Deer Licences refused due to declining numbers

wexfordman2

Got an email from WDAI today, talking about a study related to TB in deer, and the fact that deer are not a TB threat etc.

Anyway, it went on to talk about deer numbers etc, and it said that

Information recently released by NPWS shows a continuous decline in Ireland's national deer cull numbers since 2010. The decrease is despite a significant increase in the number of hunting licenses granted to hunters during the same period. In County Tipperary, deer cull numbers declined by over 20% in 2012 and for the first time, NPWS have begun to refuse deer hunting licenses to hunters due to low deer numbers.

I wonder what the approach is to refusals, obviously it may be related to the number of deer available in a given area etc, but for example, would the refusal apply to all stalkers on that area, or would they just refuse a number of stalkers.

Perhaps it might be time for the NPWS to look at the number of animals a person culls with regard to the issueing of a new permit. For example, if two people apply for a licence under the same area, one shows cull figures of 100+, and the other of 10 or 12, then would it be correct to assume the guy with the 100+ cull would be refused ?

Time for tags!!
Time to tackle poaching lads, irrespective of which org we may or may not be associated to, this is the shot across the bow!

Cass

Is this all from 2012/2013?


So what i'm getting from this is:

• Deer cull numbers/returns have been dropping since 2010. IOW less deer shot per year.
• Even with the drop in returns the NPWS are refusing to issue licenses in some areas.
• More licenses have been granted than ever before.

So if i'm understanding this, they view/know it as a sign that overall deer numbers are dropping and as such they want to curtail the amount of people shooting. If so then your idea of reducing those with larger returns in the same area as someone with lower returns would be a way to go.

The issue of poaching will no doubt appear and very, VERY quickly take over the thread (as it always does), but before that happens i'd like to consider the issue. The NPWS has a limited budget. This means limited rangers, and limited resources to combat poaching. Much like the Gardaí may target legitimate shooters when talking about reductions in gun crime or number of firearms "on the streets" the quickest and most effective solution to the NPWS may very well be to reduce the number of people (legally) that can stalk deer.

We don't see all the numbers. As in how many did one individual shoot. There are people out there making a living off deer. Not only by shooting them, but from using the art of deer stalking, etc as a profession. Taking in excess of 250 per season. Now if you combine 30, legit, shooters taking that amount of deer it's a total of 7,500. This is pure guess-timation and has no basis in fact. It may be a lot more or could be less. Coupled with lads taking between 50 -150, then 10 - 50, etc. What i'm saying is less than 150 lads could account for nearly 15,000 deer. All legit.

How many licenses are there? 4,000, 4,500 ? This is before you even consider section 42's. Why are they issued if deer numbers are dropping so badly?

There is no point in discussing poachers when referencing deer numbers that the NPWS would work off as they have no idea of any actual or even estimated amount shot. The lads caught poaching only account for a fraction of those possibly shot.

I'm guessing we'll find out in August how many got their renewal.

Kiltris

The biggest problem I think we face as honest legit stalkers is not getting a summary at the end of each season as to how many deer have been put down to our individual licences.
Lets be honest, I don't think any "licenced poacher" is going to put down 250 deer on their returns. Tags need to be brought in and fast too! The only people that this may have an ill effect on are poachers and dodgy game dealers. Fingers crossed for the licence renewal so lads!

Cass

Kiltris wrote: »

Lets be honest, I don't think any "licenced poacher" is going to put down 250 deer on their returns. Tags need to be brought in and fast too! The only people that this may have an ill effect on are poachers and dodgy game dealers.

This is the problem we covered before.

"legal poachers" may not declare all their returns, but they have to get rid of the carcasses somewhere. If game dealers were closed down this would slow them down for a little bit, but i guarantee they'll find another avenue and use it. These people allow the slating of game dealers, and frankly they probably join in on the game dealer bashing, as it hides their actions. IOW a scapegoat.

Game dealers, the bad ones, are a problem. No doubt. However they are not the sole cause for our problems. It takes people to bring them game. So these people bringing the game to them are the first problem. What annoys the sh*t out of me is the hero worship some people receive by calling for tougher regulations, stricter controls, etc. when they make a living from deer stalking all the while. If any new, stricter, laws were enacted they would actually be the first to suffer, but the chances are slim and it looks better when they are calling for it.

