Deer Management Policy Development

Caoimhín

As the title says;http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/forestservicegeneralinformation/draftpolicyvisionfordeermanagementinireland/

The Society of Irish Foresters, Forest Service and Dept of Agri have given this draft policy for Deer control.

As a forester, I find that the only real way of deer management is by population control, deer fencing simply doesnt cut it.

Some thoughts and feedback would be appreciated and I will pass them on to the Society.

browning 12 bore

are they looking for said hunters on to forestry land some where im very sorry if i misread this but that is what it sounds like

J. Ramone

I think this is something we can't afford to ignore. If sporting interests are ignored, this policy could be the green light for very agressive culling as has happened in Scotland.

I was at a farmers meeting recently and there were several calls for the deer problem to be sorted out. This was in the context of the TB problem of which there is little or no evidence that deer are a significant factor.

Forestry interests certainly have a valid reason to call for deer numbers to be kept as low as possible especially where hardwoods are concerned.

Sensible suggestion is needed and we need to pick through this document for pitfalls. I'm a bit worried about what would be considered an acceptable population level in a given area.

Caoimhín

J. Ramone wrote: »

Forestry interests certainly have a valid reason to call for deer numbers to be kept as low as possible especially where hardwoods are concerned.

Sensible suggestion is needed and we need to pick through this document for pitfalls. I'm a bit worried about what would be considered an acceptable population level in a given area.

Many conifers, like Norway Spruce and European Larch are also a favourite breakfast meal.

Yep, Id be concerned at that too, presumably it came from the NPW. For me, an acceptable population is when there isnt excessive damage to trees. Most foresters fully accept that there will be deer damage to young plantations, however some sites are simply wiped out due to over population.

I think the biggest problem to overcome is public perception and PR. Poaching isnt helping this either.

BryanL

Caoimhín wrote: »

I think the biggest problem to overcome is public perception and PR. Poaching isnt helping this either.

A higher level of Deer culling would reduce the price of Venison and discourage poaching.

browning 12 bore

they say there fellas that it would diccourage poaching but yet they want them culled down a little but yet licences are being handed out left right and centre including section 42 as well i dont know what would be the right way to go myself

meathstevie

That document is as open ended as a wide barn door. The only thing it says to me is the following :

- Unlike a lot of other countries we don't have adequate deer management in
place.

- The figures we have are sketchy so a proper scientific survey won't do no
harm but where is the money to finance that going to come from ? It
definitely looks like there's loads of deer about the place and the
population grows year on year.

- Local overpopulation of deer will cause agricultural losses and an RTC
involving big wild animals is expensive and the poor deprived insurance
companies can't really screw someone for ages after.

- It's not considered a good idea that the likes of roedeer would be imported
in any numbers


- A bit of streamlining and rethinking of the current licencing system wouldn't
be a bad idea.


Other than that I can't really see much more in the document.

Caoimhín

meathstevie wrote: »

That document is as open ended as a wide barn door. The only thing it says to me is the following :

Yep, Its a draft Stevie. Like a Chinese whisper it is put out there to get some comments.

- The figures we have are sketchy so a proper scientific survey won't do no
harm but where is the money to finance that going to come from ?

There isnt a red cent in the state coffers.

-

Local overpopulation of deer will cause agricultural losses and an RTC involving big wild animals is expensive and the poor deprived insurance
companies can't really screw someone for ages after.

RTC? Do you mean an RTC46? As in Subbie tax returns? The department isnt going to give a damn how much insurance is. My professional indemnity is €2000 per year.

A bit of streamlining and rethinking of the current licencing system wouldn't
be a bad idea.

In my experience of the public service, streamlining is a bizarre and alien concept.

Just in my own experience, foresters with deer problems would actually pay for for a cull but we can be cagey about who is legitimate and insured. If a group of hunters were to set up a reputable, licensed and insured company and sent professional brochures to all foresters/forestry companies, they would have all the shooting they wanted.

Grizzly 45

Another thing it says to me ,and seemingly everyone is missing this maybe for whatever reason?
There is a NGO/cum private operation very worried about their monopoly in training up deer hunters for the coilte lets,that their parent company Coilte might be sold off,or be facing the culling[pun intended] of lots of deadwood in the future.They are now pushing that their remit goes well outside its intended boundaries and starts to affect us all who stalk .:mad:

Going by the dubiousness of some of the people involved in this organisation,the refusal of the organisation to censor or dismiss some personel for illegal activites and being convicted thereof in a Irish court.Plus a few other shennanigans in its operation of the tests and so on .Is it acceptable that this organisation claims "to repersent all deer stalkers in Ireland" has actually got any say in the future ofstalking at all???
It certainly does not repersent me as a stalker,and I wish to have nothing to do with this organisation...And I dont think I am alone in that opinion either.
So I'd like to know ,am I going to be the only person addressing the lack of clothing on the Emperor in my submission on this matter???
Maybe this would be a good [and possibly last ]time to air your greviences on this system people??
No point in coming on here in 12plus months time moaning about the "new HCAP"and how unfair or whatever it is after the fact...:rolleyes:

