You are in the same kind of business I believe, selling shooting to the highest bidder :rolleyes:

I disagree with this carry on and it should be stopped or regulated so it does not deprive local people from shooting their local area.

jwshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

You are in the same kind of business I believe, selling shooting to the highest bidder :rolleyes:

I disagree with this carry on and it should be stopped or regulated so it does not deprive local people from shooting their local area.

far from it lad.
i have some stalking and sell places in it but do not make a penny out of it.

like to hunt

it all about money

money money money or to be the big lad..

screw the ordinary shooten guy that has real interest.

to get to the feild or wood or hill for a shot

not how much or what will u give me for it.....

gaurds cant be bouncers
rangers can be outfitters

Our man in Havana

Moved to hunting.

greenpeter

What sport is not corrupt? Its one of those thing that will draw yet more bad publicity for our sport and give the honest hard working ranger a bad name

Grizzly 45

MODS,
you might as well merge threads here with the NPWS ranger runnung a shoot.Same topic.;)

meathstevie

I've no problem whatsoever with a NPWS ranger shooting recreationally, on the contrary. The door is wide open for conflicts of interest when the same person organises commercial hunting trips though, especially in the area where they operate as ranger as well. In my opinion commercial guiding and being a ranger at the same time should be made impossible as it creates a situation where all sorts of misconduct can easily happen. A cop can't be a private detective either for obvious reasons.

bunny shooter

And someone employed in the "security" industry cannot be in the Garda Reserve ............. same principle should apply to rangers they should not be allwed to be involved in operating or being involved in commercial shooting enterprises.

bunny shooter

jwshooter wrote: »

.............
i have some stalking and sell places in it but do not make a penny out of it.

So you are telling me that you do it for no financial gain ? Fair dues. Not many people in this country who do anything for no financial gain

jwshooter

not a penny , i sold one cull stag last year to the game dealer as i was not coming home that nite i made E34 from a neck shot sika stag.

the time i spend hunting with clients i still dont make any thing near what i would working i enjoy it love to be on the hill.

in the last few years there has been a lad running some clients in wicklow they raped the ground for all it was worth, shot it out .

if they were not in it them selves they had clients in .

this i have no time for they had no cull plan no management skills ,greed and money , but there ground is worthless now and i have heard there are not taking the ground this year.

a well managed area can produce a "small" few stag or bucks that can be sold to pay for running costs ,if a group of lads are paying for stalking the selling of a few trophys will cut there costs ,keep the group small ,improve the heard,then the lads have the culling to them selves.

this is what the ranger was i would think,

every one that stalks would like to have a nice trophy for the wall ,but one is enough i have a big sika on my wall i have little wish to shoot another.

i would get more pleasure bring a lad out for one and i have brought lads from boards out.

so the selling of a trophy by a ranger on his own ground can see the problem .

if the nargc are so against selling shooting <deleted by mod>

again double standards ,have des and the rest of the 28,000 members of the nargc never payed for game shooting/stalking i have ,have they never payed to shoot abroad ,i have .
so we as hunters can travel all over the world hunting but we will not allow hunter in to shoot hear.

this is just another ploy to try get there hands on our national parks

Sparks

Lads, just watch the libellous stuff, okay? Comments on the article - fine. Comments on concluded court cases/inquiries - fine. Naming someone or identifying them and accusing them of something that's not yet proven in a court (and I don't care if the dogs on the street know it, because the dogs on the street aren't the ones the solicitors letters are addressed to in the libel lawsuit), that's not okay, it'll get boards.ie in trouble.

Edits and a post deleted above.

That said, so long as we don't libel anyone, carry on.

Grizzly 45

bunny shooter wrote: »

And someone employed in the "security" industry cannot be in the Garda Reserve ............. same principle should apply to rangers they should not be allwed to be involved in operating or being involved in commercial shooting enterprises.