Be interesting to see some stats as you said. A break down down of numbers by county (individuals & their numbers would be a no go for data protection reasons i'd imagine). At least then we'd get to see the highest numbers returned and the lowest. So even though there is no name we can see the highest returns for (example) Laois started at (example again) 250, next was 214, etc, etc.

Dian Cecht

Just a thought .......................

Could Gardaí be stating that NPWS is issuing too many deer licences which in turn allows more people to justify a "fullbore" rifle so NPWS now decide to restrict deer licences which may curtail number of "fullbore" rifles in circulation.

A lot more people hold "fullbore" rifles on deer licences than as members of authorised ranges I reckon.

Honda500

Yes bring back tags. There are hunter's with just farmers land small area and leaving 100 or more into game dealers how is this right when a big forest beside it has a cull of 10?

Grizzly 45

Dont know if anyone else caught an article on the Sunday Indo about three weeks ago on the online edition which was hastily removed by Sunday afternoon.Stating the exact OPPOSITE to what we are being told here in Co Wicklow?? It stated that there was an explosion of the deer pouplation[sika,red hybrids] and that NPWS were actually looking to increase the liscense numbers to deal with this problem from pressure of local farmers?

Too much bollockology going on here with this deer hunting.
NPWS have actually iMHO no idea how many animals there are out there.They are relying on a totally inaccurate source for their returns which is now a given that it is being mucked about with.

We have unscrouplous game dealers who like blood diamond dealers are paying their "workforce" a pittance and making massive profits on the carcasses,with little or no come back on either parties.Apprently one GD when he was in court and fined the maximum possible didnt bat an eyelid and paid up in cash and walked out and continued on his merry way,as he had made the fine money within a week of the season opening.

The quickest solution to this is ,a simple BAN on selling wild game as in the USA,for five years take the money aspect out of this and see whether there is an increase or decrease in the deer pouplation.If there is such a demand for venison,I'm sure it can be coverd by starting a commercial deer farm.Or maybe not,as that involves money outlay time and work.Things some people are allergic to around here.

meathstevie

Just having a little idea here, why not some middle ground ? Every hunter gets for example 6 tags a year; one that permits you to sell a carcass and 5 for private use only meaning give it away or eat it yourself. The for sale tag has to be time marked and returned to NPWS by a game dealer by post with a postmark within 24 hours of the carcass being presented. Spotchecks on hunters and dealers being done by NPWS and any breaches leading to both parties loosing their respective licences.

J.R.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont know if anyone else caught an article on the Sunday Indo about three weeks ago on the online edition which was hastily removed by Sunday afternoon.Stating the exact OPPOSITE to what we are being told here in Co Wicklow?? It stated that there was an explosion of the deer pouplation[sika,red hybrids] and that NPWS were actually looking to increase the liscense numbers to deal with this problem from pressure of local farmers?.

This is it here:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/major-wild-deer-cull-urgently-needed-to-combat-tb-ifa-30409508.html

CJhaughey

Personally, I think its mad to be calling for tags, once you put a monetary value on your hunting it will only go up.
Have you ever seen a cost reduce or be abolished in this state?
How are the tags to be financed and policed?
Meat has a value and even if tags were introduced the fact is that NPWS doesn't have enough staff or time to monitor them past being a box ticking exercise.
All it would do is push the trade underground and you will end up with a two tier system where the law abiding shooter has to pay for a few pieces of plastic and the poachers will shoot away as before and still sell the stuff.

dodderangler

More deer than rabbits on some of my permissions.

Kiltris

CJhaughey wrote: »

Personally, I think its mad to be calling for tags, once you put a monetary value on your hunting it will only go up.
Have you ever seen a cost reduce or be abolished in this state?
How are the tags to be financed and policed?
Meat has a value and even if tags were introduced the fact is that NPWS doesn't have enough staff or time to monitor them past being a box ticking exercise.
All it would do is push the trade underground and you will end up with a two tier system where the law abiding shooter has to pay for a few pieces of plastic and the poachers will shoot away as before and still sell the stuff.

Valid point!

wexfordman2

CJhaughey wrote: »

Personally, I think its mad to be calling for tags, once you put a monetary value on your hunting it will only go up.
Have you ever seen a cost reduce or be abolished in this state?
How are the tags to be financed and policed?
Meat has a value and even if tags were introduced the fact is that NPWS doesn't have enough staff or time to monitor them past being a box ticking exercise.
All it would do is push the trade underground and you will end up with a two tier system where the law abiding shooter has to pay for a few pieces of plastic and the poachers will shoot away as before and still sell the stuff.