A bit of PROactiveness now,might save alot of REactiveness in the future.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Another thing it says to me ,and seemingly everyone is missing this maybe for whatever reason?
There is a NGO/cum private operation very worried about their monopoly in training up deer hunters for the coilte lets,that their parent company Coilte might be sold off,or be facing the culling[pun intended] of lots of deadwood in the future.They are now pushing that their remit goes well outside its intended boundaries and starts to affect us all who stalk .:mad:

Going by the dubiousness of some of the people involved in this organisation,the refusal of the organisation to censor or dismiss some personel for illegal activites and being convicted thereof in a Irish court.Plus a few other shennanigans in its operation of the tests and so on .Is it acceptable that this organisation claims "to repersent all deer stalkers in Ireland" has actually got any say in the future ofstalking at all???
It certainly does not repersent me as a stalker,and I wish to have nothing to do with this organisation...And I dont think I am alone in that opinion either.
So I'd like to know ,am I going to be the only person addressing the lack of clothing on the Emperor in my submission on this matter???
Maybe this would be a good [and possibly last ]time to air your greviences on this system people??
No point in coming on here in 12plus months time moaning about the "new HCAP"and how unfair or whatever it is after the fact...:rolleyes:

A bit of PROactiveness now,might save alot of REactiveness in the future.

Grizzly, here we go again down the well trodden track. Look at Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, etc etc... . Put hunting on a solid legal framework with proper testing for licencing by a public body and a public body only and combine it with compulsory management plans. In one move you would eliminate just about all the skullduggery that's going on at the moment, put the NPWS in the position it should occupy and you can streamline and simplify firearms legislation overnight.

meathstevie

Caoimhín wrote: »

Yep, Its a draft Stevie. Like a Chinese whisper it is put out there to get some comments.



There isnt a red cent in the state coffers.

-

RTC? Do you mean an RTC46? As in Subbie tax returns? The department isnt going to give a damn how much insurance is. My professional indemnity is €2000 per year.



In my experience of the public service, streamlining is a bizarre and alien concept.

Just in my own experience, foresters with deer problems would actually pay for for a cull but we can be cagey about who is legitimate and insured. If a group of hunters were to set up a reputable, licensed and insured company and sent professional brochures to all foresters/forestry companies, they would have all the shooting they wanted.

RTC as in Road Traffic Collissions, I'm very much convinced more RTC's occur involving wandering cattle and dogs and the like but since it was mentioned in the drafty draft....

About paying for culls; why would you need to set up a company, Countryside Alliance or NARGC membership would cover you quite adequatly if you don't operate on a commercial basis; as in don't charge money for culling deer. It's very much a matter of approaching folks more than anything else. No fancy brochure will ever win against a good contact and a chat.

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

Grizzly, here we go again down the well trodden track. Look at Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, etc etc... . Put hunting on a solid legal framework with proper testing for licencing by a public body and a public body only and combine it with compulsory management plans. In one move you would eliminate just about all the skullduggery that's going on at the moment, put the NPWS in the position it should occupy and you can streamline and simplify firearms legislation overnight.

Nice thought MS...Two chances of it happening here.... Dog and none!!:(
State obviously doesnt want to be involved,and is broke.
Private enterprise has it,but there is too much messing going on,and IF it is going to come out of the Coilte forest.It should be open to public tender.
Or at least have to accept that there acceptable alternatives and competition.
I dont see why the[US] NRA hunters saftey course cant be used here,and lets face it management plans are going to be a complete joke here..
You might try and do your best,your neighbour might do his best in following this.The three blokes two miles down the road mightnt give two f%%ks about it and just shoot their quota.So the mature stag is going to be maybe safe on your reserves,down on Mr Gob****es let he and anyone else is a dead deer.TBH ,they have the same problem with this on the Continent as well,and the worst sinners for bad planning are the state foresters themselves.:rolleyes:
No matter how much you train or liscense people you will still have gob****es who will abuse the system and the law.We have enough laws to deal with the problem,we need enforcement.

Forest Service

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in conjunction with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, has developed a Draft Policy Vision for Deer Management in Ireland. The Department now invites written submissions from interested parties and organisations in relation to this document, and deer management policy related issues in general.


In addition to written submissions, the Department also invites written expressions of interest from organisations and groups interested in participating in a future Policy Development Partnership that will assist with the further development of an agreed Deer Management Strategy for Ireland, in conjunction with the Departments concerned.


Draft Deer Management Policy Vision (pdf 537Kb)


Written submissions and expressions of interest should be sent by email to dmpolicyvision@agriculture.gov.ie
or by post to
Submission on Deer Management Policy Vision,
Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Wexford.
Please note that submissions received will be made publicly available on this website.
The Closing date for receipt of submissions is Monday, November 28, 2011

crackcrack30

 [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Deer management policy and implementation measures should maximise cost effectiveness and where appropriate make use of existing systems and resources to minimise implementation costs. (end QUOTE)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]What do u think this means??
[/FONT][/FONT]

CJhaughey

I think it means that they don't want to have expensive tag programs running and that if it can be done with the current personnel(NPWS) and systems (deer license) they have then it will be cheaper to run.
Basically they are bust and are looking to do it on the cheap, even if that means charging you me or the next fella...
Or it could mean that the problem of deer control will be done by licensed cullers and that recreational hunters will be sidelined as they don't shoot enough deer of the right type and sex to keep the population under control.
Despite the handwringing from the various deer societies there is a problem and its not being addressed.
Look at Muntjac for an example, instead of having them listed as vermin so that they can be shot by anyone anytime, the deer societies wanted them listed so you need a license to shoot them.

