Game Dealer PPS no.

ballistic

I heard a rumour that anyone leaving an animal into a game dealer next year will have to supply their PPS no.


Any one heard anything?

deerhunter1

ballistic wrote: »

I heard a rumour that anyone leaving an animal into a game dealer next year will have to supply their PPS no.


Any one heard anything?

yep i heard the same about time too.:(

ballistic

deerhunter1 wrote: »

yep i heard the same about time too.:(

Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Glensman

ballistic wrote: »

Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Good thing! Will help deter poachers and add a bit of traceability.

fallowbuck

will help stop the fxxkxers doing it who should'nt be thank god hope its true:)

Tackleberrywho

Will mean price reduces by 30-52% for shooters. Depending on their tax base.

Also means fellas on the dole would become self employed

ssl

Will all dealers comply tho? We've all heard stories of some dealers who currently don't ask to see licence, etc

Mountainy Jack

While initially this might seem like a good idea, if you consider how it could work it is not.

Firstly consider the main reasons for introducing this, the main reasons would be the following:

1. to tax people on their income from deer
2. to stop poaching

While it is reasonable to assume that people profiting from deer should be taxed, very few people shooting deer make a profit if you take into account expenses such as lease costs, rifle costs etc.

On No. 2, while this action serves to reduce the profit in deer poaching it does not serve to stop it. I would think taxing deer poachers would be akin to taxing drug dealers! In any case, if deer poachers did turn a profit and were taxed, they could always buy some thing like a quad and write it off against profit - that would be a lovely thought wouldn't it!

For these reasons I think this is an unworkable idea.

If we want to reduce poaching, every hunter in the country should be given a certain amount of deer tags pertaining to the ground they shoot, with a deer tag required to sell an animal. For the sake of example, let a guy hunting some farm land be given 5 tags a season, so he can sell 5 deer to a game dealer, and guys hunting better areas be given more. This method would take a bit of fine tuning etc. regarding numbers, but it would stop the guy who shoots 50 acres of farmland yet hands in 150 deer a year. It would stop him overnight. But this would require NPWS input and ranger input, and as we know these are understaffed and under resourced so I couldn't see this happening.

4gun

there are supposedly unregestered game dealers out there pps no would mean squat to them

J. Ramone

Personally I think it's a great idea. If poachers avoid legitimate outlets in ordrer to avoid their returns being registered into the system,this would I believe reduce their market and thus the price obtainable. It would be very unlilely that a profit could be made on sales of less than 10 carcasses. The Revenue Commissioners would be aware of that and would not waste their time on returns of say less than 20 carcasses. Anybody who allows their licence number to be used by others would think again. The carcass numbers could also be cross referenced between the dealer returns and the licence return. (I wounder has this ever happened?)

As a lot of poaching is done in somewhat unsociable hours I would think a lot of the big players are not in full time employment and are in receipt of social welfare payments. Having any significant self employed income would put their social welfare entitlements at risk which would in most cases be far greater than the profits achievable from poaching.

Capital expenditure on equipment is relieved by capital allowances at 12.5% pa so they would have to be in the business for the long haul. To claim a few thousand over a few years would surely run a high risk of conviction given that the NPWS would have access to the return figures.

A proper exchange of information between the NPWS, Gardaí, Revenue Commissioners and Social Welfare could be a lot more cost effective than an expensive and cumbersome tagging system. Perhaps the NPWS could be responsible for maintaining a database which the other agencies/departments would have access.

Tackleberrywho

J. Ramone wrote: »

Personally I think it's a great idea. If poachers avoid legitimate outlets in ordrer to avoid their returns being registered into the system,this would I believe reduce their market and thus the price obtainable. It would be very unlilely that a profit could be made on sales of less than 10 carcasses. The Revenue Commissioners would be aware of that and would not waste their time on returns of say less than 20 carcasses. Anybody who allows their licence number to be used by others would think again. The carcass numbers could also be cross referenced between the dealer returns and the licence return. (I wounder has this ever happened?)

As a lot of poaching is done in somewhat unsociable hours I would think a lot of the big players are not in full time employment and are in receipt of social welfare payments. Having any significant self employed income would put their social welfare entitlements at risk which would in most cases be far greater than the profits achievable from poaching.

Capital expenditure on equipment is relieved by capital allowances at 12.5% pa so they would have to be in the business for the long haul. To claim a few thousand over a few years would surely run a high risk of conviction given that the NPWS would have access to the return figures.

A proper exchange of information between the NPWS, Gardaí, Revenue Commissioners and Social Welfare could be a lot more cost effective than an expensive and cumbersome tagging system. Perhaps the NPWS could be responsible for maintaining a database which the other agencies/departments would have access.

+1

deerhunter1

Mountainy Jack wrote: »

While initially this might seem like a good idea, if you consider how it could work it is not.

Firstly consider the main reasons for introducing this, the main reasons would be the following:

1. to tax people on their income from deer
2. to stop poaching

While it is reasonable to assume that people profiting from deer should be taxed, very few people shooting deer make a profit if you take into account expenses such as lease costs, rifle costs etc.

On No. 2, while this action serves to reduce the profit in deer poaching it does not serve to stop it. I would think taxing deer poachers would be akin to taxing drug dealers! In any case, if deer poachers did turn a profit and were taxed, they could always buy some thing like a quad and write it off against profit - that would be a lovely thought wouldn't it!

For these reasons I think this is an unworkable idea.

If we want to reduce poaching, every hunter in the country should be given a certain amount of deer tags pertaining to the ground they shoot, with a deer tag required to sell an animal. For the sake of example, let a guy hunting some farm land be given 5 tags a season, so he can sell 5 deer to a game dealer, and guys hunting better areas be given more. This method would take a bit of fine tuning etc. regarding numbers, but it would stop the guy who shoots 50 acres of farmland yet hands in 150 deer a year. It would stop him overnight. But this would require NPWS input and ranger input, and as we know these are understaffed and under resourced so I couldn't see this happening.

No because if you shoot 50 acres of private land, you could be surrounded by
300-400 acres of forestry

deerhunter1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

+1

Spot on

deerhunter1

ballistic wrote: »

I heard a rumour that anyone leaving an animal into a game dealer next year will have to supply their PPS no.


Any one heard anything?

Reason I heard why (from the horses/Deer:rolleyes: mouth). Some guy apparently shot/sold over 90 deer last season to a game dealer, when approached by npws he denied it, he was shown a copy of game dealers books, low and behold he was in the books as selling 90 deer. On investigation it transpired that the game dealer (pri-k) was buying poach the deer and putting them on the list of genuine deer stalkers who were in his books as selling a few legally shot deer to him. So lets hope that it does go ahead with pps numbers (traceability) a **** the begrudgers:mad:

MOC1972

I hope this goes ahead in my area I have heard a guy had taken 40
something in 1 month all reds and sold them to a game dealer.
I do not know is 40 right but I know in my area this would be impossible
in normal stalking times so lamping me thinks.
I hunt for my table like most but these guy could care less about the deer
or lack of them in a short time. This can only help the normal stalker

50cal

ballistic wrote: »

I heard a rumour that anyone leaving an animal into a game dealer next year will have to supply their PPS no.


Any one heard anything?

I was chatting with a Npws representative about how they intended to tackle the issue and he said that tagging wasnt an option due to the complications and costs of introduction.
They are planning on reducing the amount of sections handed out and checking their authenticity.
The revenue can examine the records of the various game dealers but I dont think they can force the game dealers to ask for pps details. That wouldnt be their business to ask such details of hunters.
I am firmly for any measure that cost poachers to shoot.

poulo6.5

I am currently not working. And I have taken about 6 deer to the game dealer this year. It sertonly would not pay you but it does off set the cost of diesel and bullets for me. Other wise I would not be able to afford to go shooting at all. Does that make me a bad person. I don't think so.
Where would this now prpoposal leave me. Would it. Mean any money received by me for deer I sold would be taken from my dole????

I am all for trying to stop poaching though and I would support any thing that would help.
I think there is not much we can do with out a proper way of enforcing the law. I guess the gards would not be to bothered about a couple of deer being shot. Until that attitude changes there is not much we can do.

cruisedub1

Divide the country into shooting zones as in America , issue deer tags on a lottery basis to hunter's at a rate of so many per zone . Ban the sale of deer shot as " Game " animals after all your shooting these animals for sport not for profit , restrict sales to game dealers/butchers to registered commercial hunters only.

Mountainy Jack

J. Ramone wrote: »

Capital expenditure on equipment is relieved by capital allowances at 12.5% pa so they would have to be in the business for the long haul. To claim a few thousand over a few years would surely run a high risk of conviction given that the NPWS would have access to the return figures.

A proper exchange of information between the NPWS, Gardaí, Revenue Commissioners and Social Welfare could be a lot more cost effective than an expensive and cumbersome tagging system. Perhaps the NPWS could be responsible for maintaining a database which the other agencies/departments would have access.

Capital Allowance applies to companies who pay corporation tax, not Joe Soap down the road. The bottom line is if you are going to start taxing people on animals they shoot you will have to allow them to claim expenses against this tax.

You think a tag scheme run by the NPWS would be cumbersome? Coillte had a system in place in the early 90's, the fisheries have one in place at the moment. What your suggesting is we get the Garda, NPWS, Revenue and Social Welfare on the case - I'm sure that would be cheap. How much revenue would they generate anyway from this, very little I would think for the effort it would take. And it still doesn't stop the problem of someone poaching an animal. You need to remove the market altogether for some one who breaks the law in taking a deer, not regulate it.

J. Ramone

Mountainy Jack wrote: »

Capital Allowance applies to companies who pay corporation tax, not Joe Soap down the road.

No. The same computational principles for capital allowances apply to unincorporated sole traders as to limited companies assuming the income falls within the definition of Schedule D case I. Now, if such income is determined to be from an illegal source it would be taxable under Schedule D case IV and no allowances for capital costs would be available.

J. Ramone

poulo6.5 wrote: »

I am currently not working. And I have taken about 6 deer to the game dealer this year. It sertonly would not pay you but it does off set the cost of diesel and bullets for me. Other wise I would not be able to afford to go shooting at all. Does that make me a bad person. I don't think so.
Where would this now prpoposal leave me. Would it. Mean any money received by me for deer I sold would be taken from my dole????

You wouldn't have anything to worry about there. You could tripple that number before Social Welfare or Revenue would have a case. If on the other hand somebody receices a cheque for a couple of K from the game dealers, they would rightly be taxable.

kieran1141

jusy heard yesterday that tax man is going to all dealers for last year anyone selling deer will be required to pay taxes, hope this is true, as told about 2 guys took 40 fallow in 2 nights out of a place i shoot into a horse box and up north iam told, but if they are going up north how will they stop that ???

J. Ramone

Mountainy Jack wrote: »

You think a tag scheme run by the NPWS would be cumbersome? Coillte had a system in place in the early 90's, the fisheries have one in place at the moment. What your suggesting is we get the Garda, NPWS, Revenue and Social Welfare on the case - I'm sure that would be cheap. How much revenue would they generate anyway from this, very little I would think for the effort it would take. And it still doesn't stop the problem of someone poaching an animal. You need to remove the market altogether for some one who breaks the law in taking a deer, not regulate it.

The salmon and sea trout tagging scheme has been in place for a good number of years now and my view having first hand experience of it is that it has not been a success. Boyos are using boiling water to reopen tags. ~Thats if there is anyone around to see the fish being taken to necessitate their use in the first place. The big question really is;what does it serve to prevent and how does it prevent it? The merrits could be argued from there.

bazza888

there was a thread on here awhile back about english reged refrigerated lorrys being parked outside the forestry around wicklow ,i was going up towards glendalough a few weeks ago and on the drive up noticed 2 refrigerated white lorrys parked in off the road in a forestry laneway,about 6 in the morning,would these be people culling large numbers legally or could people from north or england drive over and poach away then drive home and sell them?not sure what reges were on these as i only remembered reading about it in the thread on the way home and they were gone then

Tackleberrywho

Anybody earning over €500 or so a week on paper would be taxed @52% for any returns.

I have 2 jobs on paper, and I get taxed for both of them.
The second job is only a few €€ a year, but what ever I get from it is all taxed at the higher rate.

If I sold a deer it would be Taxed at the higher rate.
I often did 2 days work and got taxed @ the higher rate on less than €200 so my take home was €70 or €80.
Considering I spent this on equipment for the job I actually just broke even.

I did not matter as Job No.2 paid for itself.



If you are on the Dole and earn €100 for deer a week, Then your Earnings will be €195+100=€294 a week like working a Job for €7.53 an hour

So no incentive to work full time.

Therefore a Tax on earnings is only fair.

My mate works 3 days a week for min wage and gets a dole top up.
If he shoots deer on his 2 days off he in essence is working 5 days a week and should be taxed and not get the 2 days dole.


It's an emotive issue in recessionary times.

If guys can get a few extra bob a week to feed the family then needs must.

However, if you were only allowed to sell a Max of 10 deer a year it would be more than fair.

In so doing Fellas would only sell 1 every couple of weeks and Most would be happy with this as a compromise

If more than 10 They do not get paid and it all goes on Tax

Mountainy Jack

J. Ramone wrote: »

The salmon and sea trout tagging scheme has been in place for a good number of years now and my view having first hand experience of it is that it has not been a success. Boyos are using boiling water to reopen tags. ~Thats if there is anyone around to see the fish being taken to necessitate their use in the first place. The big question really is;what does it serve to prevent and how does it prevent it? The merrits could be argued from there.

I used the example of the fisheries tags to show that the tags can be physically circulated. I know that system is flawed (as was the Coillte system) but way the fisheries system and a deer tagging system like I was proposing would operate are totally different and can't be compared. If you hand in a deer you have to tag him, once you tag him your tag is gone and its receipt is recorded at the game dealers. NPWS could then have your tag allowance on a database and at the end of the season cross check your sales with the allowance they have given you. A game dealer cant take an animal without a tag. The idea would be that you would handicap poachers straight away.

You are hitting the nail on the head Ramone saying what do we want to prevent. As a hunter I want to prevent poaching, maybe the powers that be wish to prevent tax fraud. It is my opinion that no legally licenced recreational hunter makes a killing from selling deer and it is only poachers who turn large profit. Therefore why not stop the poaching rather than tax them?

I'm sure the deer on the gap will be delighted to know that they wont be worth as much next year after the head is blown off them by some guy with a lamp.

J. Ramone

My thoughts are that if a game dealer must account for all carcasses sold, he must match his purchases with his sales. If an unscrupulous game dealer wanted to sell poached venison for cash, he could process untagged carcasses on receipt or he could recycle tags. The most thought out tagging system is subject to abuse and would rely on the cooperation of the game dealers. There would be obvious plusses to a tagging system. Eg. guys with poached deer in their vehicle without tags at 4am could be prosecuted without the present burden of proof that the deer were poached but only if all shot deer are to be tagged regardless of final destination.

It's not much comfort that in all likelyhood the costs of the most basic tagging system if instead directed at basic scrutiny of game dealer records would cut out a lot of illegal supply.

deerhunter1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Anybody earning over €500 or so a week on paper would be taxed @52% for any returns.

I have 2 jobs on paper, and I get taxed for both of them.
The second job is only a few €€ a year, but what ever I get from it is all taxed at the higher rate.

If I sold a deer it would be Taxed at the higher rate.
I often did 2 days work and got taxed @ the higher rate on less than €200 so my take home was €70 or €80.
Considering I spent this on equipment for the job I actually just broke even.

I did not matter as Job No.2 paid for itself.



If you are on the Dole and earn €100 for deer a week, Then your Earnings will be €195+100=€294 a week like working a Job for €7.53 an hour

So no incentive to work full time.

Therefore a Tax on earnings is only fair.

My mate works 3 days a week for min wage and gets a dole top up.
If he shoots deer on his 2 days off he in essence is working 5 days a week and should be taxed and not get the 2 days dole.


It's an emotive issue in recessionary times.

If guys can get a few extra bob a week to feed the family then needs must.

However, if you were only allowed to sell a Max of 10 deer a year it would be more than fair.

In so doing Fellas would only sell 1 every couple of weeks and Most would be happy with this as a compromise

If more than 10 They do not get paid and it all goes on Tax

also if you earn say 100 a week from deer then you are not available for work so technically you should not get dole

endasmail

do the same as the fishing crowd do
i had a foreigner in with me there last week
he was after been fined 3400 euro,had his boat confiscated with all his equipment
the judge lashed him out of it
why cant poachers get the same treatment instead of 250 euro fines

4gun

J. Ramone wrote: »

You wouldn't have anything to worry about there. You could tripple that number before Social Welfare or Revenue would have a case. If on the other hand somebody receices a cheque for a couple of K from the game dealers, they would rightly be taxable.

Not all stalkers who are on social welfare are poachers :mad:
and not all poachers are on social welfare either
I have known lads that have been in full time employment who have been known to poach deer for the age old reason ....greed

J. Ramone

4gun wrote: »

Not all stalkers who are on social welfare are poachers :mad:
and not all poachers are on social welfare either
I have known lads that have been in full time employment who have been known to poach deer for the age old reason ....greed

I hope I didn't give the impression that was my view. I was making the point that the larger players in the poaching business would have difficulty operating at that scale given the nocturnal nature of their trade if they were also working legitimately (unless the work compatible shifts etc etc). They would be therefore very sensitive to scrutiny from an earnings point of view. Revenue & Social Welfare scrutiny of exceptionally large returns would hit a high proportion of the worst offenders. Do poachers declare their income voluntarily anyway?

If the NPWS investigated say the 200 largest licence returns (from game dealer records & cross referenced to licence returns) we might be getting places. If they had reason to believe there was a strong possibility of social welfare fraud and/or tax evasion, they would be duty bound to pass on their suspicions. I wonder have the Muntjac returns ever been investigated anyway.

Tackleberrywho

4gun wrote: »

Not all stalkers who are on social welfare are poachers :mad:
and not all poachers are on social welfare either
I have known lads that have been in full time employment who have been known to poach deer for the age old reason ....greed

Greed is the problem.

If there was a bag limit FOR SALE.
I work, but when I was not doing college in the days off I was hunting much more.
It was fesible for me to shoot many more deer than others due to the fact I only work on average 10 days a month :eek:

I have no problem with folk feeding their family & re-investing proceeds in diesel and fair wear and tear on rifles and Equipment

With the Emphasis on fair.

It does remind me of the Tourists taking pike off all our lakes, freezing them and taking them back to Europe for resale..

If a guy has 20,40,60 deer returns in a year............
Yes not a hunter
He is SELF EMPLOYED

323

endasmail wrote: »

do the same as the fishing crowd do
i had a foreigner in with me there last week
he was after been fined 3400 euro,had his boat confiscated with all his equipment
the judge lashed him out of it
why cant poachers get the same treatment instead of 250 euro fines

Spot on!

underthetumb

endasmail wrote: »

do the same as the fishing crowd do
i had a foreigner in with me there last week
he was after been fined 3400 euro,had his boat confiscated with all his equipment
the judge lashed him out of it
why cant poachers get the same treatment instead of 250 euro fines

very true, the work that ranger had to probably do to catch that fella in donegal was probably a lot more than just pot luck. if a sterner punishment was handed out, news would quickly travel

Fallow01

Mountainy Jack wrote: »

I used the example of the fisheries tags to show that the tags can be physically circulated. I know that system is flawed (as was the Coillte system) but way the fisheries system and a deer tagging system like I was proposing would operate are totally different and can't be compared. If you hand in a deer you have to tag him, once you tag him your tag is gone and its receipt is recorded at the game dealers. NPWS could then have your tag allowance on a database and at the end of the season cross check your sales with the allowance they have given you. A game dealer cant take an animal without a tag. The idea would be that you would handicap poachers straight away.

You are hitting the nail on the head Ramone saying what do we want to prevent. As a hunter I want to prevent poaching, maybe the powers that be wish to prevent tax fraud. It is my opinion that no legally licenced recreational hunter makes a killing from selling deer and it is only poachers who turn large profit. Therefore why not stop the poaching rather than tax them?

I'm sure the deer on the gap will be delighted to know that they wont be worth as much next year after the head is blown off them by some guy with a lamp.

With the average number of deer shot per hunter been 8 deer a year (4,118/34,000) assuming declared returns are accurate?? for the majority tax shouldn't be an issue.

There are 14 hunters nationally who shoot more than 100 deer a year, this would be an issue for them but with those kind of numbers they are running a business and should expect to pay tax. As for poachers been taxed for 1 or 100 deer will be/should be a problem for them.

Game dealers like or criticise them are an essential part of deer management but as long as deer taken illegally can be sold legally and for undeclared cash, the system is encouraging deer poaching.

Tagging, Taxing and more importantly enforcement is the answer in my view.

If the NPWS can find the resources to complete a frog survey they certainly should be able to issue deer tags when their sending out deer hunting licences or all those sec. 42's they seem to give out wily nilly.