Refused section 35 licences

The pigeon man

I hope everyone is keeping well.

I applied for section 35 licences recently for callers and it'll decoys as my current licenses will expire soon.

I have been refused the licenses for fox callers and crow callers and decoys despite npws issuing them to me last year and there being a continued problem with these species on the farms I shoot over.

I was refused on the basis that 35 says the use of these devices is illegal.

I was informed that a license may only be issued for research or other 'scientific' purpose.

I believe they have deliberately misinterpreted the legislation because it states that a license may be issued for scientific research or for another purpose.

So I'm wondering has anyone else held or renewed this license lately?

Is there any method of appeal?

And has anyone held a license to hunt from a mechanically propelled vehicle?

p28559

write to them and ask what the mechanism for appeal is.

they either have one which you use or dont have one.

try the ombudsmans office first if they dont have one and a solicitor last.

Rosahane

You could take the opportunity to write to each of your newly elected TDs stating that you voted for them, briefly explaining the problem and asking for intervention.

They might be highly motivated at the moment and it would be an interesting test.

Of course also follow the good advice from p28559 above also.

Keep copies of all letters.

endacl

Rosahane wrote: »

You could take the opportunity to write to each of your newly elected TDs

Especially if they’re SF Tds. Historically have no problem at all with guns in private hands. Might even be able to sort you out with ammo.

cookimonster

Ref Section 35
Last year (previously no issue other than waiting for them) I had a little trouble, only little, applying for a sect 35 for the use of decoys. But this was sorted when I explined that I wanted the licence to run in conjunction with the annual bird derogation. This meant I only wanted to use said decoys during the times stated on the derogation that allowed for corvids to be controlled and not carte blanche to shoot corvids all year round.
My Section 35 Licences directly quotes the derogation times and conditions, inculded a copy of the derogation and a return of species and numbers culled.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/38/section/43/enacted/en/html#sec43

This is the link to the amendments of the Act. Quote the amendments for Sec 35-

“(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, a decoy, vehicle or an instrument or appliance, including electrical or other recording apparatus emitting sound for the purpose of repelling, scaring or capturing any wild bird or any wild animal, may be used, pursuant to and in accordance with a licence granted in that behalf by the Minister, for scientific research or for another purpose approved of by the Minister.[/U]

This other purpose can be construed as the necessity to cull covids as laid out in the yearly derogations
Reapply, qoute previous licences, state the use of decoys will coincide with the Bird Derogation (hopefully issued this year) and be prepared to back up the reasons for the cull - see the conditions of the derogation. In my case I have them for ariable farm land and over club grounds were we have our pheasants and there are flocks of sheep.

Ref Section 36
I applied twice, once 2018, which after several phones calls I was told that due to up coming legal changes a decision at that time couldn't be made. Last year I re-applied when I put in for the sec 35 and was contacted by a different person in the department (one person does sec 35 another sec 36 AFAIK). I was refused on the grounds that it was for 'scientific research' only. I pointed out the line 'for another purpose approved of by the Minister' and explined that it was considered best practice in the likes of the UK. 'This is not the UK' was the reply, end of story.

I and a few others have always been aware of the difference between some of the Wildlife Rangers on the ground. In respect of Sec42 and deer, one Ranger may approve a cull of 20 animals (any gender) on land no more then the size of a couple of football fields, while another would issue a licence for 1 stag only over 3 months on a much larger property suffering the same damage. No rhyme or reason other than obvious personal opinions.

The pigeon man

It's a right pain unfortunately.

I stated on the section 35 license that the decoys would be used for hunting crows in line with the birds derogation or under section 42.