Sika98k

CJhaughey wrote: »

Look at Muntjac for an example, instead of having them listed as vermin so that they can be shot by anyone anytime, the deer societies wanted them listed so you need a license to shoot them.

This is not quite the position. Deer are exempted wild mammals under the meaning of the 1976 Wildlife Act. It does not stipulate red deer,fallow or sika. Muntjac are deer.

It follows then that even after the either negligent or deliberate release of muntjac that a deer licence and a rifle of suitable calibre are both together required to shoot them.

CJhaughey

Sika98k wrote: »

This is not quite the position. Deer are exempted wild mammals under the meaning of the 1976 Wildlife Act. It does not stipulate red deer,fallow or sika. Muntjac are deer.

It follows then that even after the either negligent or deliberate release of muntjac that a deer licence and a rifle of suitable calibre are both together required to shoot them.

Are you saying the deer societies made no submissions to the minister regarding Muntjac?

meathstevie

It couldn't be that hard to insert a paragraph or insert an article somewhere that states something down the lines of :

All deer with the exception of muntjac deer which can be lawfully hunted and killed with any centerfire rifle provided that the bullet diameter is at least .22 inches or larger and is of such a construction that it allows a controlled expansion of the projectile. There shall be no requirement for any permit or licence in addition to a current firearms cerificate for the destruction of muntjac deer.

Personally I believe one serious expense will have to accepted for a decent scientific survey and after that cull planning should become compulsory for all licensed hunters on their individual permissions before the season starts so NPWS can agree a cull/management plan. At the close of season the actual cull figures are sent to the local NPWS ranger for compilation and the foundations for a long term management plan are laid out for years to come.

Without a decent survey I believe it will be impossible to work towards long term sustainability.

Sika98k

CJhaughey wrote: »

Are you saying the deer societies made no submissions to the minister regarding Muntjac?

They possibly did,I dont know. The point I was making that deer,all deer, are protected wild animals under the 1976 Wildlife Act.

So there isn,t much as I see it to have them listed. Do you mean as exempted wild mammals ?

The letter that accompanied everyones deer licence this year points out that a regulation was brought into force in 2008 allowing muntjac to be hunted all year. By licenced deer hunters because we have the proper tools for the job.

If they were to be classified as vermin it means every Tom,Dick and Harry would be having a go at them with a shotgun,22 long etc,etc.

This would I,m sure you,d agree lead to a number of lost,wounded deer and probably a lot of quarry misidentification. Not something any responsible deer hunter wants to see happening.

Tackleberrywho

Not so, Grey Squirrel, is a prime example.

Grizzly 45

There is a requirement for greatly improved education and awareness concerning deer management among land use professionals, and among the general public, which will in turn enable the implementation of deer management measures in the field. Long term development of deer management capacity in Ireland will require an appropriate accredited educational framework. This can be integrated with existing 3rd level and Continuous Professional Development programmes.
 Further measures are required to support and encourage the contribution of recreational hunters in achieving desired deer management objectives, and towards integrating recreational hunting activity within a structured deer management environment.
 In developing and implementing deer management measures, the welfare and humane treatment of deer populations shall be paramount. Management measures shall conform to international best practice and standards, and comply with existing national and EU legislation regarding animal welfare, food standards and human safety.

Think that should give anyone pause for thought who stalks here.Not to mind this from.
HCAP mk2 anyone??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

DEER AND FORESTRY IN IRELAND: A REVIEW OF CURRENT

STATUS AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

A report prepared for
Woodlands of Ireland
(Coillearnacha Dúchasacha)
By
Paddy Purser MSIF M.Agr.Sc. (Forestry)
Faith Wilson BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEEM
Dr Ruth Carden B.Sc. (Hons. Zoology), Ph.D. (Science, Zoology)
November 2009
Purser Tarleton Russell Ltd.

Croghan Lodge, Woodenbridge, Avoca, Co. Wicklo

Requirements

· A quality assurance scheme for venison requires development and is a pre-requisite to the generic
promotion of wild venison to Irish markets. This new market is a key component to achieving a
sustainable deer management system in the forest estate.

· A comparative study of production costs of different meats and their nutritional / health values in Ireland is
required which will hopefully make the economic case for investment in an indigenous venison industry.

· Following a separation of recreational deer hunting and deer management functions, a recreational deer
hunting strategy requires development that will facilitate the further development of a viable recreational
deer hunting sector.

· The initiative in 2008 by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for the setting of rules for the sale of small

quantities of wild game and wild game meat should be advanced and completed.


summary of chapter10 page 24 of the report.

