section 42 debate

TriggerPL

:DRight lads poor old browning has had his post jacked enough .

so discussion on section 42 . reasons for sections 42 and way a farmer can prevent this from happening with out the use of a gun .

NO ONE CARES IF IT MORRALLY BOTHERS YOU SO DONT BRING IT UP AND AS THE MODS POINTED OUT ALL POSTS THEY SEE AS ATTACKS WILL BE DELETED .


I agree with the option of a 42 when used in the right manner and u stick with the numbers your allowed cull . my reason being comming from a farming back round im aware of the damage these animals can do to land fencing and livestock . deers fencing was brought up in another post , deer fencing is super expencive for a farmer and barb wire doesnt keep them out , there is no grants availible for farmers to fence and ive personally seen cows lay against electric fence where you can hear it snapping of them so id say it has little affect on a deer .

i personally know farmers that recon they could feed up to eight xtra cattle a year on there farms if it was not for deer , for people not in the know thats about 8 grand a year give or take in current market.

also in meadow if deer eat an acre of meadow that is about 10 bales of hay , at a cost of €25 a bale €250 an acre been lost .

try and keep it to a gud discussion lads for once

doyle61

One farmer where I have permission put up a fence last year with 600v going through it, deer broke it within two weeks. Another permission ( cousins farm) they put the fence height higher then normal for deer to go under it. Normally this works untill they spooke and then it's bye bye fence. Section 42's are there for a reason, and a very good one at that but they do get abused throughout the country. If you have a permission its up to you to maintain a healthy "herd" of deer, while at the same time keeping numbers in check, so if you want to take all the best deer that's your own lookout, your "herd" quality will go down in the long run, but your fulfilling the agreement and keeping the numbers down so farmers happy. For me deer hunting as a whole is about selective culling, that might be taking a prime stag out of the herd but that's the way it goes sometimes. In short yes section 42's are important but it has to be used right and not only reduce the numbers for the farmer but should be used to promote the overall health of the herd and that way everyone's a winner

tomcat220t

I know a few farmers who got sections this year .
Seems to be less sections been given out this year than other years ,which is good ,imo.
I know Mr browning well enough to say, he is a sound guy and takes his shooting with a good heart to wildlife!
Having said that i also know of shooters who would take full advantage of these sections to continue making money in the off season !
Thats a big down side of given out sections when deer numbers are clearly down .
In light of the low deer numbers i believe sections should be reviewed or even suspended and if farmers were to prove deer damage they could be compensated .
Maybe even grants for better ,higher fencing !
Regards ,Tomcat.

browning 12 bore

jaysus i reallly started a storm here but sure as a mod said to me its good to put theses discussions out there
and thanks there trigger poor browning is ok now lol lol lol lol

dto001

Section 42's need to be in place for obvious reasons but instead of just saying you can shoot x amount of deer tags(or something similar) should be given ( only for section 42's) then it can be controlled a bit better so at least if a person abusing it is stopped then if there is no tag they can get done for it!!

moby30

Clearly a devicive subject here so ill just give my reasons for supporting it:
I think its very straight forward and easy to say for anybody here that there are no two Farms/Permissions/lands or whatever you want to call them the same so its wrong to talk about section 42's in a general way.
I have seen suggestions as only using a section 42 as a last resort and again I would support this where possible but as above everywhere is different and so not always possible.
At the end of the day its the land owners decision and really has nothing to do with us. The problem here is that if this land owner has given you permission written or not to shoot land which helped you get your firearms licence and then your deer hunting licence asks you for help as there is damage being done etc etc etc - What do you say? If you say No its most likely "Good Bye". If I question his methods, fencing, ethics-anything -Im gone too.
Another post recommended using "Rock salt" fired from a shot gun to scare them off the land Which is interesting and I can think of a few places where this will work but again not all-If I used my permissions as an example all you would be doing is shifting the problem onto a neighbours. In relation to rangers they in my opinion should be far more involved but like everything today the country is F***ed and theres not enough money or resources bla blah blah.
Overall i am of the opinion that Sections are not given out freely and without proper inspection and would be totally against any animals being shot for the sake it-esp a healthy stag.
Finally I will leave it that IMHO ILLEGAL?HUNTING?POACHING is the biggest threat to a healthy deer population in this country not the RESPONSIBLE LAW-ABIDING hunters.
Finally Finally :rolleyes: It would be interesting to know what deer numbers are like around the country this year compared to last??

