BREAKING! News on deer liscenses applications 2017

Grizzly 45

Just got an interesting call of a half hour from one of the lads in NPWS. RE that interesting question on the pink form this year that some of us declined to answer. It is apparently a "bump in the road" for NPWS and mine seems to be the first one they have encounterd[so far]: eek: Apparently they can't process any applications that haven't answered this question as they believe it is within their remit to ask this.

I gave them the spiel RE legislation and having all the pertinent info to issue a license already to hand and that the question was irrelevant to the process under statutory law, etc. The poor guy was almost begging me to change my mind and answer the question there and then as it was on his desk ready to be mailed out.:rolleyes:. I told him to kick it up the chain to get a proper answer as to whether this is a mandatory question or not, even if I do miss a few weeks of deer hunting..as he was alluding to this was going to cause delays and lost shooting time.
Begs the question WHY is this so important to NPWS?I also informed him after he admitted NPWS is pushing for some sort of training legislation that unless they do it themselves ,there will be major resistance to any private training body extending the HCAP outside Coilte forests.He was even under the impression that the HCAP has validity outside Coilte lets.

On the other white form 70to80% of applicants filled it in.
Methinks a bag of cats has been let loose amongst the piegons.

cookimonster

This might be 'old hat' to some of you better read individuals or more likely I've picked it up wrong (please correct me if so ) but have a look at this :

28.—(1) A person shall not with firearms hunt or kill on any land an exempted wild
mammal or a protected wild bird of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act which is for the time being in force unless—
(a) the exempted wild mammal or the protected wild bird is hunted or killed pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted under this Act, or deemed to have been granted under section 29 of this Act, and
(b) the person is in relation to the land a qualified person for the purposes of this
section.
(2) A person shall in relation to land be qualified for the purposes of this section if
he is at least sixteen years of age and—
(a) is entitled to sporting rights over the land, or
(b) is the guest, invitee, servant or agent, or possesses the written authority of a
person who is entitled to sporting rights over the land, or
(c) is a member of a body of persons which is entitled to sporting rights over the
land or which has such authority, or
(d) is a person who is of a class or description which the Minister by regulations
declares to be a qualified class or description for the purposes of this section.
[(2A) (a) An applicant for—
(i) the grant of a licence under section 29 of this Act, or
(ii) the grant or renewal of a certificate to which section 29(5) of this Act relates, may, before the granting of any such licence or the granting or renewal of any such certificate, be required to supply satisfactory evidence that the applicant is a competent person to hold such a licence.
(b) The evidence required under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall include
the ability to identify certain species of fauna and to have a satisfactory knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2000, and of any instruments made under those Acts.
(c) The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to this
subsection.]

Quick read..... the bold underlined...

There is also the provision at the start of the act for the use of 'fees' for licensing and the ability to amend the provision of the act. This is also see in the likes of the Food Safety Act where the Minister may amend for such things as scientific principles, best practice etc or allow a clause for the implementation of such changes.

cookimonster

This is the document the above text is taken from, if you open it or download you will see the section that seem to have been updated highlighted in a different colour text...

PDF]
Number 39 of 1976 WILDLIFE ACT 1976 REVISED Updated to 1 January 2017 This ... - Revised Acts - Law Reform Commission

gunny123

This is the same type of rubbish the SC is trying with the night shooting ban. An organisation doing a solo run, hoping to get their courses made manditory and make a killing in the process.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Apparently they can't process any applications that haven't answered this question as they believe it is within their remit to ask this.

Got a call some two weeks ago about mine. Said that because of the new permissions it would hold up the license if i wanted to continue to use them, but was given the option of not using them as my old ones are enough and the license would be processed that day.

I did not fill in the new question. So i'm expecting the license shortly with no issues.

If they fail to issue it to me based on answering this question, well things will get interesting.

Grizzly 45 wrote:

I gave them the spiel RE legislation

Grizzly 45 wrote:

He was even under the impression that the HCAP has validity outside Coilte lets.

