Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Unprotected wild birds

  • 08-12-2009 6:51pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭


    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.Iv'e got an old book (1976) that lists them and I am wondering has the list been changed in any way since then, iv'e searched the net to no avail.

    The old list is

    Carrion crow
    Hooded crow
    Grey crow
    Magpie
    Jackdaw
    Rook
    Black Backed gull (lesser)
    Black Backed gull (greater)
    Herring gull
    Bullfinch
    House Sparrow
    Starling
    Woodpigeon
    They were known as the unlucky 13.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭ghostmantra


    marlin vs wrote: »
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.Iv'e got an old book (1976) that lists them and I am wondering has the list been changed in any way since then, iv'e searched the net to no avail.

    The old list is

    Carrion crow
    Hooded crow
    Grey crow
    Magpie
    Jackdaw
    Rook
    Black Backed gull (lesser)
    Black Backed gull (greater)
    Herring gull
    Bullfinch
    House Sparrow
    Starling
    Woodpigeon
    They were known as the unlucky 13.
    i think they are all protected;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Aren't the first three the same thing?
    L-M.
    marlin vs wrote: »
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.Iv'e got an old book (1976) that lists them and I am wondering has the list been changed in any way since then, iv'e searched the net to no avail.

    The old list is

    Carrion crow
    Hooded crow
    Grey crow
    Magpie
    Jackdaw
    Rook
    Black Backed gull (lesser)
    Black Backed gull (greater)
    Herring gull
    Bullfinch
    House Sparrow
    Starling
    Woodpigeon
    They were known as the unlucky 13.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭johnner1


    I had seen that list before and it puzzled me as to why they ever had BULLFINCH and HOUSE SPARROW on it :eek:
    would it have been to keep the continental shooters happy:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭marlin vs


    ghostmantra,
    No they are on the wildlife act as unprotected

    johnner1,
    I'm not sure why the sparrow is on it, but I do know that the Bullfinch is on it because they create havoc to apple farmers as they eat the buds on the trees


    locum-motion,
    Actually the first 6 are from same family.

    As far as I know the only one that has been changed is the woodpigeon. My reason for the question is to find out if the gulls are still on the list as my friends and I are having a bit of a debate about it.I have the original book of the 1976 wildlife act, but i'm not sure if it has been changed since.

    I'll repeat my question,
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    marlin vs wrote: »
    ghostmantra,
    No they are on the wildlife act as unprotected

    johnner1,
    I'm not sure why the sparrow is on it, but I do know that the Bullfinch is on it because they create havoc to apple farmers as they eat the buds on the trees


    locum-motion,
    Actually the first 6 are from same family.

    As far as I know the only one that has been changed is the woodpigeon. My reason for the question is to find out if the gulls are still on the list as my friends and I are having a bit of a debate about it.I have the original book of the 1976 wildlife act, but i'm not sure if it has been changed since.

    I'll repeat my question,
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.


    Ok I hear ye!:D-this was revised in the wildlife act 2000 to; Bullfinch
    Herring gull, Jackdaw,magpie,carrion crow, hooded crow,jay,rook,greater black backed gull,house sparrow,lesser black-backed gull, starling and pigeon{ but not carrier or racing pigeons or doves} I got this from the Practical guide to the wildlife act 2000-section 30-ill check for a link;)

    it seems that the amendments to the act in 2000 didnt change the list from the 76 act and that is the above list, so that stands today as far as i reckon.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    Unchanged from 1976, as far as I know*.

    1976 link here.


    * I don't know


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 Clown Shoes


    I love going milf hunting. Wild, unprotected birds and all that...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭wicklow newbie


    + 1 !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    marlin vs wrote: »
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.Iv'e got an old book (1976) that lists them and I am wondering has the list been changed in any way since then, iv'e searched the net to no avail.

    The old list is

    Carrion crow
    Hooded crow
    Grey crow
    Magpie
    Jackdaw
    Rook
    Black Backed gull (lesser)
    Black Backed gull (greater)
    Herring gull
    Bullfinch
    House Sparrow
    Starling
    Woodpigeon
    They were known as the unlucky 13.

    Why do you want to know?

    You could just stick to something you are sure about rather than hunting something that you will not consume. Or is Pascal's chase theory relevant to you. I can't see how a hunter could tell such a bird from another at such a distance anyway. It fasinates me. I admire you for questioning protected species though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Seems like a few of the names on that list could be outdated.

    The house sparrow has seen a massive decline in it's numbers both here and in the UK, so much so that it is being listed as being on the red list in the UK and looks like it is going to get similar status here.

    The Bullfinch is another that was on the red list in the UK and also has had numbers decline over here, but some improvement in numbers in recent years has seen it move back to the amber list.

    The Herring gull is also on the UK red list.


    There are three colours in the risk lists.

    Green for no risk to population

    Amber for medium risk to populatuions

    Red for high risk to populations with a strong chance of the species vanishing for good if no action is taken.

    Generally similar trends in population numbers happen here as in the UK, but it is more a pointer as sometimes what is at risk there actually has good populations here and vice versa.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭J.R.