4200fps

Section 42 is granted for reasons to reduce numbers for complaining land owners. There's lots out there who would do anything for a section 42. If you have one you got it for a reason and that is to cull deer. Personally if I had a section 42 and it was for the meat I wouldn't be eating a sick deer.

garv123

Some of the ditches around here are so wrecked from that cows can walk through them. How do people know the said deer was the best there?
We saw a heard of 10 stags last year, and the year before in the snow and they were all fine big heads on them with great antlers ( fallow) and 3 of them were shot on separate occasions and they had fine antlers, but they weren't the biggest in the herd.
I agree some people do abuse section 42's and use them an a way to shoot deer everywhere instead of on the specific land.

If it was a hind he shot people would be giving out that it could of had a calf left somewhere.. No winning sometimes


also numbers were great around here last year, my father cycles a lot around the area and see's loads of them around. People were telling him there's none around, He just laughs cos he knows these lads wouldn't walk to where they are.

deeksofdoom

garv123 wrote: »

Some of the ditches around here are so wrecked from that cows can walk through them. How do people know the said deer was the best there?
We saw a heard of 10 stags last year, and the year before in the snow and they were all fine big heads on them with great antlers ( fallow) and 3 of them were shot on separate occasions and they had fine antlers, but they weren't the biggest in the herd.
I agree some people do abuse section 42's and use them an a way to shoot deer everywhere instead of on the specific land.

If it was a hind he shot people would be giving out that it could of had a calf left somewhere.. No winning sometimes


also numbers were great around here last year, my father cycles a lot around the area and see's loads of them around. People were telling him there's none around, He just laughs cos he knows these lads wouldn't walk to where they are.

Fallow
A male fallow is a buck not a stag
A female fallow is a doe not a hind

garv123

deeksofdoom wrote: »

Fallow
A male fallow is a buck not a stag
A female fallow is a doe not a hind

I know that, just a habit of saying stag.. No one in this county ever calls them a buck.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=TriggerPL;80175079]:DI agree with the option of a 42 when used in the right manner and u stick with the numbers your allowed cull . my reason being comming from a farming back round im aware of the damage these animals can do to land fencing and livestock . deers fencing was brought up in another post , deer fencing is super expencive for a farmer and barb wire doesnt keep them out , there is no grants availible for farmers to fence and ive personally seen cows lay against electric fence where you can hear it snapping of them so id say it has little affect on a deer .

Well heres a thing..If you were on the Continent,that would be your only options to prevent deer from taking out a plantation or crop.Wire or Electric fence in the off season.Go and complain to the local rangers about deer eating a farmers crops,they would look at you and laugh you out of the office!!!

Over there if you are the hunter and have a lease you are responsible for any crop damage or plantation damage done by your game .So maybe that is an incentive to do wiring and fencing properly,and make sure it is maintained by the hunter???

Nor do they put up eight ft single strand fences ,it is a triangular shape appx 6ft high but appx 4/5 ft wide at the base.Seems deer have more of a problem with distance than height in jumps.

Deer BTW are sheer intellectuals compared to cows or goats who are ,IMO just plain thick!
Seen goats chew on an electric fence even while they are getting shocked.Nor are they as thick skinned as cattle,so yes it does work against them.Check out youtube,for deer and electric fences.Plenty of videos of them getting smacked by fences.

"No Grants." Well, I think we will let that one go;):p.But funnily enough when I put in our plantation of hardwood ,I do remember there being money there [if needed ]for deer fencing...So you have to ask why wasnt the problem recognised and dealt with in the planning stage??

As for the numbers and to control them..well, who are we to belive??
Last few years there were people giving out here that there were way too many,then last year,everone is bemoaning the fact that they are too few,and blaming illegal game harvesters.Has anyone got 2011 seasons stats yet??Unless we actually have a deer census done here we will lurch from feast or famine complaints on deer numbers.

TriggerPL

Grant is a there for the person planting trees on his land not for the farmer that his land neighbours .

I'm aware that in other country's the hunter is liable for damage done to crop . It common practice with wild boar .

But would you compensate a farmer here for the damage and you would find if ya had to , then you would be bringing as much deer as possible to the game dealer to cover cost ! Grizzly this is not directed at you personally

Finally a thread that on topic and interest to read

garv123

How much would you be talking about grizz for one of them fences to cover say 100m?