They are now claiming that these section 35 licences cannot be issued for hunting at all, despite me currently having a valid section 35 license for that purpose. I was trying to continue the license for the rest of the year

p28559

cut to the chase with a government department and dont be wasting your time writting to TD's

" where might i find a copy of the ministerial order specifying what he/she considers another purpose as per the act"

" can you give me the name of the person who holds the minsterial delegation that refused my application"

" can you inform me what changes in policy have been implemented since the last licence was issued to me"

different rangers have different views but i would nearly bet that there is only one written policy for that department which l further guess that document leave little room for personal views

p28559

cut to the chase with a government department and dont be wasting your time writting to TD's

" where might i find a copy of the ministerial order specifying what he/she considers another purpose as per the act"

" can you give me the name of the person who holds the minsterial delegation that refused my application"

" can you inform me what changes in policy have been implemented since the last licence was issued to me"

different rangers have different views but i would nearly bet that there is only one written policy for that department which l further guess that document leave little room for personal views

Zxthinger

If they have been issusing licence to date then there is an established order in place and they need to continue then.

What a gang of gluteus maximus bandits

cookimonster

Meant to update this.

I had my application for crow decoys and callers refused as well, was told they were issued in error. Funny how I was interviewed over the phone and had a long in-depth talk with the lad in the department last year when I got them issued to me. Clarified the reasons why and the particular times of the year they would be used - basicly to run concurrent with the yearly derogation, so I find it hard to belive that there was an error, considering the detailed conditions laid out in the licence.
Returned a full copy of the licence to the department with my renewal fully filled in so there could be no confusion or so I thought.
I politely informed them again that there was a provision to the section allowing for use of decoys, calls, vechiles etc but they insisted that was only for scientific reserach, funny how the two exceptions are stated but both are conjoined in the offical answer.
Just to let you know this kind of thing does NOT need to go through the Dail, the legislation is such that the Minister may amend parts of the Wildlife Act as they see fit and as required.

Well the next step is to kick this off to the NARGC and let them re-glue the hairs the department are splitting.

tudderone

I find the whole thing bizarre to be honest. That licences have to be issued for the control of vermin, which is over-running the country, for one thing. And in addition there has to be another licence issued for callers ! Who the hell dreamt all this up ? The militant wing of the green party ?

When i was vermin shooting years ago, there was none of that rubbish, i bought a fox call in Cahills of Naas (remember them ?), and tipped on with the Hornet.

Ditto with the shotgun at pigeons over crops, no silly licence needed, bang away and the farmers were happy.

The pigeon man

tudderone wrote: »

I find the whole thing bizarre to be honest. That licences have to be issued for the control of vermin, which is over-running the country, for one thing. And in addition there has to be another licence issued for callers ! Who the hell dreamt all this up ? The militant wing of the green party ?

When i was vermin shooting years ago, there was none of that rubbish, i bought a fox call in Cahills of Naas (remember them ?), and tipped on with the Hornet.

Ditto with the shotgun at pigeons over crops, no silly licence needed, bang away and the farmers were happy.

Yes we have an amazing wildlife act. If you're shooting pigeons with your decoys to protect crops you're all good provided everything else is in order.

Whereas if you're shooting rooks to protect crops over decoys you're guilty of an offence if you don't have a section 35 license.

Could we campaign to have shooting over decoys added to the birds derogation?

It would probably be easier than amending the wildlife act.

Vizzy

The pigeon man wrote: »

Yes we have an amazing wildlife act. If you're shooting pigeons with your decoys to protect crops you're all good provided everything else is in order.

Whereas if you're shooting rooks to protect crops over decoys you're guilty of an offence if you don't have a section 35 license.

Could we campaign to have shooting over decoys added to the birds derogation?

It would probably be easier than amending the wildlife act.

Funnily, I was talking to the NPWS warden yesterday after viewing some of the vids on the ICABs facebook and raised this very issue with him ( crow decoys). He is a big time shooter himself and thinks that the extra licence to use plastic decoys is madness.

He said that shooting over plastic decoys is a big no no. ( unless you have a licence)

But - shooting over dead crows being used as decoys is fine.

