Done before but whats the bottom line?

session savage

Well folks. I did the NARGC proficiency course yesterday (as a condidtion of joining local gun club) and according to the guy giving the course it is ILLEGAL to shoot any bird with a rifle.
Now, I pointed out that on the quarterly notice from the NPWS derogation order it clearly states that greys, maggies rooks and jackdaws may be shot with a rifle. He said that it was still illegal so now I'm wondering if I'm a seasoned criminal or not

Anyone know the final word on this...... or should I have even asked

Vegeta

He's wrong. Simple as that.

You are correct, the derogation allows for certain named species to be shot with a rifle. I e-mailed the NARGC to ask did that include air rifles and they said that it does.

So not only can you shoot them with a rifle, you can also shoot them with an air rifle.

Shoot2kill

Vegeta wrote: »

He's wrong. Simple as that.

You are correct, the derogation allows for certain named species to be shot with a rifle. I e-mailed the NARGC to ask did that include air rifles and they said that it does.

So not only can you shoot them with a rifle, you can also shoot them with an air rifle.

Leaves me wondering what kind of donkey was giving the proficiency course then! :rolleyes:

J.R.

Vegeta wrote: »

He's wrong. Simple as that.

You are correct, the derogation allows for certain named species to be shot with a rifle. I e-mailed the NARGC to ask did that include air rifles and they said that it does.

So not only can you shoot them with a rifle, you can also shoot them with an air rifle.

I'm not sure if NARGC are correct there ......I hope they are ......as according to the Acts air rifles are not allowed.

The legal aspects of shooting are very confusing with Acts referring to previous Acts & ammendments. What we need is someone to publish a booklet in simple language explaining what can & cannot be shot / gun allowed etc.

Des Crofton NARGC tried it in his booklet on explanation of the Wildlife Acts but it's trying to explain & quote both acts.......still confusing at times.

The problem is you may be looking up an act but an ammendment / derogation may have been publishe afterwards which changes things.



WILDLIFE (AMMENDMENT) ACT 2000

SECTION 41

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0038/sec0041.html

33 (restriction on use of certain firearms etc.) of Principal Act.[/B]

41.—Section 33 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “hunt or injure in the course of hunting” for “kill or injure”,

(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of “hunt” for “kill”, of “animal” for “mammal” and of “any explosive other than ammunition for, and used with, a firearm” for “a floating container containing an explosive substance”,

(c) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “hunt or injure in the course of hunting” for “kill or injure” and the insertion of “otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence granted in that behalf by the Minister” after “hare”, and

(d) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “animals” for “mammals” in both places where it occurs,

and the said subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), as so amended, are set out in the Table to this section.

TABLE

(1) It shall be an offence for a person to hunt or injure in the course of hunting—


(a) with a repeating or automatic shotgun (other than a repeating or automatic shotgun which is adapted or modified so as to render it incapable of carrying more than three shotgun cartridges), with an airgun, air-rifle, gas-rifle, pistol or revolver, or with any firearm fitted with a silencer device, any wild bird,

(b) with a rifle, any protected wild bird.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person to hunt or injure any wild bird or wild animal with a spring gun, or with tracer shot or with any explosive other than ammunition for, and used with, a firearm.

(3) It shall be an offence for a person to hunt or injure in the course of hunting with a shotgun a protected wild animal other than a hare otherwise than under and in accordance with a licence granted in that behalf by the Minister.

(4) Subject to the foregoing subsections of this section, the Minister may make regulations specifying the type and calibre of firearms and ammunition which may be used to hunt wild birds and wild animals and providing that firearms and ammunition of any other type and calibre shall not be used to hunt such birds or animals.

Birdnuts

I see what your saying JR but I have it on good authority that the derogations over-ride such provisions in basic law as they act like a ministerial order like a sec 42 etc.

arrowloopboy

Oh fcuk,just melted a scal crow with the .270,better get the insulating tape out and try stick him back together:eek:.

session savage

Vegeta wrote: »

He's wrong. Simple as that.

You are correct, the derogation allows for certain named species to be shot with a rifle. I e-mailed the NARGC to ask did that include air rifles and they said that it does.

So not only can you shoot them with a rifle, you can also shoot them with an air rifle.

Thanks for clearing that up. I can rest easy now :cool:

p28559

you can not shoot duck / pheasant / grouse or with a rifle at any stage

you can shoot rook, crow, magpie during the periods defined by the derogation

sako75 hunter

i done that course last year, after i finished answerings the written questions i asked them a few questions about rifles and deer stalking and to be honest they really didnt have a clue. i think myself it was a waste of time because everything they were talking about was just common sence. all i got out of it was a nice cert saying i had completed the course...
the only good part of th day was going out to a clay pigeon range and shooting a few clays.

session savage

sako75 hunter wrote: »

the only good part of th day was going out to a clay pigeon range and shooting a few clays.

I thought that was a strange thing to do considering they spent an hour explaining how illegal it was to shoot a gun you werent licensed to shoot

Yeah a lot of it was common sense but common sense aint that common and to be fair it was great value. Only 25euro and you get a free hat and booklet. If it was the government running the course you can be sure they would charge 100 and bring your own notepad. So i say fair play NARGC and thanks.

Cass

J.R. wrote: »

The legal aspects of shooting are very confusing with Acts referring to previous Acts & ammendments. What we need is someone to publish a booklet in simple language explaining what can & cannot be shot / gun allowed etc.

• 18 Acts
• 2 European Directives
• 60 SI's

If you can find someone that understands all the above enough to try and simplify it or condense it to be understandable to the the rest of us then great. At best there is probably a dozen or so people that fully understand all the firearm/firearm related laws.

So no offence to the instuctor, but i highly doubt he has a firm grasp of all the above.

mauser77

where did you do the course cos i was at one yesterday aswell and thats not the way i understood it and nobody asked about that when he was talking about it plus they were asked about the guns at the clay ground and they said it was because they knew how many guns were on the range at any one time because there was people that had not shot much before

Sparks

Birdnuts wrote: »

I see what your saying JR but I have it on good authority that the derogations over-ride such provisions in basic law as they act like a ministerial order like a sec 42 etc.

Yup, the derogations override the Acts (which is why they're time-limited as well). (Well, I say override, but the EU Birds Directive actually allows for them, so it's not like the Minister can just override any law he wants to on a whim).

And "mess" doesn't begin to describe the law in this area It certainly doesn't help that they use of both "gas rifle" and "air rifle" in the Act without any definition in the Act to explain what the drafters meant by their terms...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Yup, the derogations override the Acts (which is why they're time-limited as well).

And "mess" doesn't begin to describe the law in this area It certainly doesn't help that they use of both "gas rifle" and "air rifle" in the Act without any definition in the Act to explain what the drafters meant by their terms...

Going to ASSume they meant Co2 or other gasesous powerd rifles/pistols??
And like most of these acts worded it so obtusely it could mean anything..:(

Sparks

No idea Grizzly, you just can't tell. That's the problem. It's why Acts are supposed to have definitions at the start, because they might still be in use decades after the drafters had moved on so that you can't ask them what they meant... which is where we are now with so much of the Firearms Acts and Wildlife Acts...

cavan shooter

In the wildlife act you cannot hunt a bird with a rifle and that is any bird.

The Minister has in his powers the ability to give a derogation i.e a partial revocation of the law normally for a period of time and is used in other aspects of legislation.

The derogations issued see below example

http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/publications/legaldocs/Declaration%20for%20Cavan%20Donegal%20and%20Monaghan%20Sept%202011.pdf

Do allow for the use of rifles to cull the named birds only. You will note by the way that you cannot trap rooks or jackdaws.

So the simple answer is keep on top of the actions of the NPWS.