Neither can solicitors,barristers,pub owners,private investigators,military personel wether regular or reserve.So basically dismiss people who MIGHT know somthing about the law and are involved in it in a private capacity..
BTW MS the amount of Gardai serving or "retired but still with contacts" as PIs here in Ireland is unbeliveable and contrary to the rules of the private security act.They can poach with impunity in the private sector,but wont reciprocate.

Abit different than a ranger who is using his badge and power and seems to have to answer to noone like an old criminal gunfighter who became the town Sheriff in the old West.
Replace the known devil with somthing worse by the sound of things.:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

MODS,
you might as well merge threads here with the NPWS ranger runnung a shoot.Same topic.;)

Same topic, same warning against libel. Threads merged.

jwshooter

this bull **** ,you guys are slating mark byrne and know noting about the story other than the bit in the paper, that does not have its facts right .

but you seem to deem fit to delete my comments about bubble standards in the nargc .

a high up member in the nargc is running commercial shooting in wexford is a fact any one with the money can buy a mornings shooting .

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

this bull **** ,you guys are slating mark byrne

Actually, the only post slating him was deleted and the poster infracted for making libellous statements.
In fact, other than quoting the newspaper article (and if you think anyone in here believes what they read in the papers, then you'd probably think we all think that practical shooting is combat training), his name only appears in your post.

jwshooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Neither can solicitors,barristers,pub owners,private investigators,military personel wether regular or reserve.So basically dismiss people who MIGHT know somthing about the law and are involved in it in a private capacity..

Abit different than a ranger who is using his badge and power and seems to have to answer to noone like an old criminal gunfighter who became the town Sheriff in the old West.
Replace the known devil with somthing worse by the sound of things.:(

you presume a lot, how do you know mark byrne is using his badge and power .

i would think you should retract this statement.

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

you presume a lot, how do you know mark byrne is using his badge and power .

Reading the original post (the newspaper story) and Grizzly's post, I think you've misidentified which ranger was being spoken about in both places.
Mark is only mentioned at the start of the article, where they say an investigation has been called for; the rest is about someone else.

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, the only post slating him was deleted and the poster infracted for making libellous statements.
In fact, other than quoting the newspaper article (and if you think anyone in here believes what they read in the papers, then you'd probably think we all think that practical shooting is combat training), his name only appears in your post.[/QUOTE

your talking in riddles as usual .

Grizzly 45

[

then you'd probably think we all think that practical shooting is combat training),

Ah Sparks,JW DOES belive that!:rolleyes:

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

your talking in riddles as usual .

Didn't think I was, or that I did, but I'll say it plain for you: you're wrong.
You're wrong that Grizzly's taking lumps out of Mark; he's not.
You're wrong that the paper took lumps out of Mark; they just reported that he was suspected of something, and that an investigation has been called for.
You're wrong that the mods here let people take chunks out of Mark and then censored your comment about an identified NARGC person - the only comment libeling Mark was deleted and the poster infracted, and your comment was edited out.

Now take a breath. You're seeing everyone take lumps out of one person when they're taking lumps out of someone else.

jwshooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[

Ah Sparks,JW DOES belive that!:rolleyes:

me and every one else that has sold there pistol

Grizzly 45

Then you were sadly and badly misinformed,or just didnt want to know any different.

thedragon

I had my post deleted and I got infracted its probably just aswell.Lads just sit back and wait.The truth about this Mark Byrne will come out,then whoever wants to defend him can do so.

jwshooter

i just googled

"duck shooting wexford slobs "

its there is black and white .:eek:

kakashka

So JWya Lad,you've shot hundreds when it suits and now you've shot hardly anything and dont make a penny from it...lzec
I know your against reading stuff but try reading the article..
As for not seeing anything wrong with- well Picture this

NPWS ranger brings tourist (lets say German)on a stalk for reward,shoot Stag(nice big trophy) in NP,Tourist heads for pub later and boasts about his day out,some time later ranger catches notorious poacher who simply flashes name/address of mr German man and walks off NEVER to be bothered by this ranger again....if;) that were ever to happen it would drive me insane :mad::mad::mad:

jwshooter

kakashka wrote: »