10 tag minimum to all stalkers free.

Anyone wants more than 10 has to pay and this would be used to pay for the system.

Alll game dealers must log and retain tags to be handed back to npws for each carcass they receive. Tags are traceable back to licence holder.

All game dealers ist also only receive carcassas with full head etc so they can be sexed.


It's either do something to stop the abusers or else let the legit guys suffer and the abusers carry on as normal.

garv123

wexfordman2 wrote: »

10 tag minimum to all stalkers free.

Anyone wants more than 10 has to pay and this would be used to pay for the system.

Alll game dealers must log and retain tags to be handed back to npws for each carcass they receive. Tags are traceable back to licence holder.

All game dealers ist also only receive carcassas with full head etc so they can be sexed.


It's either do something to stop the abusers or else let the legit guys suffer and the abusers carry on as normal.

Deer must already be tagged going to the game dealer..
You do the course and you must get 10 tags free and you must buy the rest (off the NPWS I think) The course is compulsory to sell deer now.
All game dealers have to keep the tags for the carcass they receive so if there are problems it can be traced back to the hunter.
You dont need a head to know the sex of an animal.

wexfordman2

garv123 wrote: »

Deer must already be tagged going to the game dealer..
You do the course and you must get 10 tags free and you must buy the rest (off the NPWS I think) The course is compulsory to sell deer now.
All game dealers have to keep the tags for the carcass they receive so if there are problems it can be traced back to the hunter.
You dont need a head to know the sex of an animal.

Cool,

So in theory, a game dealer must have a tag for every deer carcass that he processes?

And all tags are traceable back to the stalker, so both the npws and the revenue can see the number of deer culled and the income generated from it ?

Anyone got a screenshot of these tags would be interested to see one ?

garv123

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Cool,

So in theory, a game dealer must have a tag for every deer carcass that he processes?

And all tags are traceable back to the stalker, so both the npws and the revenue can see the number of deer culled and the income generated from it ?

Anyone got a screenshot of these tags would be interested to see one ?

I cant find where you get the tags but its the NARGC does the course so i assume they supply tags.

http://www.nargc.ie/spotlight-container/safe-handling-of-wild-game-certification.aspx

So in theory if they wanted to its easily traceable.

.338lapuamag

Has anyone been refused a licence or is this here say?when are the licences due to be sent out?

Big Buck

The NPWS has a limited budget. This means limited rangers, and limited resources to combat poaching.

Why do the NPWS hand out licences to hunt deer FOR FREE? You have to pay for a licence to fish salmon or sea trout but you can get a licence to hunt deer for free?
Charge a fee for each licence and bring in valuable funds which could be used to increase the number of rangers on the ground.

CJhaughey

Big Buck wrote: »

The NPWS has a limited budget. This means limited rangers, and limited resources to combat poaching.

Why do the NPWS hand out licences to hunt deer FOR FREE? You have to pay for a licence to fish salmon or sea trout but you can get a licence to hunt deer for free?
Charge a fee for each licence and bring in valuable funds which could be used to increase the number of rangers on the ground.

And the flipside is that maybe a whole lot of people that previously took up a section 29 decide to hell with this and don't shoot deer.
Deer populations start to skyrocket in areas where they have been kept in check by hunting.
Complaints by farmers and RTA's increase all of a sudden it becomes a big problem for the NPWS.
The current system works OK, I don't think it needs that much tweaking apart from some more effort in certain areas combating commercial poaching.
Thats doable without radically changing the whole system

Big Buck

I don't think anyone who shoots a few deer each year would have a problem paying for a licence. I certainly wouldn't. And I don't think there would be any problem with deer populations skyrocketing.
I agree that rangers are understaffed and I just think if we hunters pay a few bob it might make a difference.

CJhaughey

Big Buck wrote: »

I don't think anyone who shoots a few deer each year would have a problem paying for a licence. I certainly wouldn't. And I don't think there would be any problem with deer populations skyrocketing.
I agree that rangers are understaffed and I just think if we hunters pay a few bob it might make a difference.