Grizzly 45

@Garv..How much is a roll of standard mesh or chain link?
Its nothing special..Its just laid out in a different pattern than our straight up std 6/8ft deer fencing.
Picture two poles at a 45 degree angle with the mesh secured to the outside pole.Usually they are made of Larch or some other straight weather resistant timber and arent even dug into the ground.
If you want to be extra sure,you can run a roll along the inside fence as well.But its very rarely done.

Done right they can last generations with minimal maintence.maybe walk once a year,and replace an odd rotten set of poles.

For Red deer the normal anti deer fence should be appx 1.8 to 2.4 meters high6 /9ft
The sloped fence is no more than 61/2 feet high.Or what a roll of mesh is.

@Trigger,Not at all,no worries.:cool:
Its a common practise right down to the damage rabbits and hares can cause as well!!
OTOH if we did have to compensate the farmer,would it
[a] Maybe change our attitude to the concept of the deer being a valuable commodity to us that maybe the head might be worth more [to some] than the actual meat?Which TBH we are making slightly more than average EU hunter on per kilo.Yet there are people who could possibly pay 14 times the carcass weight for a stalk on a decent animal in Ireland?
After all dont we hold the EU record for a sika deer out of Donegal??

b] We start to realise that hunting is alot more than just going out on Sept 1st til Feb 28th and shooting a few animals for the pot,or euro.
And that if we dont want a massive compo bill it muight be in our best intrests to make sure the fences are in good shape,or that we know exactly where thy are coming from so we can put a good tree stand in the area for a clear shot for our paying hunters??

In short,everything in hunting is interconected,and like everything nowadays the wild game has to pay its way too.If we did our side right,convinced the farmers that deer arent pests,but actual potential money makers walking into their landand that they could possibly make more than two store bullocks on one deer,if handled right.I think a Sect 42 would become very much a last resort affair.

One thing,can somone talk us through the exact procedure for aquiring a sect 42,and what evidence exactly is used by NPWS rangers to justify the decision?? Is it based on damage,amount of tracks?Counted deer in the area???

sikahuntejack

i think the section 42 should be stopped deer numbers are not what they were 10 years ago come september and october we will have plenty of hunters on this site complaining about low deer numbers are on there hunting grounds there is more deer permits being giveing out than ever before the season is long enought without deer being shot in the summer months im out most evening calling around to the farmers whos land i shoot deer on most of them keep cattle and not 1 farmer has ever asked me to get a section 42 to shoot deer durning the summer months to me all game should be left alone when the shooting season ends.Is it that some hunters just need to be out shooting deer all year round:mad: :mad:

meathstevie

Section 42's can be a good tool in serious problem areas but when abused it's not much better than legalised poaching.

Am I making a mistake that section 42's are applicable for animals other than deer as well ?

moby30

Did you ever consider that the reason you were not asked is because there is no need for one??????
Are you implying that the "hunter" is applying for the section if they want to shoot deer all year round? Because as I'm sure you know that's not how it works.
I have only ever culled 1 animal over the last 5 years on a section. I only shoot deer for the pot so don't shoot very many during the season and am not interested in shooting deer out of season. But I have seen and understand where no other method is possible that a section is the only option.
With regard fencing and even leaving out the cost which CAN be huge and not just a case of buying a few rolls - if a farmer does go to that expense and it does prevent deer coming onto his land then where do you think they go? Most likely onto the neighbouring farm- so say he goes and does the same and so on and so on - where does it end and again where do the deer go- you just shift the problem on.
Lads I'm sorry and not havin a personal go at anyone and also want to stress that I am totally against any sort of unnecessary killing of deer and anything I say has come from first hand experience- and not saying anyone opposing it doesn't just puttin my argument forward.

sikahuntejack

The more i think about it the farmers who land i shoot dont need section 42 cause im doing what they want keeping the deer numbers at a level that they are not causeing large amounts of damage 22 deer i shot last season on land covering 5 different farms in wicklow the bottom line is if the farmer allows u to shoot his land its up to you to keep the deer numbers at a level that keeps the farmers happy then there will be no need for section 42

moby30

sikahuntejack wrote: »