So, you can shoot a crow or two, put them on a magnet or a flapper and it is totally legal.

tudderone

Is all this rubbish from our lords and masters in the EU or is it homegrown foolishness ? I think our lot in the dail would be too lazy to draft something like this.

cookimonster

EU influence, I don't think so as each member state can have variations to the bird directive. Take the UK they use the general licence and plastic decoys are ok. France has various different practices from region to region.

Using real dead birds has always being legal and in reality the best practice. But that is not the point, there exsists within the act a condition for use of corvid decoys and when nessecery they form a handy tool in the control of corvids. I have explained this to the NPWS, using decoys in the beginning and replacing them witb dead birds, the out come is the same, the control of a pest species. There is no degree of trickery or poor sportsmanship in thier use.

What is worrying and I forgot to mention this, is the fact the department gave me written permission to use 'Pigeon Decoys'. Now let me clearly state here this was not a written clarification that the use of pigeon decoys was ok rather it was them granting me permission to use them.
This is contrary to the Amendments of the Wildlife Act -
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/38/enacted/en/print#sec43
43.—Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—
Amendment of section 35 (certain use of scarecrows, decoys, birdcalls and calls of wild mammals restricted) of Principal Act

by the insertion, in paragraph (c), of “wood pigeons,” before “wild duck”,

See picture attached. All details have been removed but originals, emails and previous licences will be forwarded onto NARGC.
This may sound trivial, but we only just got the derogation corrected and as I have said previous the way in which the Wildlife Act is written it does not need a long convoluted journey through the Dial to enact changes, this can happen within the walls of the Ministers office

Grizzly 45

Whats the story here with using a plastic owl decoy to lure crows into range?
Cant find anything specific on that in relation to crow shooting.

cookimonster

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whats the story here with using a plastic owl decoy to lure crows into range?
Cant find anything specific on that in relation to crow shooting.

In the Wildlife Act

35.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not—

(c) use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wild duck and wild geese, or

The 2000 Amendment has included pigeon into paragraph (c) allowing the use of decoys.

(ii) by the insertion, in paragraph (c), of “wood pigeons,” before “wild duck”,

Grizzly 45

Saw that CM.but again utterly vauge as to what a protected species is.If crows are,then they cant have a derogation.
So are crows a protected species? Seems to be the nub of it.

cookimonster

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Saw that CM.but again utterly vauge as to what a protected species is.If crows are,then they cant have a derogation.
So are crows a protected species? Seems to be the nub of it.

All wild birds (500 speices) under the EU Birds Directive are protected.

Europe is home to more than 500 wild bird species. But at least 32 % of the EU's bird species are currently not in a good conservation status. The Birds Directive aims to protect all of the 500 wild bird species naturally occurring in the European Union.

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm

We are allowed hunt/control certain species under the regulations and restrictions of:

-Hunting Seasons
-Derogations to the Bird Directive

Much in the same way that deer are protected wild mammals, there is a provision under licence to hunt them during specific seasons.
So regardless of the derogation the corvids are a protected species and may only be controled as per the terms of the state issued derogation.
As we seen with the pigeon debacle that derogation can be changed on a whim or hopefully and more appropriately scientific evidence. The legislation is there to protect the birds but equally its there if control is needed. Other supporting legislation in part such as Sec 34, 35, 36 and 42 of the Wildlife Act allow for measures to be used for control of designated species.

In sort all birds are protected and the derogation or various sections of the wildlife act allow hunting / control under very specific circumstances.

tudderone

Whats the point in protecting an agricultural pest ? Jesus they really must have feck all to be at, if they can waste time and resources drawing up laws like that.

The pigeon man

35.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not—

(c) use a stuffed or artificial decoy in the form of any bird for the purpose of hunting any protected wild birds, other than wild duck and wild geese, or

Does this mean that if you had specified in a section 42 license for shooting over decoys you could get a license for doing so?

cookimonster

tudderone wrote: »

Whats the point in protecting an agricultural pest ? Jesus they really must have feck all to be at, if they can waste time and resources drawing up laws like that.