Cookimonster wrote:

Quick read..... the bold underlined...

The problem with the above and the NPWS is people assume, wrongly, that the NPWS have some all knowing knowledge of the law. They don't.

This is the same group that said 223 are deer legal, 220 Swifts are not and tried to refuse issuing licenses counter to what the legislation says, etc, etc.

Not saying they're wrong in everything they say, but this has nothing to do with competence, which is shown by the fact you have a firearm license (remember competence is different to proficiency), and is about the fact that the NPWS is so utterly underfunded that they effectively need us to police ourselves. As they dont' "trust" us to do this then they try to make it happen by way of legislation. Now as of yet there is no legislation so they are, like the issue about the 220 Swifts not being licensed, trying to impose their own rules/law when none exists.

Grizzly 45 wrote:

On the other white form 70to80% of applicants filled it in.
Methinks a bag of cats has been let loose amongst the piegons.

I'm not so concerned about the white form as the question on the application form.

gunny123 wrote: »

This is the same type of rubbish the SC is trying with the night shooting ban. An organisation doing a solo run, hoping to get their courses made manditory and make a killing in the process.

Thing is the NPWS won't run any courses so it's not going to them. However it will go to private groups and i believe, just my own opinion, that the NPWS will be happier with new legislation that stops all night shooting simply to protect or stop poaching. It's a silly notion, but as said above with them being so stretched in both financial and man power terms they want anyone out at night to be guilty immediately of an offense whereas as it stands now people have a just and valid reason to be out at night which makes policing and catching poachers that much more difficult.

gunny123

I meant deer stalking courses Cass, the hcap or whatever its called. Someone has their eyes on the opportunity to make money. But you are correct the same will apply to night shooting, do a course or you cannot do it.

Cass

I understand and i went off on a tangent in my answer from deer courses to night shooting, but as you said the same thing applies.

The NPWS don't run deer courses so a private group will do it. The legislation that Cookmonster quoted asks for competence and the ability to identify the proper fauna as well as having a knowledge of the provisions of the wildlife act. My point is competence is already established with the person by the fact they have a firearms license, the ability to identify your quarry is rudimentary (three species of deer and none of them look like foxes, rabbits, mink, crows, etc), and as to having a knowledge of the provisions of the wildlife acts, well that road goes both ways and with social media and the internet people are far better educated now than they were 5 or even 10 ten years ago.

cookimonster

I still think we're on the back foot and the government has in essence the ability to impose both fees and the requirements for a competence course such as the HCAP
I would argue - nicely, that the firearms license is not a 'competency' in terms of hunting. Many European countries have both requirements - firearms license and hunting licenses issued only on completion of a competency course.

This came up in a recent conversation and it was pointed out that one of the reasons this didn't materialize before was internal politics between departments and private organizations.

Cass

I don't subscribe to the "other country" argument that gets thrown up all the time.

I've said before that training is not a problem and should anyone want to avail of such a course they can haveatit. However to make it mandatory and to enforce any such interpretation of a 40+ yr old law that has never been enforced previously simply because they "do it elsewhere" is wrong.

I don't want to turn this thread into another dragged out debate on training and courses. I really don't. Its been done to death and arguments on both sides have merit but a consensus will never be reached.

The trained hunter course was rushed in and is a disaster. The new licensing system was rushed in (back in 2009) and is a mess. Our Government has a habit of imposing new legislation without the proper infrastructure in place before any new laws. This opens it to abuse. If a proper Government run and recognised course was established and made mandatory, while i might not want to, i would do it knowing the money was going back to the department that needs it and not some private group.

gunny123

It'll be another fas safepass course, a load of old cobblers and simply a way of bleeding money from you.

Cass

Well that was shown to be a load of bollix. The high court ordered Solas to stop charging for safe passes after a court case brought by Fergal O’Connell was won by him.