When the cost of licenses went up for the 3 year version a lot of people got rid of their firearms.
NPWS are most likely like every other state agency in that recruitment is stopped.
This is a diktat from the Dept of Finance and the introduction of a license fee will not have any impact on the ability of the NPWS to hire any more rangers.
The money might very well be paid but you will likely see it dissappear into the vast black hole that is this countries finances with absolutely nothing to show for it.

kinelly

Lets say I do the course to allow me to sell deer to the game dealers. The following day I go out and shoot a deer but bullet placement isn't perfect. I track the deer and dispatch. Bring the deer to dealers, money in pocket and away home.
Next day I go out on my farm and find a heifer with a badly broken leg. I cannot dispatch her and bring her to the factory. I know that deer and cattle have different guidelines as one is wild and the other is domestic so to speak, but it doesn't make sense to me to allow such carcasses to enter the commercial food chain.
Considering the amount of regulations a shop deli has to meet to make a few sambos, it just seems to be unbalanced.
When I shoot a deer it is for the table so I do my best to keep it clean etc etc as its for my own good. But I wonder if the same would apply if I were soley churning them out for the dealers..... Personally I would like to see a stop to selling deer to dealers. I think we would see a marked improvement in head quality, especially fallow, and I think deer management would improve also as it would no longer be a numbers game. Poaching will always exist but the scale that we have seen over the past number of years would drop drastically.

wexfordman2

kinelly wrote: »

Lets say I do the course to allow me to sell deer to the game dealers. The following day I go out and shoot a deer but bullet placement isn't perfect. I track the deer and dispatch. Bring the deer to dealers, money in pocket and away home.
Next day I go out on my farm and find a heifer with a badly broken leg. I cannot dispatch her and bring her to the factory. I know that deer and cattle have different guidelines as one is wild and the other is domestic so to speak, but it doesn't make sense to me to allow such carcasses to enter the commercial food chain.
Considering the amount of regulations a shop deli has to meet to make a few sambos, it just seems to be unbalanced.
When I shoot a deer it is for the table so I do my best to keep it clean etc etc as its for my own good. But I wonder if the same would apply if I were soley churning them out for the dealers..... Personally I would like to see a stop to selling deer to dealers. I think we would see a marked improvement in head quality, especially fallow, and I think deer management would improve also as it would no longer be a numbers game. Poaching will always exist but the scale that we have seen over the past number of years would drop drastically.

I think considering the levels of poaching going on (the type of poaching that results in carcasses being sold to game dealers) your points above should be of high concern to the food safety authorities.

Particularly considering it is well known that a common practice is to shoot the carcass at night and leave it in the field till morning exposed to elements and vermin.

If I was a food safety authority, I would be concerend about the number of carcasses entering the system after this sort of treatment and the almost complete lack of effort to prevent it.

meathstevie

wexfordman2 wrote: »

I think considering the levels of poaching going on (the type of poaching that results in carcasses being sold to game dealers) your points above should be of high concern to the food safety authorities.

Particularly considering it is well known that a common practice is to shoot the carcass at night and leave it in the field till morning exposed to elements and vermin.

If I was a food safety authority, I would be concerend about the number of carcasses entering the system after this sort of treatment and the almost complete lack of effort to prevent it.

Euhh...ring the crime quality control department. It's probably the same office as the laundered diesel consumer authority....

Once a carcass is skinned boned and trimmed you can't see if for example a fox has chewed his way into the belly the previous night and unless some seriously nasty contamination has happened the meat will be fine when cleaned up properly.

Capercaille

kinelly wrote: »

Lets say I do the course to allow me to sell deer to the game dealers. The following day I go out and shoot a deer but bullet placement isn't perfect. I track the deer and dispatch. Bring the deer to dealers, money in pocket and away home.
Next day I go out on my farm and find a heifer with a badly broken leg. I cannot dispatch her and bring her to the factory. I know that deer and cattle have different guidelines as one is wild and the other is domestic so to speak, but it doesn't make sense to me to allow such carcasses to enter the commercial food chain.
.

Cattle that have suffered traumatic injury cannot be transferred to Slaughterhouse on animal welfare grounds. Journey to factory would increase suffering of animal. There is a provision that on-farm slaughter by a licensenced slaughterman can take place. The animal is stunned and bled-out, the carcase can then be transferred to slaughter house.