A measure of protection....
Take the Rook and crop protection for example. The Derogation allows you to control it for 11 months if the year. For feed lots its 7 months of the year.
I would suspect that if the day comes and thier numbers dwindle then there will be even tighter controll.

Remember it was not until circa 1976 that deer came under the protection of the Wildlife Act. I see Deer as large game species and love to hunt them, others see them as pests and wish them eradicated by all means.

cookimonster

The pigeon man wrote: »

.........
Does this mean that if you had specified in a section 42 license for shooting over decoys you could get a license for doing so?

Technicaly you could, for example, not decoy related, you apply for a Sec42 to control geese causing damage to grazing, as the Derogation or hunting seasons don't cover this situation.
But remember our discussions and arguments put forward here in response to the recent changes to the Derogation re pigeons. One of the offical lines was to use a Sec42, the argument against that was the unwieldy process that is involved and timelines. Altough a thin hair to slice the Sec42 is in response to damage and altough, especially when dealing with deer, it may seem that sections are being applied for inadvance they are, in principle, not so.
The Derogation is preemting a issue and the use of decoys support your control measures.

J.R.

Vizzy wrote: »

So, you can shoot a crow or two, put them on a magnet or a flapper and it is totally legal.

I presume that a magnet or a flapper, even when battery operated, are still allowed and legal to use for pigeons (plastic or real decoy) and crows (real decoy).

cookimonster

J.R. wrote: »

I presume that a magnet or a flapper, even when battery operated, are still allowed and legal to use for pigeons (plastic or real decoy) and crows (real decoy).

Now there's a good one, I use flappers, magnets and a few other gizzmos but here's one for the noodle....

Last years licence. See the part circled in red....

Mellor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Saw that CM.but again utterly vauge as to what a protected species is.If crows are,then they cant have a derogation.
So are crows a protected species? Seems to be the nub of it.

Other way around. Crows are on the derogation because they are a protected species.

J.R. wrote: »

I presume that a magnet or a flapper, even when battery operated, are still allowed and legal to use for pigeons (plastic or real decoy) and crows (real decoy).

Allowed for pigeons.

Section 35 require to Decoy corvids, and if the condition noted above by cookimonster is attached, then no magnet or other electric/battery decoy

DECOYING
Although not listed in Schedule four of the derogation, the Wildlife Acts permit the
use of decoys, including mechanical/electrical appliances such as pigeon magnets,
which do not emit sound.

http://www.ballydanganbog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NARGC_Predator-Control_Manual_2016.pdf

The pigeon man

You can use artificial and stuffed decoys for pigeons, ducks, geese.

If you want to use stuffed or artificial for decoys for other birds you must have a section 35 license.

If you use a decoy that isn't stuffed or artificial no license is required. So using shot crows is perfectly acceptable.

I'm looking into getting decoys that are made from natural products and are not stuffed to comply with this legislation.

I'm unsure whether putting the dead body of a bird on a flapper would be artificial?

Mellor

The pigeon man wrote: »

You can use artificial and stuffed decoys for pigeons, ducks, geese.

If you want to use stuffed or artificial for decoys for other birds you must have a section 35 license.

If you use a decoy that isn't stuffed or artificial no license is required. So using shot crows is perfectly acceptable.

That’s my understanding also. Would be fairly unmanageable otherwise.

I'm looking into getting decoys that are made from natural products and are not stuffed to comply with this legislation.

That wouldn’t be allowed imo. Its still an artificial crow - regardless of whether the materials are synthetic or natural.

I'm unsure whether putting the dead body of a bird on a flapper would be artificial?

That’s less clear for me too.
The flapper/magnet is obviously an artificial device. But the crow itself is the decoy not the flapper.
If that’s not allowed, neither is propping a head on a stake - which seems silly.