Kinda enforces my point about rushing stuff in and having no infrastructure in place before doing so.

Grizzly 45

It was kinda scary in talking to this guy on how little he did know. I asked why they were trying to introduce this course."Well to weed out the bad hunters as we have many injured and poorly shot deer every season." No doubt the majority been neck or head shots? And do you know why?"was my reply.No Clue.I had to explain the whole thing is down to pure simple GREED! Many game dealers won't pay or pay minimally for chest shot deer.So you do have yahoos trying neck and head shots well beyond their capability and equipment trying to maximize their profits, and then have to explain how this whole GD scenario of as I call it "Reverse addiction" works.The dealer pays minimal and gains maximum profit. NPWS really needs to get out on the ground and talk not to our reps in WADI or whatever, but actual boots on the ground stalkers to find out what is going on.
I will await with baited breath when does his boss respond or whether anyone else gets a call too?

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

I still think we're on the back foot and the government has in essence the ability to impose both fees and the requirements for a competence course such as the HCAP
I would argue - nicely, that the firearms license is not a 'competency' in terms of hunting. Many European countries have both requirements - firearms license and hunting licenses issued only on completion of a competency course.

This came up in a recent conversation and it was pointed out that one of the reasons this didn't materialize before was internal politics between departments and private organizations.

A piece of paper, whether it is a complex German document or our joke of the HCAP is just saying you are legal, nothing else. "competency" takes years of hunting out in the field by experience. It's like the young fellah going for his driving test.you do everything nice and sweetly and legal and here's your license from the nice tester.The moment you have that you can drop back the seat, hang an arm out the window and do a few donuts in the test center lot before burning rubber out the entrance. Have that paper, off back jack lighting deer with you that evening. All it has done is put your money in some NGBs pocket and given you a probably limited in time cert.Only to be anally raped in your wallet in another few years time. Mark my words! If this one isn't stopped in its tracks too.We are going to be paying for our now free hunting in a few years time.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It was kinda scary in talking to this guy on how little he did know. I asked why they were trying to introduce this course."Well to weed out the bad hunters as we have many injured and poorly shot deer every season."

Preserving the meat for maximum income is a factor in how some people choose to shoot deer. There are other factors though. Sometimes the ground you're on does not allow for a heart shot (long grass, etc), and some lads i know simply prefer the neck shot to heart.

However i've nothing against anyone selling a few deer. The trained hunter course, while in itself a little bit of a joke (in its implementation) makes the seller provide PRSI number, being liable for tax, have certain standards as laid out by the FSAI on hanging/butchering, etc. IOW the facility for just shooting and selling is no longer as free as it used to be. More legislation will not combat this, but like all legislation better enforcement.

I agree with you on ability though. The amount of "zeroed" rifles i've seen over the years that cannot hit a 6 inch target at 100 yards is scary. A simple solution for anyone is to make sure and if necessary get someone to help to make sure their zero is correct.

....... and talk not to our reps in WADI or whatever, but actual boots on the ground stalkers to find out what is going on.

Unfortunately this won't happen. They tend to talk to a representative of a group or groups and the problem there is the representative will put across their view over their members. Not because they have an agenda, well not always, but because i've yet to hear of any group hold a meeting(s) of their members to gauge their reactions or poll their opinions.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.......... "competency" takes years of hunting out in the field by experience.

Emm, nope. Competency can be taught in a very short time. What you are talking about is proficiency. I can teach someone competence in a few hours relating to safe handling and target identification. That person's ability (IOW proficiency) to stalk, shoot, clean out, etc. all takes time and practice after that.

It's like the young fellah going for his driving test.you do everything nice and sweetly and legal and here's your license from the nice tester.

Thats the competence part.

The moment you have that you can drop back the seat, hang an arm out the window and do a few donuts in the test center lot before burning rubber out the entrance.

And that is the proficiency part. Granted in this example it's bad, but not all new drivers do this. Same as hunters.