So JWya Lad,you've shot hundreds when it suits and now you've shot hardly anything and dont make a penny from it...lzec
I know your against reading stuff but try reading the article..
As for not seeing anything wrong with- well Picture this

NPWS ranger brings tourist (lets say German)on a stalk for reward,shoot Stag(nice big trophy) in NP,Tourist heads for pub later and boasts about his day out,some time later ranger catches notorious poacher who simply flashes name/address of mr German man and walks off NEVER to be bothered by this ranger again....if;) that were ever to happen it would drive me insane :mad::mad::mad:

not stags kkk ,been there done that no interest any more but hind culling is a different matter.

your story is just that a story .no relevance unless you want to name the ranger ? no did not think so .

bunny shooter

jwshooter wrote: »

me and every one else that has sold there pistol

not quite true Mine is up for sale and I wasn't a "practical shooter" :P

bunny shooter

thedragon wrote: »

......The truth about this **** ***** will come out,then whoever wants to defend him can do so.

And then he will walk away laughing :mad:

Octopus

jwshooter wrote: »

a high up member in the nargc is running commercial shooting in wexford is a fact any one with the money can buy a mornings shooting .

Define 'high up' please. This member is not in any controlling/voting executive position within the NARGC.

In my personal opinion there is a direct conflict of interests here. If the NPWS are responsible for approving deer hunting licenses (based on cull quotas) yet are withholding shooting (alleged) for themselves/clients then are they depriving fellow shooters of their sporting right?

I don't shoot deer myself so I'm not quoting from experience here but from what I've heard obtaining a deer hunting licence is tough at the best of times without personal interests conflicting with the natural course of selection.

My Opinion.

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

your story is just that a story .no relevance unless you want to name the ranger ? no did not think so .

Okay jw, you can knock that on the head right there. No libeling and no encouraging others to libel either.

jwshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

not quite true Mine is up for sale and I wasn't a "practical shooter" :P

nor was i

kakashka

jwshooter wrote: »

not stags kkk ,been there done that no interest any more but hind culling is a different matter.

your story is just that a story .no relevance unless you want to name the ranger ? no did not think so .

I have read rules and regs here and i'm quite happy to follow.
The man in question will WITHOUT DOUBT read this and thats enough for me.
I would also like to say that the majority of NPWS staff that i know are top class..

kakashka

Sparks wrote: »

Okay jw, you can knock that on the head right there. No libeling and no encouraging others to libel either.

I'm not so hot on the keys Sparks so slow going re replys
Rest assured I do not intend to Libel anyone

jwshooter

Octopus wrote: »

Define 'high up' please. This member is not in any controlling/voting executive position within the NARGC.

In my personal opinion there is a direct conflict of interests here. If the NPWS are responsible for approving deer hunting licenses (based on cull quotas) yet are withholding shooting (alleged) for themselves/clients then are they depriving fellow shooters of their sporting right?

I don't shoot deer myself so I'm not quoting from experience here but from what I've heard obtaining a deer hunting licence is tough at the best of times without personal interests conflicting with the natural course of selection.

My Opinion.

google it and see how high he is ,lord all mighty hear in wx.

BryanL

I doubt rangers get paid enough, not to be allowed make some extra money from their area of expertise. I can't see any conflict unless they abuse any powers they may have as rangers to infringe on others.
Bryan

thedragon

I see a few of the sunday papers have the story of NPWS ranger wrongdoings.A lot of supporters on this type of activity here on Boards,much to my disgust and Im sure the disgust of any true sporting shooter that reads it.This would be a bit like a Garda taking off his uniform and going on crime sprees with criminals and organising passes to do so.This may be a slight exaggeration but you get my point.

Discodog

Itwasntme has suggested on another section that my views would be welcome here !.

I find the idea of giving anyone who shoots wildlife a job protecting it as rediculous. Josef Fritsell running child protection springs to mind !. Whether any of you have the "right" to shoot wildlife is for the law & your morals. The wildlife needs to be protected by someone who does not have a conflict of interests.