When I shoot a deer it is for the table so I do my best to keep it clean etc etc as its for my own good. But I wonder if the same would apply if I were soley churning them out for the dealers..... Personally I would like to see a stop to selling deer to dealers. I think we would see a marked improvement in head quality, especially fallow, and I think deer management would improve also as it would no longer be a numbers game. Poaching will always exist but the scale that we have seen over the past number of years would drop drastically

If you wish to supply game to game-dealer there are regulation present. Persons who hunt wild game with a view to placing it on the market for human consumption must have sufficient knowledge of the pathology of wild game, and of the production and handling of wild game and wild game meat after hunting, to undertake an intial examination of wild game on the spot. regulation (EC) 853/2004.

wexfordman2

Capercaille wrote: »

Cattle that have suffered traumatic injury cannot be transferred to Slaughterhouse on animal welfare grounds. Journey to factory would increase suffering of animal. There is a provision that on-farm slaughter by a licensenced slaughterman can take place. The animal is stunned and bled-out, the carcase can then be transferred to slaughter house.

If you wish to supply game to game-dealer there are regulation present. Persons who hunt wild game with a view to placing it on the market for human consumption must have sufficient knowledge of the pathology of wild game, and of the production and handling of wild game and wild game meat after hunting, to undertake an intial examination of wild game on the spot. regulation (EC) 853/2004.

Look, I think pretty much anyone invovled in deer stalking is aware of that fact at this stage. What is pretty clear and obvious, is that the above regulation does absolutely nothing to improve or reduce the risk of contaminated meat entering the chain as a result of poaching.

It is a known fact that a common practice for poachers is to leave a carcass lying unnatended overnight in the field and to retreive it the following morning. Seeing as paoching is "rampant", it would be fair to say that a significant amount of wild venison delivered to game dealers may have arrived after being left in the field overnight, exposed to vermin etc.

So, whatever regulation is in place, doesnt apply to poachers, and does not prevent poached game from entering the food chain!

kinelly

Capercaille wrote: »

If you wish to supply game to game-dealer there are regulation present. Persons who hunt wild game with a view to placing it on the market for human consumption must have sufficient knowledge of the pathology of wild game, and of the production and handling of wild game and wild game meat after hunting, to undertake an intial examination of wild game on the spot. regulation (EC) 853/2004.

There are also laws in place to protect deer from night time shooting but I suppose when someone breaks these laws they then abide by the regulations in place in (EC) 853/2004.

To get back on topic, I have not heard of any of my friends being refused as a result of low numbers as of yet. To be fair it isn't unreasonable if the numbers are low but as mentioned before, how would it be decided who stays and who goes?

deleon

If deer are scarce in certain areas of the country why not change the season so Only stags can be tåken the last two months ås was the case previously

Cass

Contact the Minister for that.

We, nor the NPWS have the power/authority to affect legislative change.

Perazzi

Look at the irish deer page on Facebook and see the huge stag shot in wicklow and deer are supposed to be scarce I think its a way of stopping poaching in certain areas.There are so many deer in wicklow its a pity one can't get a days shooting down there to help they guys that are refused there licence in certain areas.Its unreal.

Cass

I had a delay on the issuing of my deer license this year and it's funny this thread is up as it happened.

When i contacted the Ranger he said he had concerns about one of the permissions on my application. Not surprising. The place is like Beirut weeks before the season and poaching is at epidemic levels. He processed my application on the rest of the permissions, but said he would "blacklist" the land and possibly the surrounding lands. Meaning anyone that applies using these permissions will be refused because of low numbers, and the amount of poaching & people legally shooting on the lands.

As said it did not effect me as i've 17 other permissions to choose from (over 3,000 acres), but the NPWS are taking a hard line on this, and frankly i'm delighted to see it. I've not been able to shoot one or two of my permissions because of the level of both shooting and poaching on it.

Grizzly 45

Seems like an easy cop out for the NPWS.
Black list areas and not bother dealing with the root cause,poaching and easy money in mass harvesting.
Only people that get affected are ligit sports shooters ,as usual,and the poachers and illegal game harvesters go on their merry ways ..Aas usual.

useurowname

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Seems like an easy cop out for the NPWS.
Black list areas and not bother dealing with the root cause,poaching and easy money in mass harvesting.
Only people that get affected are ligit sports shooters ,as usual,and the poachers and illegal game harvesters go on their merry ways ..Aas usual.

Dead right, always the same legit sportsmen pay the price. Biggest threat to hunting sports imo is poachers and those generally who don't adhere to the rules of the sports, they are not only depleting game numbers but are going about their illegal enterprises in ways that are reckless and endanger the safety of the public.