This whole report is on PDF file to download,and I suggest you google the above report title and download it and read it.Especially the chapter on deer hunting.We are not considerd professional or competant enough to recognise TB in its early stages BTW according these learned gentlemen and lady..:mad::rolleyes:

All in all I think a submission is in order from us if we care about not being cut out from the decision process.

crackcrack30

Why dont they just let in the Army...............Me's thinks someones lining up to cash in on this......I can see myself dropping out of this sport within a couple of years ....its in a shambles and i'm embarassed lately with all aspects of it..........cc30

marlin vs

Muntjac are an invasive species and should be treasted as vermin,not much bigger than a fox so why not eradicacate them as fast as we can before they get a foothold,it seems to me that stalker's want them here just so they have another species to hunt,it dosent surprise me that the deer society made no submission on the killing of muntjac.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

There is a requirement for greatly improved education and awareness concerning deer management among land use professionals, and among the general public, which will in turn enable the implementation of deer management measures in the field. Long term development of deer management capacity in Ireland will require an appropriate accredited educational framework. This can be integrated with existing 3rd level and Continuous Professional Development programmes.
 Further measures are required to support and encourage the contribution of recreational hunters in achieving desired deer management objectives, and towards integrating recreational hunting activity within a structured deer management environment.
 In developing and implementing deer management measures, the welfare and humane treatment of deer populations shall be paramount. Management measures shall conform to international best practice and standards, and comply with existing national and EU legislation regarding animal welfare, food standards and human safety.

Think that should give anyone pause for thought who stalks here.Not to mind this from.
HCAP mk2 anyone??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

DEER AND FORESTRY IN IRELAND: A REVIEW OF CURRENT

STATUS AND MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

A report prepared for
Woodlands of Ireland
(Coillearnacha Dúchasacha)
By
Paddy Purser MSIF M.Agr.Sc. (Forestry)
Faith Wilson BSc (Hons) CEnv MIEEM
Dr Ruth Carden B.Sc. (Hons. Zoology), Ph.D. (Science, Zoology)
November 2009
Purser Tarleton Russell Ltd.

Croghan Lodge, Woodenbridge, Avoca, Co. Wicklo

Requirements

· A quality assurance scheme for venison requires development and is a pre-requisite to the generic
promotion of wild venison to Irish markets. This new market is a key component to achieving a
sustainable deer management system in the forest estate.

· A comparative study of production costs of different meats and their nutritional / health values in Ireland is
required which will hopefully make the economic case for investment in an indigenous venison industry.

· Following a separation of recreational deer hunting and deer management functions, a recreational deer
hunting strategy requires development that will facilitate the further development of a viable recreational
deer hunting sector.

· The initiative in 2008 by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for the setting of rules for the sale of small

quantities of wild game and wild game meat should be advanced and completed.


summary of chapter10 page 24 of the report.

This whole report is on PDF file to download,and I suggest you google the above report title and download it and read it.Especially the chapter on deer hunting.We are not considerd professional or competant enough to recognise TB in its early stages BTW according these learned gentlemen and lady..:mad::rolleyes:

All in all I think a submission is in order from us if we care about not being cut out from the decision process.

Grizzly, the only reasonable comment I can make is that forest management is a forester's job and hunting of animals is a hunter's activity. The simple and straightforward conclusion is that the forester asseses the damage and the hunter culls the animals causing the damage, be it deer or squirrels or rabbits. In order to do that that the only requirement is a good working relationship between hunter and forester and agreed cull plans.

I don't see why so called "professional" deer cullers need to be involved.

And as for qualifications I believe every suitable qualification from all over the EU should be accepted. Be it the BASC stalking course, evidence of having passed the German hunting licence exams etc etc...there's no need for the Irish to try and reinvent the wheel because every time the powers that be try to do that over here something goes seriously tits up.

323

Agree with crackcrack30, it is a shambles at the moment, can fully understand why you would consider giving it up. Nor do I see the need for so called professional cullers as meathstevie says & yes any and all European qualifications should be recognized, all have been in place much longer than what we have and are based on generations of real conservation experience. But this is Ireland and we do as always have to reinvent the wheel.
Although think what Grizzly meant was that we as hunters, regardless of what we can contribute, will not be seriously considered as stake holders in this.
The feeling I have always got from the main parties involved (hope I'm wrong) in this management policy document is that when they talk about deer management they really mean deer eradication.

Traumadoc

I was involved in Australia in culling feral goats.
Many of us have multi year leases with Coilte that cost a lot, so there is insentive to promote or conserve numbers rather than cull in the true sense.



When we culled in Australia we would shoot 400 animals in 4 days. Here I shoot 4 animals a year.

Perhaps we should widen the seasons?

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

It couldn't be that hard...

...oh yes it could...
Never, ever underestimate how long these things take. Someone ever tells you "oh, it's so easy" then either it's (a) a rare beast; (b) something that requires a Minister to agree to; or (c) you need to watch your wallet and count your silverware because whomever's talking is going to find a need to use them...


...but maybe I'm just getting cynical after a decade

Sparks

On the other hand...
You guys have noticed that the Forestry Service is officially posting on boards.ie now? (Yes, that is them, we checked). It might not seem like a huge deal, but it is...

