How Can This be Stopped?

LostCovey

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Only read that afterwards! Habitat being lost would obviously be the primary reason not to try and bring back the Corn Bunting. I agree that Lost Covey covered that very well and he obviously knows more about them than I do, but i maintain that my point would also have been taken into consideration when choosing to reintroduce raptors ahead of any of a long list of other birds or animals.

Of course you have a point - a Golden Eagle makes a pretty good logo!

There are other reasons.

Golden Eagles are top predators, and they live (if let live) for maybe 20 - 25 years. Being at the 'top of the food chain', they can only thrive in an environment or ecosystem where everything else is doing well - ie where there is good vegetation, clean air & water, where there are hares, foxes, rabbits to eat etc.Same goes for Sea Eagles. If you have badly polluted water, invertebrate life suffers, fish stocks crash. No sea eagles, no opreys.

Go to the Alps, or Norway, or the marshes of western France. The sheer number and variety of the large birds of prey there are testament to the health of their ecosystem.

We have lost these species through persecution, not pollution/disease. If we could restore their populations, we would have a very sensitive mechanism for telling us if things were OK or not in our countryside - a miner's canary as has been said in the past. In fact they are surely functioning in that way right now, and telling us that there is a fair share of chemical-laden meat baits flung around our farmland, and killing birtds of prey.

Look at our crow population vs countries where there are healthy raptor populations. Go to the continent and compare - we have an enormous population of magpies and crows because their only enemy is man - there is virtually no predation of their numbers.

So another reason to choose these species is to restore an integral part of a functioning ecosystem.

And they are pretty, too.

LostCovey

OpenYourEyes

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

The re-introduction of any species is not something that's taken on lightly. Many years of preparation goes into them. Habitat is vital and many of our lost species have gone because of habitat loss which is almost impossible to reverse, on a scale that would support a species re-introduction. The Eagle and Red Kite Projects were not chosen because they would look impressive or act as a flag bearer for Irish conservation. Your point about charisma and attracting more funds is not valid at all. "Sex Appeal" as you put it was not and could not be a factor.

I am fully aware of the degree of planning that goes into putting in a proposal for the reintroduction of a species,the big list of factors that all have to be taken into account, aswel as the efforts put in should the proposal be accepted and financed.

If you have two bird species, suitable habitat available for both of them, neither likely to have a negative impact if introduced, similar strategy for the introduction of both etc. they dont flip a coin to decide which to introduce! The more charismatic species will be chosen. That may not be applicable to why eagles are chosen over the corn bunting, but it certainly is the reason why they were chosen over countless other birds and animals.

A perfect example is the efforts put into conserving the giant panda. All the money and resources put into getting them to breed, despite they're seeming unwillingness to, could be put into preserving a handful of various other species. So why is one animal prioritised over a few animals? Because of their image to the public and their popularity! Its also a reasons that so many fish species are endangered, they're out of sight and out of mind of the general public, so they dont mind eating them no matter how depleted stocks are.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hang on. Can you list some of the

countless other birds and animals

you have in mind?
If only we were torn between which species we would begin a re-introduction project on. We have never had to choose one species over another, because there were never the correct conditions in place to even contemplate more release programmes than we have.
I agree that the Panda has become the poster species of the WWF but you digress from the Irish situation and the subject at hand. No such window dressing is going on here and I think it disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

stevoman

Three threads merged as they are all the same topic

recedite

MB Lacey wrote: »

This is an excerpt from the Golden Eagle Trust's website on 4th May 2010

Although the use of poison on meat baits for the control of crows was banned in 2008, the use of meat baits to kill foxes is still permitted under current regulations (Protection of Animals Act 1965). This loophole has allowed the continued use of poison and continue to pose a huge threat to our native birds of prey. However, an amendment to the Wildlife Act which will outlaw all use of poison on meat baits is imminent.




For the full article click here.

This is how they poisoners are getting around the law.

Currently it is only illegal to "target" birds of prey. If they poison themselves by taking poisoned meat which has ostensibly been laid out for foxes, that is their tough luck.
There are plenty of hunters out there who enjoy shooting foxes, so poisoning is unnecessary as well as being a slow cruel death.
What we need is a new law which makes poisoned carcasses illegal. It needs to be drafted in such a way as to make the owner of the land where the poison has been found primarily responsible. So the onus is on him to prove that it wasn't him who put it there.
This would stop most of the poisonings. Looking at who might have a motive to target birds of prey we find a variety of people; small gun clubs (preserving their game), sheep farmers (perceived lamb threat), large grouse shooting estates (big tourist business), racing pigeon enthusiasts (the peregrine falcon's favourite food is pigeon).
Two peregrines found dead on Arklow Rock (headland) last week were found have been poisoned with pigeon carcasses laced with alpha chlorolose.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

recedite wrote: »

Two peregrines found dead on Arklow Rock (headland) last week were found have been poisoned with pigeon carcasses laced with alpha chlorolose.

The only positive angle on all of these high profile cases is that it may make people aware that our wildlife have been poisoned for years. We have lost countless Peregrines, many Buzzards, other birds, and mammals because of indiscriminate poisoning. If nothing else comes out of this we might get stronger legislation and toughter enforcement to protect the rest of our wildlife.

Birdwatch Ireland are asking for reports on all birds found dead due to suspected poisoning - preferably ones that can be tested - so they may build a stronger case.

magicbastarder

kevin myers' 'unique' take on the issue*:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-kerry-has-zoned-enough-land-to-supply-the-building-needs-of-six-times-its-population-2179618.html

*please note that provision of this link does not imply that the poster agrees with the views expressed therein.

OpenYourEyes

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

Hang on. Can you list some of the you have in mind?
If only we were torn between which species we would begin a re-introduction project on. We have never had to choose one species over another, because there were never the correct conditions in place to even contemplate more release programmes than we have.
I agree that the Panda has become the poster species of the WWF but you digress from the Irish situation and the subject at hand. No such window dressing is going on here and I think it disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Just looking over notes for an exam today and i see my lecturer cited Golden Eagles under charasmatic species, so im certainly not alone in my thought anyway

The panda situation is just an extreme example of it happening, i wouldnt call it digressing

We'll agree to disagree anyway

johngalway

recedite wrote: »

It needs to be drafted in such a way as to make the owner of the land where the poison has been found primarily responsible. So the onus is on him to prove that it wasn't him who put it there.
This would stop most of the poisonings.

That would make for exceedingly bad legislation, it is foolish and would solve absolutely nothing. Mr. Poisoner walks onto YOUR land (I'm guessing you don't actually own any?), sets his bait and leaves. Then the law come along, knock on your door and arrest you? Tell me exactly how that deters the person who set the poison seeing as there would be zero come back against them?

recedite

johngalway wrote: »

Mr. Poisoner walks onto YOUR land sets his bait and leaves.

Firstly Mr Poisoner would have no motive or reason to poison your land. Poison costs money.
Secondly, while walking your land, you see the poison and remove it.

johngalway

recedite wrote: »

Firstly Mr Poisoner would have no motive or reason to poison your land. Poison costs money.
Secondly, while walking your land, you see the poison and remove it.

Sure he would. Perhaps his land is nearby and the fox run goes through your land. Same result for him, with the added bonus that you get hauled up for anything that get's found.

Land is a big place, things are often hard to find, you might have a holding that runs into hundreds of acres of rough bogland grazing. You're not going to walk every inch of it every day. What if it's commonage, with many people having grazing rights? Are you going to have all them hauled into the Garda barracks?

This sounds very much like something dreamt up by people who don't actually know what goes on out in the world. Its silly, impractical, and just wouldn't be of use to anyone.

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

Sure he would. Perhaps his land is nearby and the fox run goes through your land. Same result for him, with the added bonus that you get hauled up for anything that get's found.

Land is a big place, things are often hard to find, you might have a holding that runs into hundreds of acres of rough bogland grazing. You're not going to walk every inch of it every day. What if it's commonage, with many people having grazing rights? Are you going to have all them hauled into the Garda barracks?

This sounds very much like something dreamt up by people who don't actually know what goes on out in the world. Its silly, impractical, and just wouldn't be of use to anyone.

Well such a principle works just fine for narcotics, firearms, explosives, weapons of mass destruction, illegal aliens, fugitives from justice.

If you as the landowner are innocent, you just have to convince the judge you didn't put it there.

What's OK for cocaine should work grand for alphachloralose, I reckon.

Great idea.

LostCovey

recedite

If you catch Mr. Nasty Neighbour sneaking onto your land trying to "frame" you, then thats a very serious offence....
Theres always some hard case which makes any law look bad.
You have to look at the 99% of cases where Mr. Poisoner poisons his own land for his own reasons, then when someone else complains he tells them to f off. If it was made illegal he would just say "Someone else must have put it there".
Public lands and commonage would still be vulnerable to poisoning, but it is much easier to lay poison undetected on private land, and there is more of it.

landkeeper

your wasting your time john some of these people have no idea about rural life let alone land boundries etc
birds fly birds carry things to eat away from where they found them, god forbid a peregrine carried a carcass with a bit of alphachloralose on it into the áras and expired that'd look good in the high court now wouldn't it

LostCovey

landkeeper wrote: »

your wasting your time john some of these people have no idea about rural life let alone land boundries etc
birds fly birds carry things to eat away from where they found them, god forbid a peregrine carried a carcass with a bit of alphachloralose on it into the áras and expired that'd look good in the high court now wouldn't it

Well fair point landkeeper, and nice to see you are backing john up.

However you are both rightly critical of negative sentiments, and JohnGalway has repeatedly (and correctly) argued that you don't win arguments by alienating people.

So in that spirit, what is your positive suggestion?

A strong law on possession of poisoned meat baits applying to the owner of land has some risks of course, you are correct. As I pointed out so does the current law on narcotics, guns, explosives. If someone finds semtex, cannabis or whatever on my farm tonight, i will have a hell of a job to prove I didn't know it was there. I would still expect to beat the rap. Same goes for poison baits.

Have you anything positive to add? I am heartily sick of being accused of sniping, when discussion of this subject attracts so much negative sniping from posters claiming to represent (totally valid) farming and shooting interests.

Some constructive engagement from the farming community and the gun club community to deal with the issue would help. I have heard the "most of us don't do it" argument.

I believe it, actually.

It's not enough.

LostCovey

Birdnuts

recedite wrote: »

Two peregrines found dead on Arklow Rock (headland) last week were found have been poisoned with pigeon carcasses laced with alpha chlorolose.

While focus here has been on the activities of some in the farming community(for justifiable and obvious reasons of course) and to a lesser extent game-keeping interest, theres a certain element among pigeon fanciers/racers that have form when it comes to illegally killing birds of prey - particularly peregrine falcons in the greater Dublin area. I also know from a friend who works in an Airport near Dublin that despite repeated warnings from airport authorities theres a hardcore element within the sport that continue to send pigeons on flight paths that threaten incoming aircraft with bird strikes. Obviously appealing to these peoples common sense or reason is a waste of time and instead needs decesive action by the authorities - though sadly here again the states attitude is one of indifference, so the problem remains:(

PS: I've heard second hand about the great length some of these pigeon racers go to kill birds of prey including smearing poison on the backs of sick birds and releasing them near known peregrine nesting sites - I wonder is that how the scum who killed the two falcons in Arklow carried out that crime??:mad:

LostCovey

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

Birdwatch Ireland are asking for reports on all birds found dead due to suspected poisoning - preferably ones that can be tested - so they may build a stronger case.

Hi Winston Future Ear,

Who is the contact person in BirdWatch ireland, and where are the dead birds sent for testing?

LostCovey

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

recedite wrote: »

Firstly Mr Poisoner would have no motive or reason to poison your land. Poison costs money.
Secondly, while walking your land, you see the poison and remove it.

Certainly he does. I have come across poison laid by gun club members on land belonging to farmers who are very anti-poisonong.
Farmers don't visit all their land regularly enough to necessarily find the poison. I'm not being hypothetical here as I have seen such cases.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

LostCovey wrote: »

Hi Srameen,

Who is the contact person in BirdWatch ireland, and where are the dead birds sent for testing?

LostCovey

I don't have the recent article from WIngs Magazine to hand but info@birdwatchireland.ie would do. I don't know what Lab they would use.
The NPWS should also be advised.

johngalway

LostCovey wrote: »

Well such a principle works just fine for narcotics, firearms, explosives, weapons of mass destruction, illegal aliens, fugitives from justice.

You know what. You're right. I'm sorry. An underground bunker full of RPG's, AK 47's and pallet loads of semtex, cocaine, or cases of nerve agent is exactly the same as an injected poison in a meat bait placed on tens, hundreds or thousands of acres of open land entirely without the owners knowledge.

How very silly of me to think there could be any differences in scale, ground disturbance, vehicle transport, people involved, possible arrests and deals made leading to snitching to reduce other sentences.

:rolleyes:

recedite

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

I have come across poison laid by gun club members on land belonging to farmers who are very anti-poisonong.

Currently thats not illegal; maybe its an invasion of privacy or some such vague notion.
Under my proposal the farmer could call the Gardai and have the perpetrators taken to court. Even if the farmer was ambivalent about the poison, it would be in his interests to call the Gardai just to clear his name.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

recedite wrote: »

Currently thats not illegal; maybe its an invasion of privacy or some such vague notion.
Under my proposal the farmer could call the Gardai and have the perpetrators taken to court. Even if the farmer was ambivalent about the poison, it would be in his interests to call the Gardai just to clear his name.

I'm starting to think you are deliberately not taking note of what others are saying.

Landowners who have no hand, act, or part in poisonong do report instances. You seem to imply they go around ignoring any poisin laid on their land by others. Do you know the countryside at all? Do you visit farmland? Maybe if you did you'd see what goes on. Holding a Landowner guilty untill he can prove himself innocent is a non-runner.
I want to see an end to all poisoning but your proposals are unworkable.

nilhg

recedite wrote: »

Currently thats not illegal; maybe its an invasion of privacy or some such vague notion.
Under my proposal the farmer could call the Gardai and have the perpetrators taken to court. Even if the farmer was ambivalent about the poison, it would be in his interests to call the Gardai just to clear his name.

The funny thing is the sheer impracticality of what you propose, take my case for example, I'm a tillage farmer, with land which I own, some that I rent, more that I manage the crops on for my neighbours (some of which they rent from owners who don't even live in this country). I walk the crops once a week this time of the year but in winter or coming up to the harvest that could easily be once a month. From now to harvest the crops will be high so even if I wanted to it would be impossible to check every acre for something laid against my wishes.

Can I ask you under your plan who would be responsible if poison was found on one of my rented fields? Me or the landowner? What about one of the fields where I manage the crop?

This country has way too many badly thought out laws already, and there are loads of powers available to the authorities if they want to tackle the problem.

LostCovey

nilhg wrote: »

there are loads of powers available to the authorities if they want to tackle the problem.

Which ones have you in mind?

LostCovey

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

You know what. You're right. I'm sorry. An underground bunker full of RPG's, AK 47's and pallet loads of semtex, cocaine, or cases of nerve agent is exactly the same as an injected poison in a meat bait placed on tens, hundreds or thousands of acres of open land entirely without the owners knowledge.

How very silly of me to think there could be any differences in scale, ground disturbance, vehicle transport, people involved, possible arrests and deals made leading to snitching to reduce other sentences.

:rolleyes:

I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Apologies for misleading any literal-minded souls like JohnGalway who got swept up in the current.

Let's take a different example, to talk you down off that pile of rhetorical semtex you have climbed up on.

A stolen chainsaw. Found somewhere on your property.

Under current laws, you would have the burden of proof to show you knew nothing about it. That is what I understand Recedite is suggesting - putting poisoned meat baits in the same evidential/legal context as that stolen chainsaw.

I would expect the Guards would have a hard job getting convictions on poisoning cases even if the law was changed in this respect (putting burden of proof on landowner), but it might tip the balance a little. It would be a start.

That's all.

Nighty night boys.

LostCovey

johngalway

LostCovey wrote: »

I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Apologies for misleading any literal-minded souls like JohnGalway who got swept up in the current.

Let's take a different example, to talk you down off that pile of rhetorical semtex you have climbed up on.

A stolen chainsaw. Found somewhere on your property.

Under current laws, you would have the burden of proof to show you knew nothing about it. That is what I understand Recedite is suggesting - putting poisoned meat baits in the same evidential/legal context as that stolen chainsaw.

I would expect the Guards would have a hard job getting convictions on poisoning cases even if the law was changed in this respect (putting burden of proof on landowner), but it might tip the balance a little. It would be a start.

That's all.

Nighty night boys.

LostCovey

Afraid not, it would still make for bad law. Stolen goods would entail a whole list of other possible incidentals which I'm sure could be discussed until the 9th of never. Such as where was it stolen from, did anyone see the thief, were there cameras on the property, were there finger prints on the item, where was everyone concerned at the time of the incident, blah blah blah...

Whether it's semtex, chainsaws or poison it all amounts to the same crock of sh1t.

You could be my neighbour, for example. A new law, as described in above posts comes into force. You have a problem or grudge against me, or to escape blame you just set up on my ground. You set poison on my land when my sheep are out on the hill and you know I don't visit the fenced land as frequently as other times. The law or local ranger get's a tip off as to the location of an illegal poison. I don't know you use poison, as you've been clever enough to "say nothing and keep saying it" about what you do and don't do. I get hauled into the local station and questioned.

Now... That's the charge. You tell me what my defense is please.

Set in the dead of night, near hard ground so there'd be no foot prints. How on earth am I supposed to prove I didn't do something I knew nothing about?

All semtex aside, it's still quite a laughable suggestion and a general waste of the time of everyone concerned whilst the person who actually did the deed goes about their business.

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

Afraid not, it would still make for bad law. Stolen goods would entail a whole list of other possible incidentals which I'm sure could be discussed until the 9th of never. Such as where was it stolen from, did anyone see the thief, were there cameras on the property, were there finger prints on the item, where was everyone concerned at the time of the incident, blah blah blah...

Doesn't matter who stole it where. Stolen goods found on private property put an onus of proof on the landowner, which innocent landowners can normally meet.

johngalway wrote: »

You could be my neighbour, for example. A new law, as described in above posts comes into force. You have a problem or grudge against me, or to escape blame you just set up on my ground. You set poison on my land when my sheep are out on the hill and you know I don't visit the fenced land as frequently as other times. The law or local ranger get's a tip off as to the location of an illegal poison. I don't know you use poison, as you've been clever enough to "say nothing and keep saying it" about what you do and don't do. I get hauled into the local station and questioned.

Now... That's the charge. You tell me what my defense is please.

Your malicious neighbour could do the same exact thing tonight. With a box of the "wrong calibre" bullets, a bag of pills. Or a stolen chainsaw.

On it's own, I wouldn't worry about you.

With corroborating evidence, it would tip the scales against you, and you would have a case to answer. Without such corroborating evidence, you wouldn't even be charged.

Current law demands that the Guards/NPWS seamlessly tie together the deed, the person, the intent and the poisoned bait. It's never going to happen.

Such a change would just push the balance against the poisoners, and might involve innocent people having a squad car briefly on their driveway, but I wouldn't see it going any further.

These are different opinions, but I think it is unfair to characterise Recedite's suggestion as bonkers. In fact my information is that such a change has been mooted.

They are going to have to do something, or the Norwegian Ambassador will get sick of setting an early alarm to go on Morning Ireland.

LostCovey

Birdnuts

LostCovey wrote: »

Doesn't matter who stole it where. Stolen goods found on private property put an onus of proof on the landowner, which innocent landowners can normally meet.




Your malicious neighbour could do the same exact thing tonight. With a box of the "wrong calibre" bullets, a bag of pills. Or a stolen chainsaw.

On it's own, I wouldn't worry about you.

With corroborating evidence, it would tip the scales against you, and you would have a case to answer. Without such corroborating evidence, you wouldn't even be charged.

Current law demands that the Guards/NPWS seamlessly tie together the deed, the person, the intent and the poisoned bait. It's never going to happen.

Such a change would just push the balance against the poisoners, and might involve innocent people having a squad car briefly on their driveway, but I wouldn't see it going any further.

These are different opinions, but I think it is unfair to characterise Recedite's suggestion as bonkers. In fact my information is that such a change has been mooted.

They are going to have to do something, or the Norwegian Ambassador will get sick of setting an early alarm to go on Morning Ireland.

LostCovey

I tend to agree given the seriousness of the situation that has unfolded this spring. Its also pretty obvious that landowners possessing stocks of banned poisons such as carbofurun and paraquat need to explain themselves in court, even more so in places like Kerry,Sligo and Donegal where the indiscriminate poisoning of endangered raptors and other wildlife appears to be on the rise:(

nilhg

LostCovey wrote: »

Which ones have you in mind?

LostCovey

Birdnuts wrote: »

I tend to agree given the seriousness of the situation that has unfolded this spring. Its also pretty obvious that landowners possessing stocks of banned poisons such as carbofurun and paraquat need to explain themselves in court, even more so in places like Kerry,Sligo and Donegal where the indiscriminate poisoning of endangered raptors and other wildlife appears to be on the rise:(

If you click through and read the link in my post here you'll see that the dept have plenty of powers and any farmer will know that if and when they get the bit between their teeth they are well capable of putting a high level of pressure on individuals they suspect of being in the wrong.

Whether or not the dept want to spend the money on doing something like this is up to them and the politicians.

johngalway

LostCovey wrote: »

Doesn't matter who stole it where. Stolen goods found on private property put an onus of proof on the landowner, which innocent landowners can normally meet.




Your malicious neighbour could do the same exact thing tonight. With a box of the "wrong calibre" bullets, a bag of pills. Or a stolen chainsaw.

On it's own, I wouldn't worry about you.

With corroborating evidence, it would tip the scales against you, and you would have a case to answer. Without such corroborating evidence, you wouldn't even be charged.

Current law demands that the Guards/NPWS seamlessly tie together the deed, the person, the intent and the poisoned bait. It's never going to happen.

Such a change would just push the balance against the poisoners, and might involve innocent people having a squad car briefly on their driveway, but I wouldn't see it going any further.

These are different opinions, but I think it is unfair to characterise Recedite's suggestion as bonkers. In fact my information is that such a change has been mooted.

In fairness if the correct part of a bullet is found it can be matched to the correct rifle quite easily. The same cannot be said for poisons, depending on the substance. By which I mean, if it's illegal then it's irrelevant, but if it's a legal substance being used in a wrong manner than you're just shouting the odds if that's all there is to go on. I do wonder at the suggestions from some quarters that "farm inspections" would clear all this up. Who in their right mind would keep an illegal substance on display. There's a fierce amount of naiievity (spelling!) floating about.

The bag of pills or chainsaw argument still doesn't cut it for me regarding poisons. The substances used, I presume here as I know nothing about them, must either be injected or poured onto the bait. In my general experience being out and about in daylight and night hours, a person could do that without being seen or leaving much if any of a trace.

If I can take your quote "With corroborating evidence, it would tip the scales against you". For example, say it's lambing time, a lot of which I am out shooting foxes at night, a lot of that time I'm on my own. Say if a poisoned bait is on my land and I report it, or maliciously it's set and reported on me. I can't say for sure how long it's been there, who put it there, and nor would I have a witness as to my whereabouts, therefore the onus on me as a landowner has just left me deep in smelly brown stuff.

Where as with a stolen item, these things are generally taken within a specific time frame and noticed gone by the owner. Letting me work out where I was and who, if anyone I was with, but giving me a much improved chance of providing proof as to my whereabouts.

So I or another landowner could quite conceivably be left swinging in the breeze for something we knew absolutely nothing about, nevermind had anything to do with.

That's one of the reasons I still insist the proposal as being "bonkers", it would amount to being another bad law and if it were tried to be enforced it'd be a colossal waste of time and resources of all concerned. The law as it stands is correct, in that it needs to be proven someones done something for them to land in hot water. Otherwise the law, bad as it ALL is at the moment, is just being opened to further abuse.