The more i think about it the farmers who land i shoot dont need section 42 cause im doing what they want keeping the deer numbers at a level that they are not causeing large amounts of damage 22 deer i shot last season on land covering 5 different farms in wicklow the bottom line is if the farmer allows u to shoot his land its up to you to keep the deer numbers at a level that keeps the farmers happy then there will be no need for section 42

That's a very good point and backed up by me saying that I don't shoot very many myself. I am not the only shooter on all my permissions but is there then an argument that there are more deer on my permission and that by using a section out of season I would only be removing the problem deer where you are over shooting? We can go around in circles on this.
Don't get me wrong I have no problem with how many deer your shooting and hope you never knock on the door on my permissions or I'll be sent packin:)
The whole point I am making is that every case is uniquely different and cannot be spoken about in general terms.

alderdeer

sikahuntejack wrote: »

i think the section 42 should be stopped deer numbers are not what they were 10 years ago come september and october we will have plenty of hunters on this site complaining about low deer numbers are on there hunting grounds there is more deer permits being giveing out than ever before the season is long enought without deer being shot in the summer months im out most evening calling around to the farmers whos land i shoot deer on most of them keep cattle and not 1 farmer has ever asked me to get a section 42 to shoot deer durning the summer months to me all game should be left alone when the shooting season ends.Is it that some hunters just need to be out shooting deer all year round:mad: :mad:

I dont see what deer numbers around the country have to do with section 42s being granted and what its got to do with hunters complaining come september, Its completely upto the landowner whos property and livelyhood is being damaged. Ive had many 42s over the last few years on the same peice of ground and purely because deer love young saplings and its absolutely heartbreaking to walk a plantation in the month of may june and see a few hundred young trees with the tops eatin off them and think that for fcuk sake ill have to wait another 3 months to try sort this out.
As for fencing it looks like the dept of agri would rather take the gamble that its easier control the deer than spend €40-€50,000 fencing 20 or so acres.
btw every section 42 i got i had to contact the local NPWS ranger and inform him/her that i was having a problem with deer, from there the ranger would call to inspect the fresh damage and see what amount of damage there was and if they thougjht it could continue or not, for a farmer thats the frustating part, then if they agree with the extent of damage and after alot of enquirees about the amount ond type of deer they agree to submit the application with the names and licence numbers of the nominated stalkers (farmer nominates the stalker) to the head office and you wait for the letter to inform of it being granted and how long and what amount of deer they agree to cull.
Thats my experience anyway;)

TriggerPL

sikahuntejack wrote: »

The more i think about it the farmers who land i shoot dont need section 42 cause im doing what they want keeping the deer numbers at a level that they are not causeing large amounts of damage 22 deer i shot last season on land covering 5 different farms in wicklow the bottom line is if the farmer allows u to shoot his land its up to you to keep the deer numbers at a level that keeps the farmers happy then there will be no need for section 42

That is a very gud point when I go my permission this year the farmer ask me a question am I a stag shooter or a deer shooter , my reply was I'm a hunter and if you have a problem with what ever then I'm here to help . I ended up with 120 acres to my self because he told the others to go packing , lads were comming in shooting a stags and in one case cutting the head off and leaving the rest in the forestry .

So question is are we doing enough to keep farmers happy ?

sikahuntejack

TriggerPL wrote: »

That is a very gud point when I go my permission this year the farmer ask me a question am I a stag shooter or a deer shooter , my reply was I'm a hunter and if you have a problem with what ever then I'm here to help . I ended up with 120 acres to my self because he told the others to go packing , lads were comming in shooting a stags and in one case cutting the head off and leaving the rest in the forestry .

So question is are we doing enough to keep farmers happy ?

I agree with you 100% had farmers say the same thing hunters spending many of evening looking for a big trophy stag and not shooying does or prickets

moby30

What I get is that everyone shows up to shoot the deer during the season and are not to be seen when they want vermin shot or need a section 42. For every argument there's a counter argument.

Grizzly 45

moby30 wrote: »

With regard fencing and even leaving out the cost which CAN be huge and not just a case of buying a few rolls - if a farmer does go to that expense and it does prevent deer coming onto his land then where do you think they go? Most likely onto the neighbouring farm- so say he goes and does the same and so on and so on - where does it end and again where do the deer go- you just shift the problem on.

Not havin a poke at you Moby or anyone else,but I think thats a fundamental problem in all this.People seeing the deer as a problem that needs to be shifted.
And I agree that deer can do tremendous damage to a new plantation,but so can HARES...So by rights the first question I'd have to be asking again is why wasnt the fencing done right in the first place if both species are known to be in the area??
Do the job right first time or dont do it at all.As after all,if you know there is a threat,and do a "ah shure it will do " attitude and just put up a 3 strand wire fence and expect it to do the job of keeping out deer..You are only fooling yourself in the long run...

As for shifting the problem,whats to say the guy down the road will see them as a problem?He might actually want them on his land as maybe he has a heap of briars on his land and the deer will eat for free all his briars[Which they love]..So he might be able to rent his land out to people who are willing to pay to shoot deer if they know there is a good chance of a decent head..By telling them ,come around in the off season ,see for yourselves whats walking around here,and then decide if you want to pay 1000 PA for the lease.
There are no right answers and no wrong answers in this,its all relative and quantative to an individual situation.

If say Farmer A wants them "gone",there are plenty of cheap methods to shift deer out of a place.They are smart enough to know to move on,anything that makes enough noise,light and pain will get them out of an area.Does Farmer A care what Farmer B or C thinks is a problem to his neighbours,his problem is sorted, the deer are gone!!

for fencing it looks like the dept of agri would rather take the gamble that its easier control the deer than spend €40-€50,000 fencing 20 or so acres.

What is that wire made of???Solid platinium and 24 karat gold stakes????:eek::eek::eek:.
But then again this being Ireland ,price over and out any job that involves a Govt dept,or done by a Govt dept...sure they are loaded!!:rolleyes: or let it be the taxpayers problem!!:rolleyes:Those kind of prices and that kind of thinking is what gotthis country into this mess in the first place.

btw every section 42 i got i had to contact the local NPWS ranger and inform him/her that i was having a problem with deer, from there the ranger would call to inspect the fresh damage and see what amount of damage there was and if they thougjht it could continue or not, for a farmer thats the frustating part, then if they agree with the extent of damage and after alot of enquirees about the amount ond type of deer they agree to submit the application with the names and licence numbers of the nominated stalkers (farmer nominates the stalker) to the head office and you wait for the letter to inform of it being granted and how long and what amount of deer they agree to cull.
Thats my experience anyway

From what I gather then,they dont suggest between the damage survey and the amounts to be culled,any" less leathl "option.IE repair the fences,frighten them out of the area,etc??
It seems to be a extreme polarity situation either there is too much damage and that justifies a sect 42 or not enough damage and no sect 42?

That is a very gud point when I go my permission this year the farmer ask me a question am I a stag shooter or a deer shooter , my reply was I'm a hunter and if you have a problem with what ever then I'm here to help . I ended up with 120 acres to my self because he told the others to go packing , lads were comming in shooting a stags and in one case cutting the head off and leaving the rest in the forestry .

So question is are we doing enough to keep farmers happy

A wise farmer and a wiser reply!:)
Total blakgaurdding that !! Just "rack hunting" and leaving a valueable asset rotting in the forest.:mad:If you cant eat it ,or sell it or are too lazy to drag it out,dont shoot it!

Keeping the farmer happy,obviously a pirority.. But it does require some education too on our part.Sure shoot foxes,etc or whatever is bothering them,but you have to tell them that nature abhors a vaccum,and that sooner or later there will be deer back in the land again,and that you cant make his property deer free for ever.
You can keep it in check,but never totaly eliminate it.And TBH as a hunter why would you want to??;)

Knucklebreaker

Hares are big problem, just biting trees in half,
You can get section 42 for them as well as far as i know.

I think it comes down to the situation in question, no circumstances will be the same, good communication with other hunters can play a vital role. But with the system in place and scarcity of deer the attitude of if i don't shoot it now that other lad will- can take over. Its a real pity as well manged deer would produce healthier deer with better trophies. I think the problem can come to education and at the end of the day some chap can get a licence and go shooting with no education on controlling a healthy heard. This can lead to under educated "experienced shooters" then passing on information to other shooters wanting to learn. I would really like to see the whole system over hauled and a complete system introduced.
Stricter conditions and training being mandatory would be a start.
I believe if lads are researching online and discussing / debating section 42s we are already speaking to the "good experienced hunters" but all it takes is one clown as we all know.