    As far as I'm aware all birds are now protected.....have checked this with local Wildlife Ranger.

    The above list of 13 is outdated and superseded by the Wildlife Act Amendment Act 2000.

    There is no up-to-date list (or need for one) because all birds are now classed as protected.

    Game birds have a specific season when they can be shot.

    Others (vermin) - greycrow, magpie, rook, jackdaw, pigeon, feral pigeon and collared doves can be shot with a rifle or shotgun, under EU derogation the whole year round ....if they are causing damage.

    The wood pigeon is the only bird that has a specific season but can also be shot under EU derogation.

    Seagulls, sparrow, bullfinch & starling are protected the whole year round and cannot be shot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    J.R. wrote: »
    As far as I'm aware all birds are now protected.....have checked this with local Wildlife Ranger.

    The above list of 13 is outdated and superseded by the Wildlife Act Amendment Act 2000.

    There is no up-to-date list (or need for one) because all birds are now classed as protected.

    Game birds have a specific season when they can be shot.

    Others (vermin) - greycrow, magpie, rook, jackdaw, pigeon, feral pigeon and collared doves can be shot with a rifle or shotgun, under EU derogation the whole year round ....if they are causing damage.

    The wood pigeon is the only bird that has a specific season but can also be shot under EU derogation.

    Seagulls, sparrow, bullfinch & starling are protected the whole year round and cannot be shot.

    Not according to Des Crofton and his book , a practical guide to the wildlife acts 2000, in which he says that section 30 of the act 2000, amends section 22 of the wildlife acts 1976, with the enforcement of protection of every wild bird except those in the third schedule of the 76 act, which are as follows-see list above on post number 6.Thats what my info is based on and im sure he has a fair idea what hes talking about.

    no disrespect to rangers but the last ranger we invited to a safety seminar proceeded to tell those attending the seminar that lamping was illegal and foxes were protected.needless to say he was swiftly removed from the room.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,900 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Aren't the first three the same thing?
    L-M.

    No. They are separate species from the same family. The corvids I believe.
    marlin vs wrote: »
    ghostmantra,
    No they are on the wildlife act as unprotected
    This is wrong, they are all protected under Irish and EU law. However, this protection may be revoked for 3 months for some or all of the birds. This is the derogation that you should be familar with.

    I'll repeat my question,
    Has anyone got an up to date link for the wildlife act that actually gives the list of species of unprotected wild birds that can be shot.
    If you repeat the question, you'll get a repeat answer. All birds are now protected under the act.

    Game birds have a season.
    Pest species are permitted to be shot under the derogation.
    Not according to Des Crofton and his book , a practical guide to the wildlife acts 2000, in which he says that section 30 of the act 2000, amends section 22 of the wildlife acts 1976, with the enforcement of protection of every wild bird except those in the third schedule of the 76 act, which are as follows-see list above on post number 6.Thats what my info is based on and im sure he has a fair idea what hes talking about.
    He does know what he is talking about. Read the last post again...

    All birds are protected under the act, but can be shot under the derogation if causing damage, or under any condition impossed


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    Mellor wrote: »
    No. They are separate species from the same family. The corvids I believe.


    This is wrong, they are all protected under Irish and EU law. However, this protection may be revoked for 3 months for some or all of the birds. This is the derogation that you should be familar with.



    If you repeat the question, you'll get a repeat answer. All birds are now protected under the act.

    Game birds have a season.
    Pest species are permitted to be shot under the derogation.


    He does know what he is talking about. Read the last post again...

    All birds are protected under the act, but can be shot under the derogation if causing damage, or under any condition impossed

    That puts that one to bed then so!-:eek but isnt the derogation an ongoing thing?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭ivanthehunter


    I love going milf hunting. Wild, unprotected birds and all that...
    Too much fun!! must be prohibited!!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭ivanthehunter


    the last ranger we invited to a safety seminar proceeded to tell those attending the seminar that lamping was illegal and foxes were protected.needless to say he was swiftly removed from the room.
    What!!
    Who!!
    how the f*** ??:confused:
    Ahhh.......... Do i know this man, was he ever posting here?

    And derogation is an on going waste of time!! FFS Maggie's get protection and there from the America..FFS don't make me laugh!!!

    The problem here is the the Irish gov spent all its pocket money getting some one to translate Doc's in to Irish!! FFS!! but they won't sort out the legislation which is all over the shop!!
    The whole wildlife act need to be re-wrote in conjunction with EU law!

    Derogation!! just another way to let us do as we please! So what was the point of it? Very little TBH.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,900 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    And derogation is an on going waste of time!! FFS Maggie's get protection and there from the America..FFS don't make me laugh!!!

    The problem here is the the Irish gov spent all its pocket money getting some one to translate Doc's in to Irish!! FFS!! but they won't sort out the legislation which is all over the shop!!
    The whole wildlife act need to be re-wrote in conjunction with EU law!

    Derogation!! just another way to let us do as we please! So what was the point of it? Very little TBH.

    Ivan, you do relise that the derogation is EU law.