Some of us believe that wildlife conservation is not about ensuring that there are more animals to shoot. Where a cull is essential (& I mean essential) then a marksman should be employed & the carcasses destroyed so that there is no commercial consideration. For example the Japanese whalers would have a little more justification in claiming that they are engaged in research if they didn't sell whale meat for a fortune.

jwshooter

Discodog wrote: »

Itwasntme has suggested on another section that my views would be welcome here !.

I find the idea of giving anyone who shoots wildlife a job protecting it as rediculous. Josef Fritsell running child protection springs to mind !. Whether any of you have the "right" to shoot wildlife is for the law & your morals. The wildlife needs to be protected by someone who does not have a conflict of interests.

Some of us believe that wildlife conservation is not about ensuring that there are more animals to shoot. Where a cull is essential (& I mean essential) then a marksman should be employed & the carcasses destroyed so that there is no commercial consideration. For example the Japanese whalers would have a little more justification in claiming that they are engaged in research if they didn't sell whale meat for a fortune.

"the carcasses destroyed " say a lot for you

thedragon

bunny shooter wrote: »

And then he will walk away laughing :mad:
I think he has that to look forward to alright,if hes found guilty.BUT Igot a call from a man just now that feels he owes this guy,and hes waiting for the case to unfold so he can take civil action.Hes organising as many people as he can,that have been allegidley affected by this guy,to join him on a civil law suit.So I dont think anyone will run off smiling on this occasion.

Discodog

jwshooter wrote: »

"the carcasses destroyed " say a lot for you

The reason why this is best practice is to avoid the situation where money becomes a factor. For example the situation of allowing certain governments to sell ivory from culled elephants has increased poaching & corruption.

If someone responsible for a cull can sell meat don't you think that it might influence him as to whether the cull is nescessary & effect the number that he chooses to cull ?

It wasn't me!

It's important to note that the function of the rangers of NPWS isn't to "protect" wildlife as such; it's to manage the environment to best benefit special diversity within it. Management means programmes where animals are culled.

The idea that carcasses should be destroyed is abhorrent. It will sicken a lot of people in here as it's a disgusting waste. Depending on the ground one shoots, one's cull plan might entail shooting more than is practical to keep, but the cull is more important, so you take what you can eat and the rest goes to family, friends and the game dealer. There's no money in it really, it doesn't make for a commercial venture, but the idea of wasting such good food is sickening. Trophy hunting can only occur thanks to good management on the ground, by its nature, so while I don't have a position on whether a ranger of NPWS should have been involved in this, it does mean he's doing a good job in managing that ground.

It wasn't me!

Discodog wrote: »

The reason why this is best practice is to avoid the situation where money becomes a factor. For example the situation of allowing certain governments to sell ivory from culled elephants has increased poaching & corruption.

If someone responsible for a cull can sell meat don't you think that it might influence him as to whether the cull is nescessary & effect the number that he chooses to cull ?

Like I say, there's no real money in it. It's a way to dispose of excess animals from your cull that you don't take for yourself or have need for and can't find friends in need. The lads will tell you they don't get much from the game dealer.

Discodog

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's important to note that the function of the rangers of NPWS isn't to "protect" wildlife as such; it's to manage the environment to best benefit special diversity within it. Management means programmes where animals are culled.

The idea that carcasses should be destroyed is abhorrent. It will sicken a lot of people in here as it's a disgusting waste. Depending on the ground one shoots, one's cull plan might entail shooting more than is practical to keep, but the cull is more important, so you take what you can eat and the rest goes to family, friends and the game dealer. There's no money in it really, it doesn't make for a commercial venture, but the idea of wasting such good food is sickening. Trophy hunting can only occur thanks to good management on the ground, by its nature, so while I don't have a position on whether a ranger of NPWS should have been involved in this, it does mean he's doing a good job in managing that ground.

So the man who culls gets meat but this does not influence his judgement. Bit like if a Garda was allowed to keep some of the proceeds of crime. Sure it wouldn't be much. Just to help his income !

How about if any meat was sold & the money used for wildlife rescue & welfare ?