Cass

Not that cut and dry.

As it is, anyone on the land can be considered a legit shooter. Now if anyone is on the land and a ranger sees them he can question them as no one will have permission to shoot deer on the land regardless of what permission the land owner gives. IOW no licenses issued for that land.

We all know the problem poaching is but bitching and moaning when something is tried serves no purpose. I mean would you rather they continued to issue licenses on the lands and ignore the problem altogether. Plus what budget have the NPWS to work with? I'm not saying it's perfect, but given the fact they work on a shoestring budget they are limited in what they can do, and the frequency of when they can do it.

650gs

Can they stop you shooting wild deer on your own land or stop you giving permission to somebody to shoot on your land ??????

Cass

Yes.

No matter how you have the land (your own/permissions) you need a license from the NPWS to shoot deer. The land owner, orr your own land, can still give you permission, but you cannot shoot deer on the land.

Like myself. I have the deer license on the other permissions. If i'm caught shooting deer on the land that is black listed then i've violated the terms of my license and i'm as guilty as if i were poaching.

Big Buck

The only way the NPWS can increase their budget is to charge a fee for each liscence given.
There is something close to 4500 or 5000 liscences given each year afaik, I don't think they should be free.
I'll probably be slated for this but I think it's about time each and every one of US who enjoy hunting deer start investing in the future of our sport.

hiddenmongoose

Cass wrote: »

Yes.

No matter how you have the land (your own/permissions) you need a license from the NPWS to shoot deer. The land owner, orr your own land, can still give you permission, but you cannot shoot deer on the land.

Like myself. I have the deer license on the other permissions. If i'm caught shooting deer on the land that is black listed then i've violated the terms of my license and i'm as guilty as if i were poaching.

How can Npws do that,If I have my deer licence got and am asked by farmer blogs to come hunt his land as he wants a few deer shot but npws have black listed it Im not allowed? ,its not a law passed that I cant shoot his land its just that department saying I cant.To ban shooting on a ground it has to be a state sanctuary or passed as law like the banning of reds in kerry ,surely there has to be more to it than just the npws saying were going to blacklist it,surely it needs a ministers signature?.only legit hunters will be affected by this so it will have no to little impact anyways.guys with lamps dont care about this stuff

villa1979

If there is 5,000 deer licences issued lets say each licence is 50 euro that would make 250.000 in revenue for the NPW that's not a bad budget to work with to catch poachers I would be happy to pay for a deer permit if the money went to good use

Sparks

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

How can Npws do that,

By reporting you to the AGS for breaking the conditions of your firearms licence and taking the firearm off you as well as prosecuting you for shooting deer without a licence.

If I have my deer licence got and am asked by farmer blogs to come hunt his land

Isn't your deer licence issued for a specific area?

Sparks

villa1979 wrote: »

If there is 5,000 deer licences issued lets say each licence is 50 euro that would make 250.000 in revenue for the NPW that's not a bad budget to work with to catch poachers I would be happy to pay for a deer permit if the money went to good use

Pretty damn sure the NWPS can't just up and do that without legislative changes that aren't within their power to make.

Otherwise, why not charge 500 or 5000 euro for the licence?

natdog

Be very careful what you wish for 50 today can become 500 very fast and the money will not be put to good use.
look at salmon fishing in Ireland big license fee and have things improved I don't think so.
But the one thing they both have in common is the money being paid by game dealers, hotels etc. which makes poaching a very good earner.
Ban the sale of wild Deer to game dealers and a very large part of the problem will be solved and it will cost genuine stalkers nothing.

hiddenmongoose

Sparks wrote: »

By reporting you to the AGS for breaking the conditions of your firearms licence and taking the firearm off you as well as prosecuting you for shooting deer without a licence.

But can they just black list an area legally is what im getting at.Just like they refuse to issue a deer licence unless you have 100 acres,Thats not in any law and i bet if you brought it to court they would have to issue you a licence on a smaller permission,say you have 60 acres heavy with deer.Iv got some permissions of 20 acres that have more deer than some of my other permissions that are hundreds of acres .
Iv no argument the npws has a hard time tackle poachers as they are under funded and understaffed what I am getting at is can they just make this stuff up without it being law (just like the magical 100 acre issue)

Sparks

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

But can they just black list an area legally is what im getting at.

Unless you can find something in the law compelling them to do otherwise, yes.

i bet if you brought it to court

That's exactly what you'd be doing (betting) as the courts are not what most people think they are.

Mind you, I'm not sure why you'd do this anyway - sounds more to me like they're trying to tackle the problem but haven't been given what they need (and they don't have the legal power to go get what they need). Maybe if people didn't think the NWPS had ministerial powers this wouldn't seem so odd...

can they just make this stuff up without it being law (just like the magical 100 acre issue)

Yes. It's called policy and unless it violates statue law and is challenged in a court successfully, they're perfectly able to do that.

hiddenmongoose

Sparks wrote: »

Unless you can find something in the law compelling them to do otherwise, yes.


Mind you, I'm not sure why you'd do this anyway - sounds more to me like they're trying to tackle the problem but haven't been given what they need (and they don't have the legal power to go get what they need). Maybe if people didn't think the NWPS had ministerial powers this wouldn't seem so odd...

Yes. It's called policy and unless it violates statue law and is challenged in a court successfully, they're perfectly able to do that.

I think its a bad move and will only affect law abiding stalkers .Whats stopping them making it policy to have 200 acres or 1000 acres?

Sparks

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

I think its a bad move and will only affect law abiding stalkers .Whats stopping them making it policy to have 200 acres or 1000 acres?

My first thought was "lack of malice" because they're not exactly opposed to deer hunting, are they? Just poaching. Which they're required to try and stop but which they're not given the tools to use to stop it. End result, policies like this which usually fall under the heading of "bad idea but the best that was possible".

hiddenmongoose

Sparks wrote: »

My first thought was "lack of malice" because they're not exactly opposed to deer hunting, are they? Just poaching. Which they're required to try and stop but which they're not given the tools to use to stop it. End result, policies like this which usually fall under the heading of "bad idea but the best that was possible".

More than likely as anyone Iv spoken to in Npws in regards to deer licences was allways very helpfull.Shame though that this is what it comes to ,allways the law abiding that suffer

wexfordman2

Sparks wrote: »

By reporting you to the AGS for breaking the conditions of your firearms licence and taking the firearm off you as well as prosecuting you for shooting deer without a licence.


Isn't your deer licence issued for a specific area?

No, the deer licence does not state the lands in which I can shoot. For example I submit my licence based on permissions at the time nbut I may get more permissions during the year which I didn't have when I applied for my licence.

Again, the npws need to tackle game dealers and reduce poaching, because none of the measures they are taking to backlist land will stop poachers.

Zxthinger

natdog wrote: »

Be very careful what you wish for 50 today can become 500 very fast and the money will not be put to good use.
look at salmon fishing in Ireland big license fee and have things improved I don't think so.
But the one thing they both have in common is the money being paid by game dealers, hotels etc. which makes poaching a very good earner.
Ban the sale of wild Deer to game dealers and a very large part of the problem will be solved and it will cost genuine stalkers nothing.

Yer dead right! They would make a grave train out of it!
I will not be paying any fees and i reckon other will see it similar to me!. That might mean that legit shooters will become poachers due to the reluctance to pay.
Christ lads do we not pay enough tax to the gov already.
I can't believe people here proposing charges for all.

useurowname

Big Buck wrote: »

The only way the NPWS can increase their budget is to charge a fee for each liscence given.
There is something close to 4500 or 5000 liscences given each year afaik, I don't think they should be free.
I'll probably be slated for this but I think it's about time each and every one of US who enjoy hunting deer start investing in the future of our sport.

Totally agree with this, I think most people who hunt deer would have no problem with a fee if they thought there would benefits in it down the line, regulation is fine provided it's in the interests of the quarry and thereby the sport.
There are many aspects of the rules for shooting/hunting in general in this country that needs to be overhauled. Personally I think there should be bag limits on wildfowl, we must be one of the few western countries that don't have proper regulations. I wonder what the NARGC think??.. suppose that's for another day.

Big Buck

Zxthinger wrote: »

Yer dead right! They would make a grave train out of it!
I will not be paying any fees and i reckon other will see it similar to me!. That might mean that legit shooters will become poachers due to the reluctance to pay.
Christ lads do we not pay enough tax to the gov already.
I can't believe people here proposing charges for all.

This is a terrible attitude I think. The "yea I love to shoot deer but I wouldn't pay for it" attitude is crazy. It's a hobby lads, it's a privilege that we shouldn't take for granted.