Tackleberrywho

Boy, am I glad I don't shoot coillte and have to put up with all this bickering.


Easiest way to reduce deer numbers?

STOP SOWING FORRESTRY

Simples

:cool:

Grizzly 45

323 wrote: »

Agree with crackcrack30, Although think what Grizzly meant was that we as hunters, regardless of what we can contribute, will not be seriously considered as stake holders in this.
The feeling I have always got from the main parties involved (hope I'm wrong) in this management policy document is that when they talk about deer management they really mean deer eradication.

Got it in one Bro..You should really read this document..It is a blueprint for what the PTB have in store for us.

Basically liscense the fk out of it,and get us to pay for it as usual.:mad:

Sell it as a high money making idea to the tourist boards,get in big buck paying trophy hunters and price the natives out of it.:mad:

Make sure that certain people have got cushy numbers in a govt dept with the law behind them.:mad:

That was however in 2009 the report...Now as the knife is being taken to Quangoes and NGBs and otherwise excess fat on the body politic,there is a very good chance that certain organisations might lose their positions with a semi state where they had a monopoly on training stalkers..Desperate people will do desperate things to keep their positions of power especially in Ireland.So dont be surprised if strings are yanked in the corridors of power and this mess does arrive in some shape on our doorsteps.

Im sure our submissions will make intresting door stoppers ....err...informative reading when it is considerd by our betters.:rolleyes:.After all gunowners were asked their opinions pre the CJA 2006,and what did we get out of that??SFA!! Just more restrictive legislation:mad:...
So you have to ask is this already a pre decided and done deal,and the PTB are going thru the motions to make it look democratic??:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

After all gunowners were asked their opinions pre the CJA 2006

We were?
Because I don't recall us doing much other than saying "the <insert alphabet soup here> will handle it, 'twill be grand", and then when we got to see it in 2006 for the first time, it was a nightmare and we had a lot of screaming rows with the alphabet soup reps on here, and what came of that? The same people are still running things.
edit: In fact, when I look up the thread about this here on boards, I see only six submissions being mentioned, and two of them were from me...

Feck's sake Grizzly, we have 200,000 shooters in Ireland and between them and the airsofters and the paintballers and a few others, we can't scare up 200 signatures to write down the law in one place so we can see the problems with it, and to keep a table to put that document on to discuss it with the PTB.

Honestly, some days it's very hard to think that the PTB are our worst problem...

CJhaughey

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly, some days it's very hard to think that the PTB are our worst problem...

Yup, somebody should do something about that!

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

We were?
Because I don't recall us doing much other than saying "the <insert alphabet soup here> will handle it, 'twill be grand", and then when we got to see it in 2006 for the first time, it was a nightmare and we had a lot of screaming rows with the alphabet soup reps on here, and what came of that? The same people are still running things.
edit: In fact, when I look up the thread about this here on boards, I see only six submissions being mentioned, and two of them were from me...

Feck's sake Grizzly, we have 200,000 shooters in Ireland and between them and the airsofters and the paintballers and a few others, we can't scare up 200 signatures to write down the law in one place so we can see the problems with it, and to keep a table to put that document on to discuss it with the PTB.

Honestly, some days it's very hard to think that the PTB are our worst problem...

All very true Sparks..However when I mention "we" I mean us happy bunch here on Boards.After all "we" do claim occasionally to be the most livielist and most up to date for info section of the Irish shooting community.Read by both DOJ and AGS as well and now the Irish Forestry Service.
So we must be doing somthing right.
So in the true sense as we have a good repersentation of the shooting community here "we" were asked our opinions..Now,if we as a shooting community left it to our revelant or irrevelant,as the case may be alphabet soup organisations to sort this out and werent arsed in enganging on it on a individual and personal level.Who do we have to blame??The PTB took proably as well this is the most disorganised shower,so we can legislate without fear of this divided lot.

As there is rarely any feedback on how things progress once people make submissions to govt depts.You have to excuse my ignorance as the lack of knowledge on what was taken from them or done with the advice or ideas.All I got back from mine was a thank you note via email.
But I feel alot of our ideas were turned against us or used in a half baked way[EG the three year liscense..Why not like the UK for five,and put on a plastic card?And why two pics that are never used by AGS?]
So simply put,why should this be any different??We put up ideas and they are used against us.

We just cant trust ourselves in the shooting community of Ireland to organise a pissup in St James Gate,when it comes to defending our sport.Or for the PTB to play on a level pitch as they always know whats better for us,once they have read our suggestions.:(

PS How many signatures do we need for that petition to be accepted or even get somone to accept it?

Brian5

where are muntjac deer in ireland????

Forest Service

Good Morning to you all,

Boards.ie hunting/shooting members may be interested in this recent development.

Following completion of public consultation on the Draft Deer Management Policy Vision (2nd Draft, September 2011) (pdf 859Kb) in November 2011, the Inter Agency Deer Policy Group (IADPG) has revised and updated the Draft Deer Management Policy Vision to take account of the submissions received during this initial consultation.

The IADGP now invites written submissions from interested parties and organisations on the Draft Deer Management Policy Vision (2nd Draft, September 2011) (pdf 859Kb).