We are going to be paying for our now free hunting in a few years time.

Free is a relative term. Other than the license and some stalkers having private permissions not much else in shooting is free.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Cass;104315471]Preserving the meat for maximum income is a factor in how some people choose to shot deer. There are other factors though. Sometimes the ground your on does not allow for a heart shot (long grass, etc), and some lads i know simply prefer the neck shot to the heart.

And that is probably the difference between hunters and market hunters. If you can't get a clear shot, change position until you can, or let it go rather than risking an injured animal with a neck or head shot.Even the HCAP manual[kudos to it there says this isn't a good idea] it beats me even why GD are so uppity about this as a clean heart shot is at most taking out ribs if badly placed.

However I've nothing against anyone selling a few deer. The trained hunter course, while in itself a little bit of a joke (in its implementation) makes the seller provide PRSI number, being liable for tax, have certain standards as laid out by the FSAI on hanging/butchering, etc.

Most important part here is that the Revenue gets its cut.Money the be and end all of everything here.:rolleyes: All the rest is of secondary importance.

Unfortunately, this won't happen. They tend to talk to a representative of a group or groups and the problem there is the representative will put across their view over their members. Not because they have an agenda, well not always, but because i've yet to hear of any group hold a meeting(s) of their members to gauge their reactions or poll their opinions.

That needs to start happening and soonest

Free is a relative term. Other than the license and some stalkers having private permissions not much else in the shooting is free.

[/QUOTE]
By that I mean the amount of ground you can have for shooting on is virtually for free.Apart from maybe a bottle of something at Xmas. This sort of an arrangement is utterly unheard of in Europe and I would doubt even in the UK anymore.I got mine for the virtual asking of the farmer and two more of his neighbors.THAT is something priceless we still have here for stalking out "Whest":)

Hunter456

what i can't get my head around is the neck on some of these monkeys they have the ****ing audacity to sit on the FCP and make up ludicrous proposals to benefit and protect their own interests and to hell with the rest of us when 2 years ago these lot called upon people for help, anyone can see there is a riff between the organizations that represent the shooting community.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

If you can't get a clear shot, change position until you can, or let it go rather than risking an injured animal ...........

Correct.

I would say that there are times when even the best laid plan can result in a running deer. This is down to experience and best practice. Something i can vouch for personally.

Target shooting almost ruined me for deer stalking. I got so used to taking my time and after firing looking through the scope and being at no particular rush to reload that when out stalking i done the same thing. I let the quick reload in case of a poor shot slip. I had to relearn that when i fired to quickly reload, even if the deer went down.

why GD are so uppity about this as a clean heart shot is at most taking out ribs if badly placed.

A chap down the road from shoots about 6 or 7 each year and until the introduction of the trained hunter course would sell almost all of them. I was there when the game dealer called and the amount of sh*te i heard about how much he'd (GD) loose because of meat damage, etc. He offered him pennies, literally even saying he was only offering so as not to offend him and realistically he wouldn't normally take it because its so small. IOW he wanted it for free.

My mate ended up taking €22 for two Fallow. I've never sold a deer and have no interest in doing so, but this reaffirmed my decision not to.

That needs to start happening and soonest

The thin is it'll never happen until we, the members and shooters, make them accountable. As a member of a group you have rights within the group. Call for AGM/EGMs, make the people at the top table answerable to their actions. If you're not happy remove them.

We spend too much time, myself included, talking and not taking action which leaves those responsible still in power and basically ignoring our pleas.

[/QUOTE]
THAT is something priceless we still have here for stalking out "Whest":)[/QUOTE]
Here too and i'm grateful for it all. Its also a reason why i don't to see mandatory courses. My shooting is "free". If they impose courses, fees and charges then i have two options. Stop shooting or start to make it pay so i can reimburse myself.

