How Can This be Stopped?

nilhg

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.




LostCovey

Stolen goods found in the locked boot of my car is quite a different thing to the same goods stuffed in a ditch maybe a mile from my house where any member of the public has access to.

Passing stupid laws won't improve the situation of raptors in this country, just p*** off people.

Consider too that at the moment it's illegal to have carbofuran on your farm, birds are being poisoned by it yet there have been no charges brought against anyone.

recedite

nilhg wrote: »

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.

nilhg wrote: »

Consider too that at the moment it's illegal to have carbofuran on your farm, birds are being poisoned by it yet there have been no charges brought against anyone.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.The stated aim of that "special forces" crowd you have linked to is TO PROVIDE ASSURANCE TO THE CONSUMER IN REGARD TO FOOD SAFETY AND TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF IRISH FOOD PRODUCTION THROUGH THE SYSTEMATIC AND COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING SUSPECTED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES)
IMO this whole poisoning saga is doing irreperable damage to the international repution of Irish farming as a producer of "green and wholesome" produce.
It is not currently illegal to lay out poisoned carcasses, therefore there is nothing to investigate.

recedite

johngalway wrote: »

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......
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......


That's one of the reasons I still insist the proposal as being "bonkers.

Its not what you might have in the storeroom that we are talking about, its what's stuffed inside a carcass out on the hillside.
As you "know nothing about them", I can tell you alphachloolose normally appears as blue granules; so you can look out for it on any dead animals you might notice on your land:).
If you report it, you would have just proved your innocence, and you get a pat on the back from the authorities.

johngalway

recedite wrote: »

Its not what you might have in the storeroom that we are talking about, its what's stuffed inside a carcass out on the hillside.
As you "know nothing about them", I can tell you alphachloolose normally appears as blue granules; so you can look out for it on any dead animals you might notice on your land:).
If you report it, you would have just proved your innocence, and you get a pat on the back from the authorities.

Thanks for the description of alpha, I have never seen it.

There's a lot of "if's" in this topic If someone placed such a bait on my land and if they reported it then what... A lot of the time I'd have a hard job proving where I am as if I'm not at home or in the city I'm usually out solo farming, hunting or hill walking. The burden of proof needs to remain with those committing the offense not on innocent people.

Anyone remember the abuses of the law in Donegal or have ye all forgotten now. Two of the reasons I'd be so against such a proposal is offenses have penalties attached to them, plus it'd be so hard to actually prove anything to make the entire effort worthwhile.

I hear mention of some fella nicknamed "Dr Poison" who is allegedly bragging about poisoning eagles I think? Does anyone here think that passing the law proposed would in any way hamper his alleged activities?

I wouldn't be against getting rid of or better controlling poisoning for foxes. I would be sending out leaflets from Dept/Teagasc/IFA/Whoever that there are other effective means available to control foxes such as shooting, snaring and using dogs. (Cage traps don't tend to be effective against country foxes predating lambs, in my experience).

But, if something is passed which is impractical, unworkable and generally bereft of positive end result then it's a pure waste of time, resources and effort for all.

recedite

johngalway wrote: »

I wouldn't be against getting rid of or better controlling poisoning for foxes.

We can agree on that then, but sending out leaflets is not going to do it.
Any other suggestions? The old fox bait excuse the only excuse left for putting out indiscriminate meat based poisons.
I'm sorry if someone is out to blackmail you, or set you up, but there are plenty of other ways they can do that as well. Its going off topic.

johngalway

recedite wrote: »

We can agree on that then, but sending out leaflets is not going to do it.
Any other suggestions? The old fox bait excuse the only excuse left for putting out indiscriminate meat based poisons.
I'm sorry if someone is out to blackmail you, or set you up, but there are plenty of other ways they can do that as well. Its going off topic.

Off topic to discuss a suggestion directly related to the topic? Don't think so. (I never mentioned black mail?).

At the moment no suggestion. But, I still totally refuse to accept a bad, unworkable, proposed law which would have the accuracy of a scud missile.

LostCovey

nilhg wrote: »

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.

OK, fair point, but that only refers to carbofuran.

Most of these birds have been killed by legal chemicals.

LostCovey

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

In fairness if the correct part of a bullet is found it can be matched to the correct rifle quite easily.

Not if it hasn't been fired. I was referring to a box of large calibre military ammunition found on your land. That is the analogy.

Or 20 litre container of poitín.

Or a stolen chainsaw.

The analogy with the current law is that the state has to prove that you were aware the item was there, that you put it there

AND

that you intended to fire the bullets, or drink the poitín, or cut down an protected tree with the chainsaw.

Or if it's Paddy's night, maybe all three!

LostCovey

johngalway

It would still amount to bad law. Precisely because, I'm just repeating myself at this point, the vast majority of people doing illegal things aren't actually stupid. Hauling in the landowner would be a waste of time & resources for whatever body as again the vast majority of people setting poison and knowing it to be illegal in a certain circumstance wouldn't do it on their own land. Also if it were set on commonage... Do you then haul in 5, 10, 25 different people.....

Most people will recognise that road is a cul de sac, and a pretty short one at that. There just isn't the reward in reality that some are expecting. Things work differently when ya leave the interweb

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

It would still amount to bad law. Precisely because, I'm just repeating myself at this point, the vast majority of people doing illegal things aren't actually stupid. Hauling in the landowner would be a waste of time & resources for whatever body as again the vast majority of people setting poison and knowing it to be illegal in a certain circumstance wouldn't do it on their own land. Also if it were set on commonage... Do you then haul in 5, 10, 25 different people.....

Most people will recognise that road is a cul de sac, and a pretty short one at that. There just isn't the reward in reality that some are expecting. Things work differently when ya leave the interweb

Hauling in the landowner and "questioning him/her till they crack" isn't actually the point - in fact that is the only option currently. Putting the burden of proof on the landowner is a measured step to deal with an apparently intractable problem.

If you can repeat yourself so can I, especially as you don't seem to address the core point. Such a system works reasonably well for stolen goods, drugs, illegal handguns etc, it is just a matter of adding poisoned bait to that list.

I don't understand what you mean by a short cul de sac.

If prosecution for possession of items on that list above (drugs, handguns, stolen property) required full proof by the State on involvement, handling, knowledge, and intent by property owners, such cases would not proceed any further than the current poisoning cases. The burden of proof falls on the owner of the property where the contraband is found, until proven otherwise or a until substantial doubt is created by other evidence and the land-owner's statements.

It is reasonably well established (ok strongly suspected) that the last 8 poisoned eagles and up to three poisoned ravens have died as a result of the actions of three known individuals. My information is that there is currently very little chance of a successful prosecution of any of these three. If the law was changed, there would be three active prosecutions with a reasonable but not guaranteed chance of success, and some deterrent.

Commonage is commonage, and would be more difficult, but not a huge problem so far as the vast majority of these cases are from poison laid on privately owned or leased land. The communal spirit of these individuals doesn't seem to extend to taking risks to poison foxes and crows for fellow shareholders.

And that's in the real world where we all live when we are not turfin' the interweb.

LostCovey

johngalway

LostCovey wrote: »

Putting the burden of proof on the landowner is a measured step to deal with an apparently intractable problem.

If you can repeat yourself so can I, especially as you don't seem to address the core point. Such a system works reasonably well for stolen goods, drugs, illegal handguns etc, it is just a matter of adding poisoned bait to that list.

I don't understand what you mean by a short cul de sac.

The burden of proof falls on the owner of the property where the contraband is found, until proven otherwise or a until substantial doubt is created by other evidence and the land-owner's statements.

If the law was changed, there would be three active prosecutions with a reasonable but not guaranteed chance of success, and some deterrent.

Commonage is commonage, and would be more difficult, but not a huge problem so far as the vast majority of these cases are from poison laid on privately owned or leased land. The communal spirit of these individuals doesn't seem to extend to taking risks to poison foxes and crows for fellow shareholders.

I refer you to my above posts as I think you have failed to take any notice of them and all the info you need is in them.

The short cul de sac means such a proposed law would go nowhere quickly due to it's ineffectiveness.

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

I refer you to my above posts as I think you have failed to take any notice of them and all the info you need is in them.

The short cul de sac means such a proposed law would go nowhere quickly due to it's ineffectiveness.

I have read them all so far and none have explained what is different about poisoned baits - why such a law seems to work reasonably well for other illegal items and substances, but would mysteriously collapse if applied to poisoned baits.


If you have explained this anywhere and I have missed it, I would be obliged if you would copy & paste it into a new reply because I can't find it.

LostCovey

johngalway

:rolleyes:

I am talking about poisoned baits. You brought in semtex, chainsaws, illegal immigrants and God knows what else.

I have already explained to you why it wouldn't work, in detail, it's there to be read if you choose.

Feargal as Luimneach

http://www.goldeneagle.ie/news_viewnews.php?x=2&z=41&news_id=6&article=275
Another White tailed eagle found dead:(:(:(:(:(
I was on holiday birdwatching in Spain recently and was talking to a fellow birdwatcher. He was thinking about coming to Kerry to sea Sea Eagles and hopefully some Irish Red Grouse. I recommended against going to Kerry. Why would want to come to a country like this which slaughters it's wildlife??????????? Jaysus Spain has more marginal sheep farmers than here and although they have some poisoning, most of their eagle species are increasing. Their vultures who feed almost exclusively on livestock carcases are they are also increasing.

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I am talking about poisoned baits. You brought in semtex, chainsaws, illegal immigrants and God knows what else.

I have already explained to you why it wouldn't work, in detail, it's there to be read if you choose.

That's Ok, it's as I thought.

LostCovey

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'm just repeating myself at this point

If you can repeat yourself so can I,

I refer you to my above posts

I have already explained to you

The points have been made. It seems for the past 3 pages everyone is just repeating themselves.:)

OP Question: How can this be stopped?
Answer: We really don't know!

LostCovey

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

The points have been made. It seems for the past 3 pages everyone is just repeating themselves.:)

OP Question: How can this be stopped?
Answer: We really don't know!

Well at least we are trying.

The 'authorities' (guards and NPWS) don't seem to be able to do much.

LostCovey

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

LostCovey wrote: »

Well at least we are trying.

So true. But maybe here is not the place to do it.

The 'authorities' (guards and NPWS) don't seem to be able to do much.

The point is that they are certainly trying but it's nothing like as easy as people seem to think.

thehairyone

Hi All,

Thought some of you might be interested in this.

Send this letter to Minister Gormley in early March, see post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64752845#post64752845

Got the response today, see below:

I have been asked by Mr. John Gormley, T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to refer further to your email in connection with the poisoning of the Golden Eagle.

The Department has been working with the Golden Eagle Trust on the re-introduction of extinct birds of prey into Ireland, such as the Golden Eagle in Donegal, the White Tailed Eagle in Kerry and the Red Kite in Wicklow. The Minister is aware that there have been recent incidents where some of these re-introduced birds have died as a result of eating poisoned meat-based bait. The Minister is very concerned at these incidents as not only do they impact negatively on our commitment to maintain and enhance Ireland's native wildlife but they also harm our environmental and agricultural reputation at home and abroad.

The Department is addressing the regulatory position in relation to the use of poisoned meat-based bait, and it is the Minister's intention that new regulations will be made to help enhance protection of our wildlife while, at the same time, ensuring good farming practice. While The Minister recognises that the great majority of landowners and farmers are supportive of the raptor re-introduction project, and against the use of poison, it is necessary to continue to work to stop the few people who are continuing to use poison in this manner.

Was not expecting much in the reply but just seems theres a lot of talk and no action.

LostCovey

thehairyone wrote: »

Hi All,

Thought some of you might be interested in this.

Send this letter to Minister Gormley in early March, see post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64752845#post64752845

Got the response today, see below:



Was not expecting much in the reply but just seems theres a lot of talk and no action.

Everyone states that alphachloralose is legal for crows etc.

Can anyone identify what legislation or ministerial order permits it?

LostCovey

Birdnuts

thehairyone wrote: »

Was not expecting much in the reply but just seems theres a lot of talk and no action.

Why aren't I surprised:rolleyes: - Typical GP waffle made worse by his efforts last week to basically take over the TV footage of the Red Kite chicks for his own cynical PR purposes.:mad:

PS: Nearly 3 months to get a reply like that - just goes to show how far down the list of priorities this is for Gormley and the rest of the wasters in Government:(

recedite

Winston Future Ear wrote: »

OP Question: How can this be stopped?
Answer: We really don't know!

OP Question: How can this be stopped?
Answer: We can start by making it illegal to set poison.

LostCovey wrote: »

Everyone states that alphachloralose is legal for crows etc.

Can anyone identify what legislation or ministerial order permits it?

LostCovey

http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/Heritage/NatureConservation/FileDownLoad,16425,en.pdf
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0010/sec0014.html
Some extremely dangerous pesticides such as DDT and carbufuran are nowadays just plain illegal. Others are freely available to spray on crops when diluted according to proper use, but are also occasionally deployed as a poison in the concentrated form.

It is illegal to specifically target crows and other birds with a meat based poison, but it is not illegal to set a meat based poison for mammals that are not protected species ie foxes.
What we do not have is a law that prohibits the setting of meat based poisons full stop. Such a law would not interfere with the laying of rodent poisons, which are grain based.

LostCovey

recedite wrote: »

OP Question: How can this be stopped?
Answer: We can start by making it illegal to set poison.


http://www.environ.ie/en/Legislation/Heritage/NatureConservation/FileDownLoad,16425,en.pdf
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0010/sec0014.html
Some extremely dangerous pesticides such as DDT and carbufuran are nowadays just plain illegal. Others are freely available to spray on crops when diluted according to proper use, but are also occasionally deployed as a poison in the concentrated form.

It is illegal to specifically target crows and other birds with a meat based poison, but it is not illegal to set a meat based poison for mammals that are not protected species ie foxes.
What we do not have is a law that prohibits the setting of meat based poisons full stop. Such a law would not interfere with the laying of rodent poisons, which are grain based.

Thanks Recedite.

LostCovey

nilhg

There's a piece on this subject in todays Farmers Journal, in the living section, worth a look.

Birdnuts

nilhg wrote: »

There's a piece on this subject in todays Farmers Journal, in the living section, worth a look.

I hope its of a higher standard then the dangerous rubbish they were coming out with earlier in the year - which corresponded with numerous endangered raptor deaths in the following months:mad:

LostCovey

Birdnuts wrote: »

I hope its of a higher standard then the dangerous rubbish they were coming out with earlier in the year - which corresponded with numerous endangered raptor deaths in the following months:mad:

It actually is, you'll be pleased to hear!

It is well written, factual and well balanced. I think the Journal is still smarting from being caught so far off-side by Darren carty's article in the spring (which advised farmers how to use abortions in sheep as an opportunity to lay poisoned baits laced with alphachloralose). That article will forever be tied in many people's minds with the spate of alphachloralose-linked poisonings of eagles in in upland sheep areas that followed, rightly or wrongly.

The Journal responded fairly quickly to their monumental blunder, by hosting an article by the White-tailed Eagle Project manager Alan Mee, on sustainable predator control on sheep farms, and now this longer discussion piece.

Personally, I am thrilled to see an open discussion of the sort that happens here being hosted in the farming press.

One excellent point in the piece which went unanswered by the pro-poisoning side was made by someone from the Kerry tourism angle
"If the majority of sheep farmers can get by without using poison, why can't the minority?"

The key question in this whole debate!

LostCovey