    That puts that one to bed then so!-:eek but isnt the derogation an ongoing thing?
    It's a 3 month thing, a new one must be signed in every 3 months or else they revert to full protection.
    Again, before Ivan posts some nonsense about "backwards irish wildlife laws, this was from EU law. The irish way was a lot simpler.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭marlin vs


    Thank's Foxshooter243,
    i'd be gratefull if you could find and post the link, all this stuff needs to be put into layman's language as the meaning can get lost in a lot of waffle.

    jaffa20.asked
    Why do you want to know

    You could just stick to something you are sure about rather than hunting something that you will not consume. Or is Pascal's chase theory relevant to you. I can't see how a hunter could tell such a bird from another at such a distance anyway.


    If you read my post ,I explaied that it was to sort out a debate between myself and my friends.
    I can assure you I do know the difference between them,i and I have no intention of eating them. I never mentioned any distance,all I asked for was for a link, so that our debate could be settled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    What!!
    Who!!
    how the f*** ??:confused:
    Ahhh.......... Do i know this man, was he ever posting here?
    Well, let's see now. That'd require:
    (1) Us to know who you are;
    (2) Us to know who he is; and
    (3) Us to know what name he was posting under here.

    For all we know Ivan, you were that masked man...

    The whole wildlife act need to be re-wrote in conjunction with EU law!

    double-facepalm.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    What!!
    Who!!
    how the f*** ??:confused:
    Ahhh.......... Do i know this man, was he ever posting here?

    And derogation is an on going waste of time!! FFS Maggie's get protection and there from the America..FFS don't make me laugh!!!

    The problem here is the the Irish gov spent all its pocket money getting some one to translate Doc's in to Irish!! FFS!! but they won't sort out the legislation which is all over the shop!!
    The whole wildlife act need to be re-wrote in conjunction with EU law!

    Derogation!! just another way to let us do as we please! So what was the point of it? Very little TBH.

    This lad wasnt a Boards poster, the Rangers posting here always posted accurate and reliable info as far as I could see anyways, this Ranger im Talking about got carried away at a safety seminar and began interpreting the wildlife act the way he wanted to see it, not the way it was and was asked to desist by senior Nargc staff on the day, he wasnt invited back to any seminars since needless to say:)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Aren't the first three the same thing?
    L-M.

    Hooded crow and grey crow are the same thing. Carrion crow is different. They're both from the same family though.

    No wild bird is unprotected as far as I'm aware. Just that some get a derogation from that list so they can be controlled if causing damage.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭ivanthehunter


    Sparks wrote: »
    Well, let's see now. That'd require:
    (1) Us to know who you are;
    (2) Us to know who he is; and
    (3) Us to know what name he was posting under here.

    For all we know Ivan, you were that masked man...




    double-facepalm.jpg

    Well well DFP:rolleyes:
    the law, the way its worded, where its found, the amount of searching, etc etc is a bit of a joke here (Rep) and thats why people come here asking the same old questions time after time after time!

    Different groups across the nation write up there own guild-line as to what they deem the law to mean (including the cops) and there are a lot of errors.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Well well DFP:rolleyes:
    the law, the way it worded, where its found, the amount of searching, etc etc is a bit of a joke here (Rep) and thats why people come here asking the same old questions time after time after time!
    Indeed - and we normally don't get tired of questions (though when you get new people asking exactly the same question every twelve hours for a fortnight, as happened with the new licences, we do tend to farm the answer off into a FAQ thread if we can).

    Folks who come in and demand the law be changed because its stoooopid, and who then say something that demonstrates they haven't even read the front cover of the actual legislation, however, are a constant source of facepalmings. And nuts to folks who think it shouldn't be so. You shouldn't be going about in public demanding that things be changed because they're stoooopid unless you actually know something about them.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭ivanthehunter


    Sparks wrote: »
    Indeed - and we normally don't get tired of questions (though when you get new people asking exactly the same question every twelve hours for a fortnight, as happened with the new licences, we do tend to farm the answer off into a FAQ thread if we can).

    Folks who come in and demand the law be changed because its stoooopid, and who then say something that demonstrates they haven't even read the front cover of the actual legislation, however, are a constant source of facepalmings. And nuts to folks who think it shouldn't be so. You shouldn't be going about in public demanding that things be changed because they're stoooopid unless you actually know something about them.

    And this is this from a man who know nothing about wildlife except for what someone else told him!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    And this is this from a man who know nothing about wildlife except for what someone else told him!
    (1) You're talking about law, not wildlife;
    (2) Why do you think I know nothing about wildlife just because I choose not to hunt myself? I don't hunt because I'm a sissy when it comes to pulling the trigger, not because I can't tell a pheasant from a rabbit...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,072 ✭✭✭clivej


    Sparks wrote: »
    (1) You're talking about law, not wildlife;
    (2) Why do you think I know nothing about wildlife just because I choose not to hunt myself? I don't hunt because I'm a sissy when it comes to pulling the trigger, not because I can't tell a pheasant from a rabbit...


    AN honest answer from Sparks there.

    Ivan why do you try to rub Sparks up the wrong way all the time???????:rolleyes:

    Maybe don't answer that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,777 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    An idea for a Christmas party event...in the right corner in the red shorts...Ivan....in the left corner in the blue shorts Sparks. Last man standing wins. And for the morning after there's a duel..first blood wins...Ivan may use a bow and Sparks can use a bundle of legal texts :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    marlin vs wrote: »
    locum-motion,
    Actually the first 6 are from same family.

    You're undoubtedly correct in that, but it's not actually an answer to my question.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    ...Sparks can use a bundle of legal texts :p

    Oooooooh, paper cuts! Vicious!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    johngalway wrote: »
    Hooded crow and grey crow are the same thing. Carrion crow is different. They're both from the same family though.

    Thanks for that, John.
    I did a wee search on Wikipedia and found that I was indeed wrong, carrion crow is different. That being said, I can see why I thought they were the same, as apparently the Hooded Crow "is so similar in morphology and habits to the Carrion Crow (Corvus corone) that for many years they were considered by most authorities to be merely geographical races of one species."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    No problem at all. Yes, I read that too, I think it's only recently they decided both birds were "different". Though reading material isn't always accurate. Only this week I picked up a nature book in Easons, where I was informed there were no hooded crows farther west than Eastern Europe. Even though their shaded map covered Ireland? Crete was unshaded and I saw hooded crows there 2-3 years ago, feckers followed my plane over the convenient :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭marlin vs


    You're undoubtedly correct in that, but it's not actually an answer to my question.

    In my opinion I don't think so. But i'm happy to read others opinions,we might all learn something from this tread, i'm still waiting for the unquestionable answer to the original question so it can be put to bed.
    crow9dn3hj.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭J.R.


    Not according to Des Crofton and his book , a practical guide to the wildlife acts 2000, in which he says that section 30 of the act 2000, amends section 22 of the wildlife acts 1976, with the enforcement of protection of every wild bird except those in the third schedule of the 76 act, which are as follows-see list above on post number 6.Thats what my info is based on and im sure he has a fair idea what hes talking about.

    no disrespect to rangers but the last ranger we invited to a safety seminar proceeded to tell those attending the seminar that lamping was illegal and foxes were protected.needless to say he was swiftly removed from the room.

    Wildlife Amendment Act 2000

    Section 30 (amends section 22 of the wildlife acts 1976)

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0030.html#partiv-chapi-sec30


    There is no mention here of 'with the enforcement of protection of every wild bird except those in the third schedule of the 76 act'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    OK, so here's an attempt to answer the original question. apologies that it's sch a long post, but you really only need to read the top part.Everything below that is the evidence that I'm presenting to support what I'm claiming.

    First up: The 3rd Schedule of the 1976 Wildlife Act is reproduced below in red type. You'll see that Marlin's 'unlucky 13' in the OP is slightly wrong. It should read "Hooded (Grey) Crow" rather than having those listed separately. Also, Marlin's list is missing the Jay and has specified Woodpigeon whereas it should actually include some other pigeons too.

    Next: I've reproduced Section 22 of the '76 Act below the list. Sorry, it's quite long.

    Then: Section 22 is altered by Section 30 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000. What I've done is make the relevant changes, so that the text that appears below has the deleted bits of the 76 Act in struckthrough text, and the newly inserted bits are in bold italic text.

    Finally: I only looked at those 2 sections, as those were the two mentioned by Foxshooter243. Anyway, if you read the text below (which effectively is the amended version of Section 22) you will see no mention of any amendments to the 3rd schedule. Therefore, the list was not changed by Section 30. I don't know if the list may have been changed by some other section. As I said, I only examined the sections mentioned by FS243.



    THIRD SCHEDULE
    SPECIES OF WILD BIRDS EXCLUDED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 22 (2)) FROM SECTIONS 19 AND 22
    Bullfinch
    Carrion Crow
    Greater Black-backed Gull
    Herring Gull
    Hooded (Grey) Crow
    House Sparrow
    Jackdaw
    Jay
    Lesser Black-backed Gull
    Magpie
    Pigeons, including Wood Pigeon, but not including carrier pigeons, racing horning pigeons or doves
    Rook
    Starling


    22.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) hereof, this section applies to every wild bird other than a wild bird of a species specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
    (2) The Minister may by regulations provide that—
    ( a ) a wild bird of a species specified in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be a wild bird to which this section applies,
    ( b ) this section shall not apply to a wild bird which is of a species specified in the regulations,
    ( c ) in such places or areas as are specified in the regulations and as regards such period or periods as are so specified, subsection (4) of this section shall not have effect, either, as may be so specified, generally or as regards such species of wild bird as are so specified,
    ( d ) this section shall not have effect in relation to the taking or removing by persons of a specified class of the eggs and nests of wild birds of a species so specified,
    and in case any regulations under this subsection are for the time being in force, this section shall be construed and have effect subject to and in accordance with them; provided that regulations made by the Minister under this subsection and which deal with any matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be so made only after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (3) A wild bird to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild bird.
    (4) Subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (5) of this section, any person who—
    ( a ) (i) hunts a protected wild bird, other than a protected wild bird which is of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, otherwise than under and in accordance with a permission or licence granted by the Minister under this Act, or
    (ii) hunts a protected wild bird which is of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, otherwise than—
    (A) under and in accordance with such a permission or a licence granted by the Minister under this Act other than section 29,
    (B) under and in accordance with a licence granted under section 29 of this Act and (also) on a day, or during a period of days, specified in a relevant order under the said section 24,
    ( b ) injures a protected wild bird otherwise than while hunting it.
    (i) in case the protected wild bird is of a species other than a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, under and in accordance with a licence or permission granted by the Minister under this Act,
    (ii) in case the protected wild bird is of a species so specified, either in the manner mentioned in clause (A) of paragraph (a) (ii) of this subsection, or in the manner and on a day, or during a period of days, mentioned in clause (B) of the said paragraph (a) (ii),
    ( c ) wilfully takes or removes the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird otherwise than under and in accordance with such a licence,
    ( d ) wilfully destroys, injures or mutilates the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird,
    ( e ) wilfully disturbs a protected wild bird on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young, shall be guilty of an offence.
    (5) It shall not be an offence for a person—
    ( a ) while engaged in ornithology wilfully to disturb a protected wild bird, or
    ( b ) while so engaged or engaged in agriculture, fishing or forestry aquaculture, fishing, forestry or turbary unintentionally to injure or kill a protected wild bird, or
    ( c ) to remove or destroy the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird in the ordinary course of agriculture or forestry, or
    ( d ) to capture an injured or disabled protected wild bird or the orphaned and dependant young of such a bird, for the purpose of killing it humanely or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it, or
    ( e ) to kill humanely a protected wild bird which has been injured in the manner described in paragraph (b), or captured in the manner described in paragraph (d) or injured in the circumstances described in paragraph (h) of this subsection, and where the bird is so injured or disabled that there is no reasonable chance of its recovering or
    ( f ) to take eggs of a protected wild bird for the purpose of having them hatched out, or, for such purpose, to move such eggs from the nest of such a bird to that of another bird of the same species, or
    ( g ) to destroy or remove any such nest which is built in or on an occupied building unless the nest contains the eggs or young of a protected wild bird, or
    ( h ) while constructing a road or while carrying on any archaeological operation, building operation or work of engineering construction, or while constructing or carrying on such other operation or work as may be prescribed, to kill or injure a protected wild bird or to remove, destroy, injure or mutilate the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird,
    and nothing in this section shall make unlawful anything which is duly done pursuant to a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, or which is duly done pursuant to any other statute a statute (other than this Act) or statutory instrument, which is permitted to be done under such a statute or instrument or which is done pursuant to and in accordance with a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to such a statute or instrument or anything caused by or which results from, or is consequent upon or the effect of any other act or thing which is lawfully done.
    (6) In any proceedings for an offence under this section relating to a protected wild bird which is of a species other than a species specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that any capturing or killing complained of was urgently necessary for the purpose of stopping damage described in section 42 (1) of this Act being caused and that in the particular circumstances of the case it was not practical for him to apply to the Minister beforehand for a permission under section 42 of this Act and that the defendant reasonably believed that damage mentioned in the said section 42 (1) was being caused by the protected wild bird to which the alleged offence relates or by protected wild birds of the same species as that of such protected wild bird.
    (7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in which it is alleged that the defendant wilfully disturbed a protected wild bird described in subsection (4) (e) of this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was not engaged in ornithology.
    (8) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken in any District Court District, and in case such proceedings are taken and apart from this section the Justice before whom the proceedings are brought would not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings, then for the purpose of conferring such jurisdiction the offence may be treated as having been committed within the District Court District to which such Justice is assigned.
    (9) The Minister may grant a licence to a person—
    ( a ) at any time to capture or kill humanely or capture and humanely kill a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for such educational, scientific or other purposes as shall be so specified,
    ( b ) to hunt, in accordance with the licence, on such day or during such period of days as is specified in the licence, protected wild birds which are both pen-reared and of a species so specified,
    ( c ) to so hunt, on such day or during such period of days, protected wild birds of a species so specified for the purpose of either training gun dogs for any field sport or holding gun dog trials,
    ( d ) to examine, inspect or take the nests or eggs of protected wild birds of a species so specified for such educational, scientific or other purposes as shall be so specified.
    (e) to take the eggs of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for the purposes of having them hatched out for repopulation, or re-introduction to the wild or, for such purposes, to move such eggs from the nest of a bird so specified to that of another bird of the same species or for such other purposes as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances in respect of the species so specified,
    (f) to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,
    (g) to have in possession, for a reasonable period of time—
    (i) an injured or disabled wild bird, or
    (ii) one or more than one dependant young of a wild bird which is orphaned,
    with the intention of tending and later releasing such bird or young back into the wild when and only when such bird or young, as the case may be, is no longer injured, disabled or dependant,
    (h) to retain possession of a wild bird, that for reasons of disability or for other reasons deemed reasonable by the Minister, would, if released, be unlikely to survive unaided in the wild.

    (10) The Minister may by regulations provide that—
    ( a ) subsection (6) of this section shall have effect in relation to any proceedings for offences under this section relating to protected wild birds of a species specified in both Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act and in the regulations,
    ( b ) the said subsection (6) shall not have effect in relation to any such proceedings relating to protected wild birds of a species specified in the regulations,
    and the said subsection (6) shall have effect accordingly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    J.R. wrote: »
    Wildlife Amendment Act 2000

    Section 30 (amends section 22 of the wildlife acts 1976)

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0030.html#partiv-chapi-sec30


    There is no mention here of 'with the enforcement of protection of every wild bird except those in the third schedule of the 76 act'

    Simply because thats not an extract from Des Croftons book..DUH!!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    OK, so here's an attempt to answer the original question. apologies that it's sch a long post, but you really only need to read the top part.Everything below that is the evidence that I'm presenting to support what I'm claiming.

    First up: The 3rd Schedule of the 1976 Wildlife Act is reproduced below in red type. You'll see that Marlin's 'unlucky 13' in the OP is slightly wrong. It should read "Hooded (Grey) Crow" rather than having those listed separately. Also, Marlin's list is missing the Jay and has specified Woodpigeon whereas it should actually include some other pigeons too.

    Next: I've reproduced Section 22 of the '76 Act below the list. Sorry, it's quite long.

    Then: Section 22 is altered by Section 30 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000. What I've done is make the relevant changes, so that the text that appears below has the deleted bits of the 76 Act in struckthrough text, and the newly inserted bits are in bold italic text.

    Finally: I only looked at those 2 sections, as those were the two mentioned by Foxshooter243. Anyway, if you read the text below (which effectively is the amended version of Section 22) you will see no mention of any amendments to the 3rd schedule. Therefore, the list was not changed by Section 30. I don't know if the list may have been changed by some other section. As I said, I only examined the sections mentioned by FS243.




    THIRD SCHEDULE


    SPECIES OF WILD BIRDS EXCLUDED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 22 (2)) FROM SECTIONS 19 AND 22


    Bullfinch
    Carrion Crow
    Greater Black-backed Gull
    Herring Gull
    Hooded (Grey) Crow
    House Sparrow
    Jackdaw
    Jay
    Lesser Black-backed Gull
    Magpie
    Pigeons, including Wood Pigeon, but not including carrier pigeons, racing horning pigeons or doves
    Rook
    Starling