Submissions by email to dmpolicyvision@agriculture.gov.ie
by post to Deer Management Policy Vision,
Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine,
Johnstown Castle Estate,
Co. Wexford.


Closing date for receipt of submissions: 4pm, Friday 12th October 2012
Please note that submissions received may be published on this website www.agriculture.ie.


Many thanks to those of you who previously responded.

meathstevie

I suggest that one does not try to reinvent the wheel but looks at structures in place in other western European countries for decades and adapts it to the Irish context where permissions are of a lot more fluid nature than in Western Europe where sole permission are the norm.

BryanL

It sets the tone early, Shooting Deer is going to get expensive and difficult
Quoting Draft deer management policy vision ( I see loads of money)
"Deer management policy must recognise that, in many contexts, deer are an important and valuable resource in their own right, "

Lets make some money, money for mandatory training, lets make them do it every year or 2? Money for a local deer manager, money for mobile larders, money for tags, money for old rope?

"The system could be initially funded by the agencies concerned in the initial
start up-phase.
Fees for training,
DHL fees,
DMU or DMAA membership fees, (separate fees in every area you hunt )
and commercial operator fees would generate revenue that can in turn be
used to administer the system.
This fund could in turn cover provision of deer manager expenses, training and IT infrastructure. "

Sparks

Mod note: merging three threads on this topic

wexfordman

BryanL wrote: »

It sets the tone early, Shooting Deer is going to get expensive and difficult
Quoting Draft deer management policy vision ( I see loads of money)
"Deer management policy must recognise that, in many contexts, deer are an important and valuable resource in their own right, "

Lets make some money, money for mandatory training, lets make them do it every year or 2? Money for a local deer manager, money for mobile larders, money for tags, money for old rope?

"The system could be initially funded by the agencies concerned in the initial
start up-phase.
Fees for training,
DHL fees,
DMU or DMAA membership fees, (separate fees in every area you hunt )
and commercial operator fees would generate revenue that can in turn be
used to administer the system.
This fund could in turn cover provision of deer manager expenses, training and IT infrastructure. "

That's how I read it too. It seems that shooting and hunting is about to become an.expensive and exclusive pursuit!

I already pay gun.licence fees, local gun club fees etc that cost me a 300 quid a year before I even start, and now deer licence fees hcap type courses, more gun club fees with the.proposed.local deer hunting clubs, that 300 could be doubled!!


This looks to be very bad news.

Grizzly 45

Have you all sent in submissions on this then??No point B&M here.They need to see it on paper in there.
But I agree, jobs for somone and a load of fanciful costly ideas being pushed by an elite group well beyond their original remit and worried that if their main sponsor is sold by the Govt,they will be sitting high and dry without a lucrative income.

CJhaughey

4.4.4 is the clincher for me.
Policy should also support strong measures aimed at developing professional deer management capacity within the sector, including training and development of deer census and control personnel, and direct involvement of the forestry sector in the development of local deer management groups (See Appendix 4). Policy measures aimed at generating enhanced revenue streams from recreational deer hunting, within a structured deer management environment should also be supported.

I read this as make them pay, if they can't or won't pay then we will get some rich continental shooters that will pay.

I'll be making a submission for sure.

thelurcher

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Have you all sent in submissions on this then??No point B&M here.They need to see it on paper in there.

Would submissions by individuals not be lost in the noise?
Would you be better off contacting the Wild Deer Association of Ireland for example? They have been keeping members informed as to what's going on and have been looking for feedback.

I agree with BryanL - this is in part a money making scam.

I also can't get my head around how this is going to work from a permission perspective. Will land owners loose the right to grant permission to who they want to?
Will having a tag and being a member of the local club grant you de facto rights over the whole area - I don't think so?
Will we end up with a situation where large areas have no deer management taking place because the guy with permission isn't accepted into a club or more likely CAN'T AFFORD TO JOIN and the farmer won't allow anyone else in?

It's a pity this process seems to have been hijacked by a few me feiners.

A driving factor behind this was to combat the rise in poaching but I'm not a bit ashamed to say that that's exactly what I'm going to have to become.
I won't be lamping or selling to game dealers by the van load, I won't shoot where I don't have permission or out of season but I won't play ball with this as it stands.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=thelurcher;81032107]Would submissions by individuals not be lost in the noise?
Would you be better off contacting the Wild Deer Association of Ireland for example? They have been keeping members informed as to what's going on and have been looking for feedback.

Well,its better to put in a whisper rather thsn be totally silent
Thing is,I personally belive these organisations here are part of the problem rather than a solution.As they have a vested intrest in making some sort of money out of this somwhere.
After readig the draft , anyone can see they are trying to get this onto some form of EU standard[a big mistake again] and make an income out of it.
Pertinent issues could be addressed here but arent.



I also can't get my head around how this is going to work from a permission perspective. Will land owners loose the right to grant permission to who they want to?
Will having a tag and being a member of the local club grant you de facto rights over the whole area - I don't think so?
Will we end up with a situation where large areas have no deer management taking place because the guy with permission isn't accepted into a club or more likely CAN'T AFFORD TO JOIN and the farmer won't allow anyone else in?

It's a pity this process seems to have been hijacked by a few me feiners.

A driving factor behind this was to combat the rise in poaching but I'm not a bit ashamed to say that that's exactly what I'm going to have to become.
I won't be lamping or selling to game dealers by the van load, I won't shoot where I don't have permission or out of season but I won't play ball with this as it stands.

As if any of this will stop mass harvesting...All the harvesters will do is simply continue as normal,do all the required tests etc and go and continue on their merry way,selling to unscrouplous dealers,who are a major part of the problem.Were they removed from the chain and people allowed to sell directly you would see the true market price of venison appear.Which on average in Europe is 1.50 per KG +/-.With all the responsibility of tracing.

You want to solve most problems in Ireland.Take the easy money making aspect out of the equation and it becomes a very simply cured problem.

meathstevie

If the local management groups or whatever you want to call them would become mandatory then I believe it is absolutely necessary for the NARGC to step up to the plate.

I know that the NARGC isn't flawless but in a way it's like the GAA with a club in every parish members of all walks of life and a lot of clubs already have the relationship with relevant local landowners and given their geographical spread also likely to be the only private organisation capable of participating in a national survey with any level of credibility.

wexfordman

meathstevie wrote: »

If the local management groups or whatever you want to call them would become mandatory then I believe it is absolutely necessary for the NARGC to step up to the plate.

I know that the NARGC isn't flawless but in a way it's like the GAA with a club in every parish members of all walks of life and a lot of clubs already have the relationship with relevant local landowners and given their geographical spread also likely to be the only private organisation capable of participating in a national survey with any level of credibility.

How would that work exactly. My local gun club which I am a member of had nothing to do with deer hunting as there are no deer in it's area. Does that mean I have to join another club outside of my area?

BryanL

wexfordman wrote: »

How would that work exactly. My local gun club which I am a member of had nothing to do with deer hunting as there are no deer in it's area. Does that mean I have to join another club outside of my area?

That is what's being proposed.

You'd have to join a club in every and any area you have permission to shoot deer.

wexfordman

BryanL wrote: »

wexfordman wrote: »

How would that work exactly. My local gun club which I am av member of had nothing to do with deer hunting as there are no deer in it's area. Does that mean I have to join another club outside of my area?

That is what's being proposed.

You'd have to join a club in every and any area you have permission to shoot deer.

Holy shot!!! I've got permissions in cork and Kerry and poss some in se, and I've got my local gin club too!

That's insane!

Was googling this crowd, how are they appointed ?

CJhaughey

wexfordman wrote: »

Was googling this crowd, how are they appointed ?

Like all the best tyrants they are self appointed.

J. Ramone

BryanL wrote: »

That is what's being proposed.

You'd have to join a club in every and any area you have permission to shoot deer.

That would be very interesting. It's quite common for shooting neighbours not to get on. There could be some very interesting "club" meetings unless there is to be a club for every landholding.

Management groups would simply not work where multiple private shooting rights exist. False reporting would be rife and there would be strongly opposing views as to what the appropriate cull would be.

This system may suit syndicates but will make thins very difficult and expensive for those who shoot on casual permission.

meathstevie

wexfordman wrote: »

How would that work exactly. My local gun club which I am a member of had nothing to do with deer hunting as there are no deer in it's area. Does that mean I have to join another club outside of my area?

I was refering to the NARGC as being already in a position to set up these so called management groups if they ever became mandatory and cutting off folks trying to monoplise the field when it came to it. All in all the NARGC has represented the vast majority of hunters in Ireland fairly well over the years and by the looks of it this situation could develop into something they're quite experienced at as an organisation.

wexfordman

Hi,

The responses to the draft deer management proposals have to bein by friday, ,and I've been trying to see if I can put together my own response as I am sure many others have also. I received an email last week outlining the main points, so thought this would be a good starting point for me. Being new to stalking this year, I am at a bit of a disadvantage, so want to make sure I put something reasonable back, so perhaps this thread could specifically address ideas on a response people could submit ? I know a thread already exists on this, but I thought perhaps one addressed to specifically create and inform regards a response might be worth it.

Anyway, here are the main points of concern that were raised in the mail, with my thoughts in red for my response.

3.5 Policy must also recognise that current strong market values for venison have led to an
upsurge in both illegal deer hunting and illegal trade in venison. Strong measures are
required at all levels to prevent the introduction of illegally sourced venison to markets

Implementation and enforcement of existing policy to target anti poaching measures should be the first port of call. This should include stronger measures by the authorities, including gardai and revenue commissioners. It is difficult to understandt the requirement for additional measures to restrict illegal hunting and trade when existing measures are not used suffeceintly or implemented.

In addition, support from the legitimate hunting community should be encouraged, including measures such as confidential reporting of suspected poaching/poachers and/or illegal trade.

6.4 Separate licensing systems should be developed to distinguish licensed recreational
hunting from licensed commercial hunting to aid the regulation of trade in venison and
prevent trade in illegally hunted meats. Provision of a valid tax clearance certificate and
declarations should be a requirement for commercial hunting licences

As for first point, enforcement and implementation of existing measures should be suffeceint. Seperate licences would do little to alleviate or discourage those who currently do not abide by existing laws and restrictions. A poacher will continue to poach, and a game dealer will continue to do so as long as they feel safe and unthreatened!

6.5 The current system whereby DHL (Deer Hunting Licenses) applicants supply details of hunting permissions, places
an unnecessary burden on the issuing authority, in terms of administration. It is strongly
open to misuse, and as an annual requirement, is in itself a potential barrier to consistent
year-to –year deer management on lands concerned

Ive not put anything in here yet

6.12 Policy should address other firearms issues as they relate to deer management, such
as the issue of appropriate firearms calibres for smaller invasive species, and the use of
shotguns, tranquiliser guns, and appropriate training for personnel using such firearms.
This may require amendments to existing firearms legislation. In this regard, the use of
vehicles, night-shooting, trapping, tranquilisation and other control methods and s
associated technique

This statement is very open, and requires some clarification before any meaningful interpretation can be given. Firearms policy with regards calibre required etc should always be clear and concise, however firearms training, safety and use is not an exclusive issue to deer hunting, and should be addressed under existing firearms legislation only.

7.3.4 All lands, including forest properties, Coillte deer leases and licensed deer hunting on private lands within DMUs would be included in the overall deer management strategy for that DMU. This would be supported in law by a
suitable statutory instrument issued under the aegis of the Forestry Acts, or under the Wildlife Acts

Ive not put anything in here yet


7.3.8 Deer Managers could be drawn, but not exclusively, from existing personnel within DAFM, NPWS and from the DAFM registered foresters list on a
voluntary basis. All personnel would be subject to an appropriate code of
conduct All such personnel would be trained to a recognised standard using All such personnel would be trained to a recognised standard using a curriculum developed jointly by DAFM/NPWS

Training programmes for all aspects should be standardised and uniform, but not restricted to be provided by any one organisation.

7.3.12 Recreational hunters operating in DMU’s would be allocated tags according to target harvest levels. Each hunter would be allowed an agreed minimum quantity of tags without charge at the beginning of the hunting season, based on the allocated cull. Unused tags must be returned and accounted for at the end of the season. Tags would consist of trophy tags, which wouldhave a fee attached, and hind cull tags which would have no chargeattached. Additional tags over the allocated cull limit would carry a
commercial fee

The DMU sytem for licencing is unworkable, and complex beyond understanding. Deer hunters regularly operate legitimately across many and wide areas, indluding seperate counties, and even provinces. To have large numbers of deer hunters requiring to be registered under numerous DMU's complicates matters to a large extent, and again, does little to resolve existing problems, such as illegal hunting. In fact creating a cumbersome, costly and complex system is likely to drive legitimate hunters away from legitimate activities.

7.3.17 Recreational deer hunters would operate at DMU level through a club
system, analogous to existing current structures such as district gun clubs. To obtain a licence and tags to hunt in a particular DMU, hunters will have to
join the club for that particular DMU. Clubs would operate under the aegis of
a suitable national body. DMU hunters will be responsible for anti-poaching
measures within their own catchment, under the guidance of the DM and in
conjunction with the relevant authorities NPWS/Garda Siochana.

The DMU system seems unworkable for deer hunting, again considering the spread of regions within which current legitimate hunters can operate in, across county and province. Licenced hunters today regularly operate across multiple large areas, and frequently are not localised, or have local ties and contacts to areas they hunt in beyond the permissions they have.

Requiring hunters to register to multiple DMUs is unworkable, and places a huge admistrative burden and cost to both the organisation responsible and also the hunters themselves!


7.3.19 The system could be initially funded by the agencies concerned in the initial start up-phase. Fees for training, DHL fees, DMU or DMAA membership fees, and commercial operator fees would generate revenue that can in turn be used to administer the system. For example, with 5,000 registered hunters,a €100 DHL fee would generate €500,000. This fund could in turn cover provision of deer manager expenses, training and IT infrastructure

This point in particular creates significant concern among many legitimate deer hunters. Considering current costs for hunters, including existing gunclub memberships, insurances, firearms licences etc, the above additional costs are not pallatable. Based on the above example, it could be assumed that the proposed measures would place a cost of 250 euros or more for DHL + Multiple DMU membership fees on hunters.

The mention of trainig fees also needs significant clarification, as this could have a very wide interpretation. What levels of training, what requirements, is this training required, enforeceable, repetitive ? Who provides the training, is it to be delviered and controlled exclusively, resulting in restrictive practices, or is it to be provided by numerous qualifed and approved organisations.

Without more emphasis and clarification placed on training requirements, this aspect, should be ommitted from the draft as it is curently meaningless.




Right, so dont eat me, this is just thinking on my part, and I know I may have interpreted much incorrectly or am perhaps somewhat misinformed, hence the point of the thread.

Would be good if we could see if some form of general opinion can be formulated or discussed to allwo people inform themselves and get an opinion before submitting a response to the policy.

One other point, i do think if there are 5000 licences granted every year, I think perhaps the communication of these drafts should at least be presented to all licence holders. 5K is not a huge amount of people to invovle in a discussion.