Vermin control under derogation

g00167015

An article in this month's shooters digest mentions that derogations for control of vermin birds are effectively not worth the paper they are written on, as regards suitable methods of control.

If not to allow the control of certain wild birds (all birds are protected) where they pose a threat to crops/livestock/feed troughs or represent a public health risk etc......., then WHAT exactly is the purpose of making derogations at all in the first place?

Answers on a postcard please :-)

There might be a lollipop in it for the winner :-)

G

Sparks

How exactly is a derogation signed by the Minister worthless?

g00167015

The article in the magazine pointed out that the derogations, which typically allow certain wild birds to be controlled using rifles/air rifles etc do not overpower section 33 of the 1976 Wildlife Act, whereby it is an offence for a rifle to be used to kill or injure ANY wild bird.

All these contradictions within the law grrrrr

Confused.com
Confused.com

Sparks

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds almost like a replay of this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76903990

g00167015

Yep, sure is. Thanks for that :-)

The thread title seems appropriate too :-)

Birdnuts

g00167015 wrote: »

The article in the magazine pointed out that the derogations, which typically allow certain wild birds to be controlled using rifles/air rifles etc do not overpower section 33 of the 1976 Wildlife Act, whereby it is an offence for a rifle to be used to kill or injure ANY wild bird.

All these contradictions within the law grrrrr

Confused.com
Confused.com

Its a bit of a mess all right and I don't know why they can't just amend sec 33. The shotgun/cage trap elements of the derogation are still valid though.

J.R.

In the current edition of "Gameshot", NARGC annual magazine, which recently came in the post to members, or is available through your gun club secretary, it states the same on page 59 ..........rifle not allowed to shoot any bird ..............whereby it states,

"Shooting birds with a rifle:
It is illegal under the Wildlife Acts 1976 - 2012 to shoot any bird with a rifle."



Very confusing for all when the Minister, Mr. Deenihan , signed a derogation a little over a week ago stating that a rifle could be used.

Witcher

Good oul NARGC again.

1976 Wildlife Acts states;

33.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person to kill or injure—

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

Protected wild bird...

The act then goes on to specify which birds are not protected;

Species of wild birds excluded (subject to Section 22 (2)) from Sections 19 and 22


Sections 19 , 22 , 31 and 35 .


Bullfinch


Carrion Crow


Greater Black-backed Gull


Herring Gull


Hooded (Grey) Crow


House Sparrow


Jackdaw


Jay


Lesser Black-backed Gull


Magpie


Pigeons, including Wood Pigeon, but not including carrier pigeons, racing homing pigeons or doves


Rook


Starling

Therefore when the Minister's derogation comes out..pigeons, crows etc. can all be shot with a rifle.

It's a miracle they get anything done.

g00167015

Blay wrote: »

Good oul NARGC again.

1976 Wildlife Acts states;



Protected wild bird...

The act then goes on to specify which birds are not protected;



Therefore when the Minister's derogation comes out..pigeons, crows etc. can all be shot with a rifle.

It's a miracle they get anything done.

Yes, but the article writer gave the impression that the methods stated in the derogations still don't overpower the original wildlife act, which makes the whole question as clear as mud.

But surely that is the whole point of a derogation, to make an exception to the normal rules that would otherwise apply.

Witcher

g00167015 wrote: »

Yes, but the article writer gave the impression that the methods stated in the derogations still don't overpower the original wildlife act, which makes the whole question as clear as mud.

But surely that is the whole point of a derogation, to make an exception to the normal rules that would otherwise apply.

The derogation doesn't need to overrule the protection of crows, magpies etc. because they don't have any as the legislation shows.

g00167015

Blay wrote: »

The derogation doesn't need to overrule the protection of crows, magpies etc. because they don't have any as the legislation shows.

The problem however, is with the last line of section 33-1(a)................... the word 'protected', as defined in section 19 and the corresponding annex/schedule #3, is NOT included here, just the words ''ANY wild bird''

Witcher

g00167015 wrote: »

The problem however, is with the last line of section 33-1(a)................... the word 'protected', as defined in section 19 and the corresponding annex/schedule #3, is NOT included here, just the words ''ANY wild bird''

31 (1) (a) only applies to;

(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

Actual firearms in the technical sense; i.e. rimfire/centrefire are still ok as long as it's not a 'protected' wild bird;

33 (5) with a rifle, any protected wild bird.

Birdnuts

Blay wrote: »

Good oul NARGC again.

1976 Wildlife Acts states;



Protected wild bird...

The act then goes on to specify which birds are not protected;



Therefore when the Minister's derogation comes out..pigeons, crows etc. can all be shot with a rifle.

It's a miracle they get anything done.

That bit of the legislation is out of date though and has been surperceeded by the EU birds Directive which is now part of Irish law. This gave total protection to all birds. However the derogations allow the shooting/trapping of certain corvid and pigeon species. That is not in dispute, just the use of rifles in this case. Its important to point out that all the gull and small bird species mentioned in the old legislation above are now totally protected bar the corvid and pigeon species under the new regime.

Birdnuts

Blay wrote: »

31 (1) (a) only applies to;



Actual firearms in the technical sense; i.e. rimfire/centrefire are still ok as long as it's not a 'protected' wild bird;

That would be my reading of it too - it would be helpful though if the NPWS would come out and make a definitive statement on all this

Witcher

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its important to point out that all the gull and small bird species mentioned in the old legislation above are now totally protected bar the corvid and pigeon species under the new regime.

I was only really talking about those anyway but I see what you're saying.

Zxthinger

Didn't the author of the article state that as far as he was aware the law would soon be changed to out-law the shooting of all birds with rifles?

g00167015

No,

He stated that the derogation would be altered to be in line with the wildlife act, section 33.

However, had he taken the time to READ the relevant piece of legislature, he would have found that the derogations are already perfectly ok.

Rifles are dealt with in section 33_1_b, where the term ''any protected (as defined in section 19 & appendix #3 thereafter) wild bird'' is used.

Other firearm types, NOT including conventional rifles are dealt with in section 33_1_a where the term ''any wild bird'' is used referring to the likes of semi-auto shotguns with a capacity above three cartridges, airsoft, handguns etc etc etc

Blay already pointed this out earlier in this discussion.



Writers in two recent Irish publications have gotten mixed up with the definitions within this particular piece of legislation, which is unfortunate, not to mention unnecessarily misleading.