    22.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) hereof, this section applies to every wild bird other than a wild bird of a species specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
    (2) The Minister may by regulations provide that—
    ( a ) a wild bird of a species specified in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be a wild bird to which this section applies,
    ( b ) this section shall not apply to a wild bird which is of a species specified in the regulations,
    ( c ) in such places or areas as are specified in the regulations and as regards such period or periods as are so specified, subsection (4) of this section shall not have effect, either, as may be so specified, generally or as regards such species of wild bird as are so specified,
    ( d ) this section shall not have effect in relation to the taking or removing by persons of a specified class of the eggs and nests of wild birds of a species so specified,
    and in case any regulations under this subsection are for the time being in force, this section shall be construed and have effect subject to and in accordance with them; provided that regulations made by the Minister under this subsection and which deal with any matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection shall be so made only after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
    (3) A wild bird to which this section for the time being applies is in this Act referred to as a protected wild bird.
    (4) Subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (5) of this section, any person who—
    ( a ) (i) hunts a protected wild bird, other than a protected wild bird which is of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, otherwise than under and in accordance with a permission or licence granted by the Minister under this Act, or
    (ii) hunts a protected wild bird which is of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, otherwise than—
    (A) under and in accordance with such a permission or a licence granted by the Minister under this Act other than section 29,
    (B) under and in accordance with a licence granted under section 29 of this Act and (also) on a day, or during a period of days, specified in a relevant order under the said section 24,
    ( b ) injures a protected wild bird otherwise than while hunting it.
    (i) in case the protected wild bird is of a species other than a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act, under and in accordance with a licence or permission granted by the Minister under this Act,
    (ii) in case the protected wild bird is of a species so specified, either in the manner mentioned in clause (A) of paragraph (a) (ii) of this subsection, or in the manner and on a day, or during a period of days, mentioned in clause (B) of the said paragraph (a) (ii),
    ( c ) wilfully takes or removes the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird otherwise than under and in accordance with such a licence,
    ( d ) wilfully destroys, injures or mutilates the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird,
    ( e ) wilfully disturbs a protected wild bird on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young, shall be guilty of an offence.
    (5) It shall not be an offence for a person—
    ( a ) while engaged in ornithology wilfully to disturb a protected wild bird, or
    ( b ) while so engaged or engaged in agriculture, fishing or forestry aquaculture, fishing, forestry or turbary unintentionally to injure or kill a protected wild bird, or
    ( c ) to remove or destroy the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird in the ordinary course of agriculture or forestry, or
    ( d ) to capture an injured or disabled protected wild bird or the orphaned and dependant young of such a bird, for the purpose of killing it humanely or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it, or
    ( e ) to kill humanely a protected wild bird which has been injured in the manner described in paragraph (b), or captured in the manner described in paragraph (d) or injured in the circumstances described in paragraph (h) of this subsection, and where the bird is so injured or disabled that there is no reasonable chance of its recovering or
    ( f ) to take eggs of a protected wild bird for the purpose of having them hatched out, or, for such purpose, to move such eggs from the nest of such a bird to that of another bird of the same species, or
    ( g ) to destroy or remove any such nest which is built in or on an occupied building unless the nest contains the eggs or young of a protected wild bird, or
    ( h ) while constructing a road or while carrying on any archaeological operation, building operation or work of engineering construction, or while constructing or carrying on such other operation or work as may be prescribed, to kill or injure a protected wild bird or to remove, destroy, injure or mutilate the eggs or nest of a protected wild bird,
    and nothing in this section shall make unlawful anything which is duly done pursuant to a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, or which is duly done pursuant to any other statute a statute (other than this Act) or statutory instrument, which is permitted to be done under such a statute or instrument or which is done pursuant to and in accordance with a licence or other permission granted or issued pursuant to such a statute or instrument or anything caused by or which results from, or is consequent upon or the effect of any other act or thing which is lawfully done.
    (6) In any proceedings for an offence under this section relating to a protected wild bird which is of a species other than a species specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that any capturing or killing complained of was urgently necessary for the purpose of stopping damage described in section 42 (1) of this Act being caused and that in the particular circumstances of the case it was not practical for him to apply to the Minister beforehand for a permission under section 42 of this Act and that the defendant reasonably believed that damage mentioned in the said section 42 (1) was being caused by the protected wild bird to which the alleged offence relates or by protected wild birds of the same species as that of such protected wild bird.
    (7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in which it is alleged that the defendant wilfully disturbed a protected wild bird described in subsection (4) (e) of this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the defendant was not engaged in ornithology.
    (8) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken in any District Court District, and in case such proceedings are taken and apart from this section the Justice before whom the proceedings are brought would not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the proceedings, then for the purpose of conferring such jurisdiction the offence may be treated as having been committed within the District Court District to which such Justice is assigned.
    (9) The Minister may grant a licence to a person—
    ( a ) at any time to capture or kill humanely or capture and humanely kill a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for such educational, scientific or other purposes as shall be so specified,
    ( b ) to hunt, in accordance with the licence, on such day or during such period of days as is specified in the licence, protected wild birds which are both pen-reared and of a species so specified,
    ( c ) to so hunt, on such day or during such period of days, protected wild birds of a species so specified for the purpose of either training gun dogs for any field sport or holding gun dog trials,
    ( d ) to examine, inspect or take the nests or eggs of protected wild birds of a species so specified for such educational, scientific or other purposes as shall be so specified.
    (e) to take the eggs of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence for the purposes of having them hatched out for repopulation, or re-introduction to the wild or, for such purposes, to move such eggs from the nest of a bird so specified to that of another bird of the same species or for such other purposes as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances in respect of the species so specified,
    (f) to take or make photographic, video or other pictures of a protected wild bird of a species specified in the licence on or near a nest containing eggs or unflown young,
    (g) to have in possession, for a reasonable period of time—
    (i) an injured or disabled wild bird, or
    (ii) one or more than one dependant young of a wild bird which is orphaned,
    with the intention of tending and later releasing such bird or young back into the wild when and only when such bird or young, as the case may be, is no longer injured, disabled or dependant,
    (h) to retain possession of a wild bird, that for reasons of disability or for other reasons deemed reasonable by the Minister, would, if released, be unlikely to survive unaided in the wild.

    (10) The Minister may by regulations provide that—
    ( a ) subsection (6) of this section shall have effect in relation to any proceedings for offences under this section relating to protected wild birds of a species specified in both Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act and in the regulations,
    ( b ) the said subsection (6) shall not have effect in relation to any such proceedings relating to protected wild birds of a species specified in the regulations,
    and the said subsection (6) shall have effect accordingly.


    If you go back and read my post no 6 it states at the end that the 2000 act didnt change the list, section 30 of the 2000 act left the list untouched:confused::confused::confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭marlin vs


    I have to say thank's to everyone that responded to this tread and it's great to see the interest that you show.
    Here is the original print version that I have it's from,


    A Guide for the Shooting Man
    (in layman's language)


    snipe004.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭marlin vs


    Good man locum-motion, you are right about the jay not being on my original list.Heres the list as it appeared on the original print version, some one might find it interesting.
    snipe006.jpg
    And heres a picture of the original leaflet, a bit of nostalgia.
    snipe.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭J.R.


    THIRD SCHEDULE


    WILDLIFE ACT 1976

    SPECIES OF WILD BIRDS EXCLUDED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 22 (2)) FROM SECTIONS 19 AND 22


    Bullfinch
    Carrion Crow
    Greater Black-backed Gull
    Herring Gull
    Hooded (Grey) Crow
    House Sparrow
    Jackdaw
    Jay
    Lesser Black-backed Gull
    Magpie
    Pigeons, including Wood Pigeon, but not including carrier pigeons, racing horning pigeons or doves
    Rook
    Starling

    If one was still permitted to shoot birds on the above list the whole year round (unprotected) then why would there be a need for the EU Derogation listing the birds that can be shot, if causing damage, if they are already on this list? ..............implies to me anyway that the above cannot be shot the whole year round.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,143 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    If you go back and read my post no 6 it states at the end that the 2000 act didnt change the list, section 30 of the 2000 act left the list untouched:confused::confused::confused:

    Yes, I know. I was posting the proof/evidence to back up what you said!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    Yes, I know. I was posting the proof/evidence to back up what you said!


    i offer my apologies, i misconstrued your post:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    J.R. wrote: »
    THIRD SCHEDULE


    WILDLIFE ACT 1976

    SPECIES OF WILD BIRDS EXCLUDED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 22 (2)) FROM SECTIONS 19 AND 22


    Bullfinch
    Carrion Crow
    Greater Black-backed Gull
    Herring Gull
    Hooded (Grey) Crow
    House Sparrow
    Jackdaw
    Jay
    Lesser Black-backed Gull
    Magpie
    Pigeons, including Wood Pigeon, but not including carrier pigeons, racing horning pigeons or doves
    Rook
    Starling

    If one was still permitted to shoot birds on the above list the whole year round (unprotected) then why would there be a need for the EU Derogation listing the birds that can be shot, if causing damage, if they are already on this list? ..............implies to me anyway that the above cannot be shot the whole year round.


    but they can be shot all year round. lets face the facts here they are unprotected under the law, i mean im shooting these "protected" birds constantly:confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭J.R.


    but they can be shot all year round. lets face the facts here they are unprotected under the law, i mean im shooting these "protected" birds constantly:confused:


    ''ALL bird species occurring in Ireland are protected under both the EU Birds Directive [79/409/EEC] and the Wildlife Act, 1976 (including amendments made in SI 283/1980 and SI 397/1985)''. (Last line on Page 15)

    http://www.npws.ie/en/media/NPWS/Publications/Checklist_species.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    but they can be shot all year round. lets face the facts here they are unprotected under the law, i mean im shooting these "protected" birds constantly:confused:
    J.R. wrote: »
    ''ALL bird species occurring in Ireland are protected under both the EU Birds Directive [79/409/EEC] and the Wildlife Act, 1976 (including amendments made in SI 283/1980 and SI 397/1985)''. (Last line on Page 15)

    http://www.npws.ie/en/media/NPWS/Publications/Checklist_species.pdf


    I see the hunters are really up to date with the legistation regarding this. I can't begin to imagine how many protected species have been shot already, birds or not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    To be fair jaffa, the law is so badly written, spread out over so many cross-referenced, cross-amending and inter-jurisdictional acts, statutory instruments, regulations, EU directives and other documents that you almost need a professional legal specialist to make sense of all of it. Simple, it ain't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Sparks wrote: »
    To be fair jaffa, the law is so badly written, spread out over so many cross-referenced, cross-amending and inter-jurisdictional acts, statutory instruments, regulations, EU directives and other documents that you almost need a professional legal specialist to make sense of all of it. Simple, it ain't.

    True, but if i was to be be part of something that was claiming to be acting to conserve nature and species like hunters, i would want to know if i was killing a protected species or not so i'd if i was acting in the best way. But then again, the law itself may not be up to date at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Well, (a) it's a claim backed up by evidence, deeds, effort and invested money; and (b) telling what is and isn't a protected species is not as easy as telling black from white...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    I see the hunters are really up to date with the legistation regarding this. I can't begin to imagine how many protected species have been shot already, birds or not.

    Wind your neck in a bit please and stop cherry picking. Certain protected wild birds have a derogation allowing them to be culled if causing damage, which birds such as greycrows and magpies do on a daily basis.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,461 ✭✭✭foxshooter243


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    I see the hunters are really up to date with the legistation regarding this. I can't begin to imagine how many protected species have been shot already, birds or not.
    `
    you see thats where your wrong!, the derogation allows for the hunting of certain species which are causing damage, we are quite familiar with that side of things, whats being debated is their status, I believe that as they are a huntable species they are unprotected whereas others believe they protected. Its messy I know, hence the debate, but what is for certain is that I am not shooting any birds or animals that have legal protection.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,002 ✭✭✭IrishHomer


    `
    you see thats where your wrong!, the derogation allows for the hunting of certain species which are causing damage, we are quite familiar with that side of things, whats being debated is their status, I believe that as they are a huntable species they are unprotected whereas others believe they protected. Its messy I know, hence the debate, but what is for certain is that I am not shooting any birds or animals that have legal protection.

    FFS!

    ALL WILD BIRDS IN IRELAND ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE WILDLIFE ACTS END OF!!!!!!!!!!!
    Every year the government reps or Minister has to apply to the EU for derrogations to control certain species such as Woodpigeon and it has to be shown to the EU commission that their high population numbers are causing damage to crops etc.

    See below also:

    http://www.npws.ie/en/WildlifePlanningtheLaw/Legislation/BirdsDirectivederogations/

    This derrogation is monitored by the EU closely and its tweaked occasionally so i would suggest you take closer attention to it in future.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement