Petition to save Irelands woodlands.

Hunter21

An area the size of two medium sized counties like Meath will be in Private ownership, which could entail having Private security companies with razor-wire fencing in place to prevent the sovereign citizens of Ireland accessing their old rights of way, areas of commonage, archaeological and sites of cultural significance.

So sign the petition on the page if you want to help save the lands, and make sure you will be able to access these lands to cycle, walk, fish or even shoot in the future.

http://www.woodlandleague.org/

clouds

I'm no hunter but bumping for you

dCorbus

clouds wrote: »

I'm no hunter but bumping for you

I doubt that a five minute old post needs a bump!:p

johngalway

This has come up more times than that photo of the fox with the rifle added to that photo of the fox in among the hounds and multiplied by ten.

dCorbus

I've seen that a number of lads have posted in relation to the Woodlands League online petition and I just thought I'd give you all a bit of a heads-up about this organisation, which some of you may not be aware of.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of posters expressing their opinion and everyone has the right to vote or petition in support of something which they feel strongly about. Personally I would not be in favour at all of any sell-off of Coillte forestry to any private company (foreign or otherwise), regardless who was involved in the board of that company. But, as many of you are regular posters here on shooting, hunting, and fieldsports matters, there's some background information about the Woodland League people, which many may not be aware of, and which I'd suggest should be borne in mind by any hunters, shooters, or fieldsports enthusiasts who would like to support the Woodland League in their campaigns.

A lot of lads may, no doubt, vote in support of their petition without doing any background checking on who they would be supporting or who they'd be indirectly getting into bed with.

From what I can find out via the Woodland Leagues own website, their published documents, and other websites linked to the league or their organisers, the people involved have links and connections to an Taisce, CLEAN, FIE, Sinn Fein, and many other "environmentalist" organisations and other groups; And many of those involved have expressed that they have no love of any shooting, hunting and fieldsports: or "bloodsports" (as they'd no doubt refer to it).

A couple of things you may wish to bear in mind, when considering whether or not to support this organisations online petition:

- Next time a lad doesn't get planning permission for his house in a rural area, it'll be the likes of this crowd and their buddies who will invariably have put the kibosh on it.
- The next time a farmer gets done for spreading slurry at the wrong time, again it will be these lads who will have made sure of it.
- And if anyone thinks that these guys would allow hunting to continue in the forests and woodlands of Ireland, I expect that they'd get a rude awakening.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the background to these groups - but I just thought I'd give you a heads up.

If you are already aware of the organisations involved, I apologise for putting my oar in. I also apologise in advance if you think I'm sticking my nose into anyone elses business, but I thought I'd let you all know a bit more about the background to this campaign and the various groups involved and/or linked to them.

Before voting for something you believe in and supporting any particular organisation by lending them your voice and support, it's always best to do a bit of research to find out where they may be coming from and to which organisations and movements they are closely connected with.

In that way, you won't end up hitching your wagon to someone whose agenda may not exactly be in step with your own interests and activities.

Caveat Emptor

Dusty87

Heard it on the news or matt cooper there earlier. New government have saved them. Not to be sold now seemingly.

Run_to_da_hills

Down with this sort of thing.

meathshooter1

Dusty87 wrote: »

Heard it on the news or matt cooper there earlier. New government have saved them. Not to be sold now seemingly.

I personally would not agree with the selling off of our forests,Bertie wont be happy

clouds

Really? Saved, that's great news Any link? Just had a quick google there and didn't see anything new.

Dusty87

clouds wrote: »

Really? Saved, that's great news Any link? Just had a quick google there and didn't see anything new.

no links. It was today fm and i was headin to town so it was after 6, if you wanted to skim through prat cooper pod cast. Could have been the news at 7 either. Im sure of it though.

Hondata92

Dusty87 wrote: »

no links. It was today fm and i was headin to town so it was after 6, if you wanted to skim through prat cooper pod cast. Could have been the news at 7 either. Im sure of it though.

Heard it myself around 6 on the news during the last word

Was in dodgey reception but heard something like coillte and bord na mona (i think) are to be merged into one organisation and being totally state owned so will not be sold off

There was a mention about the petition that was setup aswell

Edit found this about the merger

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1146405

Dusty87

Your bang on hondata. It said over 20,000 signatures. I didn want to post 'state owned' as i wasn sure did it say that part or not. But yea bord na mona etc.

Hunter21

Thanks for the heads up dCorbus, Im just after learning a big lesson. You learn something new everyday. Again thanks for the life lesson, I wont get too excited about copying and pasting links anymore

MacraPat

"They lead to the propagation of forest game (such as pheasants, cock, deer, hares), and become preserves, the letting of which is to the State an important source of revenue. " Taken from page two of the Woodland League's Pilot Programme.


3. Reducing damage due to game and grazing by fencing off of woods from animals to
allow for natural regeneration. Management of deer, culling local venison, mobile processor
and improving deer habitat in forestry planning. Taken from the bottom of page 11 of the same document.

If these two extracts are to be believed dCorbus, the Woodland League may be better informed than you might think. I do think you're right to encourage critical thinking and thoroughly reading anything before putting pen to paper or finger to keypad. If this group were left in charge of the nation's woodland I think it would have a positive impact on the nation's fauna which we depend upon for our sport. With better forest cover deer, populations will improve and we could even be looking towards Capercaillie reintroductions. I disagree with their plans to plant over salmonoid nursery streams as research shows this has a negative impact upon fisheries. Hopefully the same people interested in eating wild nuts, berries and herbs from the the forest will be as excited about wild venison!

dCorbus

Thanks for that, MacraPat.

I don't doubt that this organisation is extremely well informed. From my experience (albeit limited in extent) of dealing with such groups, I can assure you that they are invariably very well-read and have an extensive and indepth knowledge of the areas in which they campaign. They also have extensive access to legal advice and have no compunctions in utilising the legal systems, both in Ireland and in Europe, to push forward their own particular agenda.

The main point of my earlier post, which I believe you have got the gist of, is that, before anyone votes or supports any organisation, they really owe it to themselves to make an informed decision as to whether they agree or disagree with the agenda or programme of the organisation to which they intend lending their support. My post was generated by the simple fact that there had been little or no debate on this subject in general and no debate in relation to this organisation in particular. Posters were posting the link and lads voting, as they saw fit, and I felt that a bit of background research and information was needed to inform the debate.

There are many of the proposals in the Woodland Leagues programmes and agenda, which in general, I would agree wholeheartedly with. Considering the poor state and apparent lack of forest husbandry, leading to what seems to me to be monocultural plantation, in many Coillte forests, I'd agree that there should be a more holistic and sustainable approach taken to forests and woodlands in Ireland. This would be good for all of us, hunters and non-hunters alike. The apparent lack of bio-diversity within a large swathe of Irish forests does no one and no thing any favours IMHO.

It is not so much the expressed policies of the Woodland League which would give me any cause for concern, but rather a number of organisations, groups, and politicians to which they are linked and supported by, who do have a clearly-stated anti-hunting and anti-fieldsports agenda, for example: Joe Higgins TD asks question on behalf of WLL to EU Commission. Joe Higgins has stated his firm opposition to "bloodsports"; WLL are publicly supported by Kathy Sinnott ex-MEP, also vehemently opposed to "bloodsports".

Perhaps, the Woodland League could clarify their own official position in relation to maintaining hunting and fieldsports on Coillte land and Irish woodlands in general.

zumobishopreal

could you clarify who and what links they have to those organisations please.

Birdnuts

zumobishopreal wrote: »

could you clarify who and what links they have to those organisations please.

I think he means web links on their site - which I don't think is a big deal anyway since many organisations have legitimate interests in forestry issues and more importantly in preventing the likes of Bertie and his cronies getting their paws on state assets on the cheap, which is what this thread is meant to be about.

PS: In any case none of the links on the website are to any purely anti-fieldsport organisation that I know of - indeed just because a group is set up to safeguard some aspect of the environment, that does not mean it is "anti hunting" or has any particualr position on the issue since it was obviously not the reason it was set up in the first place!!

Grizzly 45

MacraPat wrote: »

"They lead to the propagation of forest game (such as pheasants, cock, deer, hares), and become preserves, the letting of which is to the State an important source of revenue. " Taken from page two of the Woodland League's Pilot Programme.


3. Reducing damage due to game and grazing by fencing off of woods from animals to
allow for natural regeneration. Management of deer, culling local venison, mobile processor
and improving deer habitat in forestry planning. Taken from the bottom of page 11 of the same document.

If these two extracts are to be believed dCorbus, the Woodland League may be better informed than you believe. I do think you're right to encourage critical thinking and thoroughly reading anything before putting pen to paper or finger to keypad. If this group were left in charge of the nation's woodland I think it would have a positive impact on the nation's fauna which we depend upon for our sport. With better forest cover deer, populations will improve and we could be looking towards Capercaillie reintroductions. I disagree with their plans to plant over salmonoid nursery streams as research this has a negative impact upon fisheries. Hopefully the same people interested in eating wild nuts, berries and herbs from the the forest will be as excited about wild venison!

And WHO EXACTLY will be managing and paying for this utopian dream???
Is it going to be the usual poor schmuck hunter who has no option to jump thru all the now new and improved Coilte hoops and loops to pay a small fortune to a semi state body to shoot deer and have to be trained to ubermensch qualification by the various bodies who now will no doubt have an input into the HCAP?? You can be assured now the beards and tweedy beadies with master degrees in meddlsomeness will be putting their sandled feet into who or what shoots in theCoilte forests.
Or they will insist in college trained NPWS types going on about artifical contraception for deer to reduce the pouplation and other such expensive PC rubbish.Anything but dont shoot poor Bambi!

Dont think for a moment the status quo will stay the same with the saved Stika spruce timber plantations that pass for "forest" in Ireland that we will have free access or much capercile either.They need high mature established mountain forest.Not lifeless black blocks of badly grown and tended commercial timber.

The original little bit of natural forest we have left[ after the English helped themselves to it to build a world power navy and Westminister Abbey],is well known and could be easily excluded from any purchase agreement with whomever,as we can classify it under UN and EU laws as national treasure or some such.If it is just a question of flogging alot of Sitka pulp wood to the Chinese,then let them at it.

dCorbus

could you clarify who and what links they have to those organisations please.

If you are referring to my posts above, please re-read my last post, as I have edited it to included two specific examples of the connections which I am talking about. There are a few more, some more tenuous than others, but connections all the same - but without getting into a forensic examination, I think the two examples I've mentioned above should suffice for the purposes of this discussion on this hunting forum.

As far as CLEAN are concerned, the link is clearly made on WLL's own website in their section reporting on the failed Lough Key development in Boyle.

As far as an Taisce are concerned, one of the WLL organisers is also an organiser for CELT, which is involved in the IEN, of which an Taisce is a founder member.

And yes, all these examples are publicly announced and reported on the WLL website and on other connected websites.

Birdnuts

dCorbus wrote: »

If you are referring to my posts above, please re-read my last post, as I have included two examples of the connections which I am talking about. There a few more, some tenuous, but connections all the same - but without getting into a forensic examination, I think the two examples I've mentioned above should suffice for the purposes of this discussion.

And yes, the two examples given above are publicly announced and reported on the WLL website.

So Joe Higgins asked a question on their behalf in the EU parliament = they support everything Joe Higgins might or might not support - thats rather a big leap and doesn't really make sense IMO

Maybe its because the other main parties don't give a toss about these issues which is probably why WLL had to go to Joe Higgins to get their voice heard at this level.

I know which I think is more likely!!

dCorbus

A bit far fetched

Do you really think so?

In any case none of the links on the website are to any purely anti-fieldsport organisation that I know of

Well, you can take your inference from the facts which I've posted, I'll take my own inferences, and everyone else can make up their own minds.

So Joe Higgins asked a question on their behalf in the EU parliament = they support everything Joe Higgins might or might not support

So that's Joe Higgins issue addressed, is it? What about Kathy Sinnott, an Taisce, CELT, IEN, CLEAN, etc.? All just a huge big coincidence, birdnuts, eh?

I'm not saying that they support everything which Joe Higgins might or might not support or condemn.
I'm not saying that they support everything which Kathy Sinnott might or might not support or condemn.

What I am saying is that both of these politicians have in one way or another acted on behalf of and/or expressed public support for WLL. I have also pointed out that both these politicians have in the past expressed quite vehement views condemning hunting and fieldsports.

Maybe its because the other main parties don't give a toss about these issues which is probably why WLL had to go to Joe Higgins to get their voice heard at this level.

And this weeks events obviously give the lie to that statement, seeing as it was a Labour/Fine Gael coalition which put the kibosh on the sell-off in the end. Not the Socialist Party, any independents, or any Greens. So, did WLL really have to go to J. Higgins Esq. because no-one else cared and they needed the only man brave enough to take up their cause? Come now, that is not really backed up by the facts.

What I have posted are the facts. I think we're all smart enough around here to decide what is or is not relevant.

Birdnuts

dCorbus wrote: »

Do you really think so?



Well, you can take your inference from the facts which I've posted, I'll take my own inferences, and everyone else can make up their own minds.



So that's Joe Higgins issue addressed, is it? What about Kathy Sinnott, an Taisce, CELT, IEN, CLEAN, etc.? All just a huge big coincidence, birdnuts, eh?

I'm not saying that they support everything which Joe Higgins might or might not support or condemn.
I'm not saying that they support everything which Kathy Sinnott might or might not support or condemn.

What I am saying is that both of these politicians have in one way or another acted on behalf of and/or expressed public support for WLL. I have also pointed out that both these politicians have in the past expressed quite vehement views condemning hunting and fieldsports.

Those are the facts. I think we're all smart enough around here to decide what is or is not relevant.

You appear to be assuming that every organization with an environmental agenda is automatically anti fieldsports or has a position on it - I'm sorry but that makes absolutly no sense whatsoever:(

Birdnuts

dCorbus wrote: »

And this weeks events obviously give the lie to that statement, seeing as it was a Labour/Fine Gael coalition which put the kibosh on the sell-off in the end. Not the Socialist Party, any independents, or any Greens. So, did WLL really have to go to J. Higgins Esq. because no-one else cared and they needed the only man brave enough to take up their cause? Come now, that is not really backed up by the facts.

.

Policies can quickly change(remember when the IMF was meant not to be in the country??)- as can definations of "non-strategic assets" etc.

PS: How can Joe stop the sale if he's not in power anyway - its whose in government that makes that call!!

dCorbus

Oh, god, stop now. You're hurting my head.
WTF has this got to do with the IMF?
And WTF has Joe stopping the sale got to do with anything, it was his support for WLL when he was MEP that I was referring to. It was you who brought up the "other main parties" - not me. Please stop argueing around in circles! You obviously have a different viewpoint on this situation than I do. So this will be my last post on the topic.

You appear to be assuming that every organization with an environmental agenda is automatically anti -fieldsports or has a position on it

Did I say that? No I didn't.

Read my posts again - properly. I'm not getting into a p1ssing contest with you on this.

Fact:
Joe Higgins is anti-"bloodsports"
Kathy Sinnott is anti-"bloodsports"
Sinn Fein are anti-"bloodsports"

And if you think that an Taisce, CELT, CLEAN, FIE, IEN, etc are all supportive of hunting and fieldsports, I'd suggest you reset your reality meter.

And what I initially pointed out, way back there in my first post on this, was that an Taisce et al. where not exactly reknown for respecting the wishes of the inhabitants of rural Ireland, particularly when it came to the provision of their own accommodation.

I think you need to step back a bit and see the wood from the trees.;):D

Birdnuts

dCorbus wrote: »

And if you think that an Taisce, CELT, CLEAN, FIE, IEN, etc are all supportive of hunting and fieldsports, I'd suggest you reset your reality meter.

And what I initially pointed out, way back there in my first post on this, was that an Taisce et al. where not exactly reknown for respecting the wishes of the inhabitants of rural Ireland, particularly when it came to the provision of their own accommodation.

I think you need to step back a bit and see the wood from the trees.;):D

I'm not aware that the organizations you mention even have a position on fieldsports since thats nothing to do with their stated aims - and what exactly does stuff like rural housing etc. got to do with hunting anyway

dCorbus

Again with the circles, m8.

I'm not aware that the organizations you mention even have a position on fieldsports since thats not their primary interest

They don't.
I didn't say they did.

But i'd hazard a pretty good guess that the vast majority of all their members would not be too enamoured by "fieldsports" or "countryside pursuits".

what exactly does stuff like rural housing etc. got to do with hunting anyway

Nothing.
Never said it did.

But I'm also hazarding a good guess that there's a good number of lads and ladies on this particular hunting forum who have or know of friends and relatives who have had difficulties obtaining planning permissions in rural areas to address their own housing needs.

So I thought the involvement of such organisations with each other and their interpersonal and interorganisational connections may be of interest to the Hunters and Rural Dwellers on this forum.

Now, this really is my last statement on the matter. You can spend the evening talking around in circles, but I'm off to my scratcher now.

Birdnuts

dCorbus wrote: »

Again with the circles, m8.



They don't.
I didn't say they did.

But i'd hazard a pretty good guess that the vast majority of all their members would not be too enamoured by "fieldsports" or "countryside pursuits".



Nothing.
Never said it did.

But I'm also hazarding a good guess that there's a good number of lads and ladies on this particular hunting forum who have or know of friends and relatives who have had difficulties obtaining planning permissions in rural areas to address their own housing needs.

So I thought the involvement of such organisations with each other and their interpersonal and interorganisational connections may be of interest to the Hunters and Rural Dwellers on this forum.

Now, this really is my last statement on the matter. You can spend the evening talking around in circles, but I'm off to my scratcher now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree;)

MacraPat

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And WHO EXACTLY will be managing and paying for this utopian dream???

Coillte in it's current form recieve millions of euros of funding from the EU. A Coillte's income and spending is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act (pretty suspiscious for a tree planting body). I shouldn't think funding would suddenly dry up if we begin to plant ecologically sound forests.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Is it going to be the usual poor schmuck hunter who has no option to jump thru all the now new and improved Coilte hoops and loops to pay a small fortune to a semi state body to shoot deer and have to be trained to ubermensch qualification by the various bodies who now will no doubt have an input into the HCAP??

One example of an excellent organisation paid for my "the usual poor schmuck hunter" is the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. This organisation funded primarily by the issue of hunting liscences has protected native fauna from over-exploitation, reintroduced species wiped out by over hunting or habitat loss and yes employs trained biologists to ensure harvesting of game is sustainable. As far as the HCAP is concerned I think it's an essential tool for the protection of the good name of hunting in this country. If someone intends to use a high powered rifle to take any large and dangerous game, it makes sense that they should undergo some formal training to ensure it is done as efficiently as possible.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You can be assured now the beards and tweedy beadies with master degrees in meddlsomeness will be putting their sandled feet into who or what shoots in the Coilte forests.
Or they will insist in college trained NPWS types going on about artifical contraception for deer to reduce the pouplation and other such expensive PC rubbish.Anything but dont shoot poor Bambi!

My experience of NPWS officials is limited to Kieran Buckley who contucted a talk on Biodiversity an Wild Game Management for my Macra club. Kieran is a true country man at heart and has a lot of time for farmers and shooters in his work on Red Grouse and Grey Partridge conservation. Certainly not an over bearing "ubermensch" type you're describing.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont think for a moment the status quo will stay the same with the saved Stika spruce timber plantations that pass for "forest" in Ireland that we will have free access or much capercile either.They need high mature established mountain forest.Not lifeless black blocks of badly grown and tended commercial timber.

If you have a look at the WLL's page you can see their against the sitka monocultures which you're right in saying doesn't constitute a habitat for any creature. They want to see a complete transition of state forest to the native woodlands and the implementation of wildlife corridors between them. This could only be positive for game populations. Given time I think this could lead to possible Capercaillie reintroductions, time invariably will tell.

Sparks

Er, what large and dangerous game?
I don't recall many reports of deer maulings or fox attacks on humans or kamikaze ducks of late...

MacraPat

Oh really Sparks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ut0KUHO9E

Seriously though, you're right I make deer out to be vicious blood thirst creatures. It's their size that makes them dangerous. If a panicked and non-mortally wounded deer starts to run blind it will cover a few miles of open country which could lead to it trying to cross a road. In my part of the northeast there's been several crashes and even pile ups caused by deer crossing the M1 and N2.

I hope to shoot deer in the future but it's not something which i want to learn by trial and error. At the very least I'll be spending time with local stalkers to learn my trade.

Cass

That video is very sensationalist. A bow hunter (not legal here) attacked by a deer that surprised him on the egde of a wood. All deer hunting here is done with centrefire rifles at ranges varying from 80 to 280+ yards. Not much chance of a deer "sneaking" up on you. Plus i have yet to see a deer run miles after being shot. At worst 200yds then down.

If someone is wounding them continuously its a p**s poor stalker/hunter and an incompetent shot.

MacraPat wrote: »

In my part of the northeast there's been several crashes and even pile ups caused by deer crossing the M1 and N2.

Has any of that ever been attributed to a wounded deer that was "nicked" by a hunter?

I hope to shoot deer in the future but it's not something which i want to learn by trial and error. At the very least I'll be spending time with local stalkers to learn my trade.

Everybody has to learn and sometimes by trial and error. There is no such thing as the "perfect shooter" from the off set. There is no such thing as the perfect shooter years later. Its a constant ongoing leaning curve, and no matter how prepared and experienced there will always be instances outside the control of the hunter that will cause a shot or situation to go someway other than ecpected.

Every lad i know and shoot with, myself included, learned from accompanying others before taking to it ourselves, and i still never go out alone. If for no other reason than help dragging, etc.

MacraPat

Thanks for the response Ezridax
I know the video is sensationalist, I only included it as a piece of light humour.:p
None of the aforementioned crashes were caused by nicked deer as far as I know. The M1 is only 1.1 mile and the N2 less than that as the crow flies from my door. A distance easily transversed by a "nicked" deer.

I accept the failure rate is generally low in Irish stalking at the current time. If hypothetically speaking, Coillte lands were transfered to a environmentally rich native woodland system (similar to what WLL describe) the deer population would rise dramatically due to habitat improvement. This would lead to an increased need for stalkers. How could we ensure deer stalking knowledge and proficiency from new stalkers ? Personally speaking I don't think the HCAP would be a burden to carry.

Cass

MacraPat wrote: »

None of the aforementioned crashes were caused by nicked deer as far as I know. The M1 is only 1.1 mile and the N2 less than that as the crow flies from my door. A distance easily transversed by a "nicked" deer.

You will understand my confusion as i cannot see the relevance of whether a deer is nicked/shot or not. Without any access to figures/statistics, i would say that somewhere between 0% - 1% of accidents involving a collision with deer are of a direct result of the deer bolting after being shot at or non-fatally wounded.

I accept the failure rate is generally low in Irish stalking at the current time. If hypothetically speaking, Coillte lands were transfered to a environmentally rich native woodland system (similar to what WLL describe) the deer population would rise dramatically due to habitat improvement. This would lead to an increased need for stalkers

I honestly couldn't answer that. It would be good for deer but as Coilte lease per area, they don't care if you have 50 or 500 deer on the lease. So the leases would stay the same size, hence the number of people able to lease them would be the same. Same amount of leases = Same amount of stalkers/hunters.

How could we ensure deer stalking knowledge and proficiency from new stalkers ? Personally speaking I don't think the HCAP would be a burden to carry.

Probably not, but i do not subscribe to the theory that having a bit of paper, or learning parts of a book make people good stalkers. I agree with teaching, and with people being educated to the art of stalking, but i do not believe that a book can replace practical experience. Its the same as a driving license. They test you, give you a 15 minute drive in a car and let you on your way. Learning is a life long lesson. Anyone that says they know it all is fooling themselves.

Thanks for the response Ezridax
I know the video is sensationalist, I only included it as a piece of light humour.:p

Next time i'll know to put a €5 on the deer.