It's a sport and hobby and while everyone has to pay for their sport i pay enough in gun license fees, guns, scopes, ammo, range membership, travel, etc. Other than being the most regulated sport i wonder if shooting, even given its "small" membership, is one the most lucrative ones for revenue.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Money the be and end all of everything here.:rolleyes: All the rest is of secondary importance.

Welcome to Ireland 2017. The average paddy now, would put an amoral American vulture fund to shame in the money grabbing ****ehawk stakes.

Grizzly 45

I think we were always like that Gunny, and the CT just made a virtue out of it.:( I could understand if we were just doing it to the tourists and foreigners as other poor countries do, but we do it to our own is the bigger tragedy IMO.
It seems to be the bigger the crook the "sounder "a person he is made out to be by those he has robbed blind.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I think we were always like that Gunny, and the CT just made a virtue out of it.:( I could understand if we were just doing it to the tourists and foreigners as other poor countries do, but we do it to our own is the bigger tragedy IMO.
It seems to be the bigger the crook the "sounder "a person he is made out to be by those he has robbed blind.

I don't know, back in the 50's and 60's my oul fella and his brother had endless shooting around dublin, wickla and kildare, it could be had for the asking, ditto fishing. No such thing as insurance, training courses, hunting licences, you had a licence for the gun and stuck to the seasons and you were grand.

But like the rod licence war back in the 80's, some greedy swine decided to make shooting etc a cash cow, and it will get steadily worse if we are not extremely careful.

Hunter456

gunny123 wrote: »

I don't know, back in the 50's and 60's my oul fella and his brother had endless shooting around dublin, wickla and kildare, it could be had for the asking, ditto fishing. No such thing as insurance, training courses, hunting licences, you had a licence for the gun and stuck to the seasons and you were grand.

But like the rod licence war back in the 80's, some greedy swine decided to make shooting etc a cash cow, and it will get steadily worse if we are not extremely careful.

Facts right there ;)

German pointer

I didn't answer the question and have my license. I applied on the 15th May by email. Licence granted and posted the 3rd August.

Grizzly 45

Grizzly 45

Finally got it today in the post.By Feck!! They want an answer to that stupid question or no deal..:mad:

Cass

As i said above i never answered it and got the license without any issues (other than the land thing again). Do you think because you made an issue out of it they pushed it?

Hunter456

Cass wrote: »

As i said above i never answered it and got the license without any issues (other than the land thing again). Do you think because you made an issue out of it they pushed it?

lad i know rang the NWPS and they said it needed to be signed tried explaining its not a required document with your renewal and your under no legal obligation to sign it still signed anyway.:eek:

German pointer

At least you have it now.

Grizzly 45

Hunter456 wrote: »

lad i know rang the NWPS and they said it needed to be signed tried explaining its not a required document with your renewal and your under no legal obligation to sign it still signed anyway.:eek:

No that was the questionnaire from the ...Whatever.. group that was asking about GPS and all that BS.[80% of people apparently filled it in btw]
This is the pink slip from application sent out at the beginning of the season asking what qualifications you have for deer hunting?That is the one I declined to answer, and they probably made an issue out of it because I wrote "decline to answer" on the form.

One thing is for sure folks they ARE pushing this BS out and onto the rest of us.Like the night shooting, we NEED to have this raised at FCP or ministerial level as well as questions like why the NPWS has decided off its own bat to decide 100 as is the average for a permit?Contrary to the wildlife act, which makes no mention of minimum acreage, as neither do the firearms acts. I stated this point to them that no one wants a course for cash in private pockets scenario, where nothing is going back into the sport.They suggested we write in with our concerns.":rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Like the night shooting, we NEED to have this raised at FCP or ministerial level:

I'd say the FCP is gone for the next year or so, maybe longer. The SC complaint against the NARGC has put a stop to the FCP.

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say the FCP is gone for the next year or so, maybe longer. The SC complaint against the NARGC has put a stop to the FCP.

How to make yourself all the more freakin popular in the community. :rolleyes: