Proposals from Deer Alliance for future seasons

Cass

Got a call today from a friend about proposals that have been submitted to the NPWS, DoLG/H/H (Dept of Local Government, Hertitage, Housing), and i presume DoE. They were submitted to the relevant Departments by the Deer Alliance with regards to changes they want to see implemented by March 2021 (next year). They are:

1. All Deer Hunting Licenses (DHL) should run in conjunction with the license timeframe of the firearm to which the license is attached. IOW a three year deer license with your deer caliber rifle.
2. All persons, even those with licenses prior to the implementation of the new guidelines this year, need to do competence assessment courses within the next 5 years. So everyone will have to have done a course to prove they are competent regardless whether its your first or fiftieth season.
3. Land owner permission should be dispensed with and replaced with competence certificate. As there was an exemption to the signed land owners permission this year due to the China virus, they claim this sets a precedence and all future land owner permissions should be dispensed with in lieu of the certificate of competence (they say from the HCAP but any certificate will suffice). Meaning once you have done the course you can shoot as you like.
4. Introduction of an €80 fee for the DHL to run concurrently with your firearm license in a bid to generate revenue for other proposals listed below.
5. An online facility/site to accommodate application which can be completed and renewed online rather than via the post every three years.
6. All of this to come into effect by no later than March 2021.

Discuss.

Rows Grower

How did they come up with these proposals?

Is this the brainfart of an individual that got it ratified by a committee or was it voted on and approved by all members?

Sounds like a money making scheme to me.

Richard308

€80 licence for dhl will only encourage those in the sport to recoup their outgoings by selling venison. I currently spend rifle licence 27€ annually roughly, Nargc insurance fund(Gun club fee) €70 and ammunition maybe €50(including confirming zero) I don’t want another charge personally.

No issue with three year licence, however they will still want animal shooting returns and most won’t bother every year if licence is renewed already.

As for HCAP etc, I’d say not a bad idea in theory. However I have reservations about private companies etc. Plus the Covid 19 can’t see how courses can be run in the short to medium future.

It’s a nightmare to reform and no silver bullet

Rows Grower

It's also going to encourage some individual to take control of the running of these courses.

5,515 licences issued last year, multiply that by 80 euro is over 440 grand, that's a lot of money.

Chiparus

What proposals are being funded by the charge?

Trips to New Zealand to study deer management ?

Cass

Chiparus wrote: »

What proposals are being funded by the charge?

Apparently the cost to set up, run and maintain an online site for applications and renewals.

cookimonster

Chiparus wrote: »

What proposals are being funded by the charge?

5: A fee of up to €80.00 should be applied to each application for a three-year DHL, in line with the fee of €80.00 applied to the three-year Firearms Certificate. The revenue from the three-year DHL (projected at up to €480000.00 or an annualised €160000) would more than cover the cost of a switch to an online system. The cost saving in dispensing with verification of landowner permissions and physical issue of DHLs (to be downloaded by the applicant after online application and grant) can also be factored in.

Rows Grower

Chiparus wrote: »

What proposals are being funded by the charge?

Trips to New Zealand to study deer management ?

There would want to be some pretty detailed costing breakdowns made available to all interested parties and individuals to accompany that proposal.

John Delaney hasn't taken over the Deer Alliance has he?

Richard308

All jokes aside It maybe someone corrupt for all We know.

Uinseann_16

I personally am not a fan of the mandatory courses its just a money racket:rolleyes:

There is nothing you will learn in them that is anything special

Cass

This started three years ago with their initial push for mandatory courses for newcomers to the sport which the Minister ratified and initiated this year but these new proposals seek to push this to all hunters/stalkers.

Given there is a financial benefit to those running these courses, and as they are the same as the ones pushing these proposals, there is a conflict of interest.

I've also been reading comments from members of the deer commission and other deer groups on FB and most members seem oblivious to these proposals with some claiming they knew nothing about them or to the extent of the proposals and how much they [the proposals] wanted to change things.

This is a repeat of the previous secret proposals in the past ten years from the sports coalition and other vested interest groups.

Cass

There are other problems.

The issue about not needing land permission. They claim a precedence was set this year, but the permissions were not voided, they were simply eased due to the current situation. However claiming that a course gives you authority to enter any lands will cause a sh*t storm of trouble and lads are not known for sharing lands. The comparison to driving is redundant and asinine. You pay tax on the car, the fuel, actual road tax, insurance which all go to the exchequer and that pays for the roads you drive on and the constitution gives you the freedom to travel unmolested within the state. There is no constitutional law for deer hunting.

The three year license sounds good, but what about returns. Do they move to every three years too? Or are they to remain yearly in which case the paperwork is slightly reduced not eliminated.

Then there is the issue of the course itself. The proposals name the hcap, but its not the only one as they found out when they initially pushed the mandatory course. As said above it creates a conflict of interest when proposals seek to legislate for a mandatory course that will be of financial gain to those pushing for the legislation.

This leads us onto the actual legislation which will need to be changed to allow for these changes. It also makes me question the ability of the authors to understand the legalities of what they are proposing when they discuss issues such as the 100 acres being eliminated when its not a rule, law or anything like it. There is no legal basis for 100 acres. Its a clause the NPWS introduced and to get around the illegality of them demanding it they claim anyone who cannot produce this as a minimum will be refused a license under the "unsuitability" of anything less.

There seems to be, not insignificant, legal issues, as with the other proposals in the last ten years, which will prohibit these proposals from being implemented, however the danger is, as with previous proposals, that the Government will take the opportunity to change the laws based on the "majority" seemingly willingly open to change, to introduce more restrictive ones which will not resemble those proposed.

I'm not opposed to change and in situations like this its needed however the proposals should be open, transparent, published to all, voted on by all, and only then submitted. Not done in secret and submitted by a self declared group.

Rows Grower

There's something not quite right about these shehannigans.

I remember trying to join a Deer Hunting association a couple of years ago and they were up in a heap because the secretary had left or was asked to leave after being exposed as not having the interests of the association at heart. Turned out he was a bit of a control freak with a flair for self promotion, I wonder whatever happened to him.

Kramer

Cass wrote: »

Given there is a financial benefit to those running these courses, and as they are the same as the ones pushing these proposals, there is a conflict of interest.

Well, I kinda did predict this, just a few weeks ago............

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114569937&postcount=86

Grizzly 45 wrote:

..........deer associations...........
is supposedly their beat,have been remarkably absent and not very vocal on this matter...Would have thought this is their moment now?

Kramer wrote: »

Their moment to sidle in, tie licensing into mandatory testing, expensive testing only they can offer, ultimately becoming the ones issuing licences?

Probably just me being cynical - never would anything like that happen in the target shooting/hunting communities.

There's certainly no historical evidence of "representative" groups trying to grab control, is there?

.

This really is a terrible country for this sh1t, I despair, I really do .

Start an "organisation", start it with "national", or "Irish", end it in "association" or similar, throw up a Facebook/Twitter page, post away for a while, then profess to be "the" leading national association representing "members", lobby government as such:

Then:

BOOM - money/control/power rolls in, underwritten by legislation :mad:.

Kramer

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's something not quite right about these shehannigans.

I remember trying to join a Deer Hunting association a couple of years ago

.

Zxthinger

The government aren't interested in 80€ per licence. They're only introducing a charge in a effect to reduce licence numbers.

There staff can't handle the numbers on a good day.. it's all a plot to weed out deer hunter numbers and nothing more.

HCAP are lining their own nest and to be honest there course is of little use.. as it doesn't cover enough detail.
In all fairness how can you learn enough about deer in one day with a few slides. Lol

Kramer

Cass wrote: »

[*]All persons, even those with licenses prior to the implementation of the new guidelines this year, need to do competence assessment courses within the next 5 years. So everyone will have to have done a course to prove they are competent regardless whether its your first or fiftieth season.

This is what they want. The licences are just the means to make this mandatory.
This "3 year" licence is a smokescreen to distract from the mandatory (private & expensive) competency testing.

Look at the HCAP for example.

When all 5,500 deer hunters are mandated to "recertify" every 3 years, at €165 per head, that'll produce a nice €250,000 per year, into the hands of a nice private "group".

Can anyone tell me how that will benefit existing deer hunters, deer hunters who have stalked for generations without issue etc.?
Will it benefit deer?

It's pretty obvious what is happening...............it's happened before.........it'll happen again.
It's an Irish thing I think .

Cass

Kramer wrote: »

When all 5,500 deer hunters are mandated to "recertify" every 3 years, at €165 per head, that'll produce a nice €250,000 per year, into the hands of a nice private "group".

Don't forget about written exams, books and of course re-tests (the gift that keeps on giving).

I've been to a LOT of hcaps. I mean a lot of them. On one particular day a chap done, if i recall correctly, 7 retests (1 deer target, and eventually 3 full repeats), and got his "certificate of competency" at the end of it.

Just think about that for a minute. This chap, for whatever reason, could not put 6 rounds (in total, 2 at each stage) into a deer at 40, 60 and 100 yards. After doing this 7 times, the last one privately when everyone else was done, he walked out with a certificate to say he was competent.

I know some lads mess up on the day. A lot of eyes on you and pressure, especially given the money some lads invest in rifles, leases, etc. so a miss is expected, but at some point you have to say to someone you're not fit nor safe to hunt, take up Golf.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

All Deer Hunting Licenses (DHL) should run in conjunction with the license timeframe of the firearm to which the license is attached. IOW a three year deer license with your deer caliber rifle.

About time an all.:rolleyes:

All persons, even those with licenses prior to the implementation of the new guidelines this year, need to do competence assessment courses within the next 5 years. So everyone will have to have done a course to prove they are competent regardless whether its your first or fiftieth season.

Money for somebody no doubt in that.:rolleyes::rolleyes: Bad idea,as then we need to start talking training and course standards,who trains the trainers?Be intresting to know what training qualifications the trainers have at the moment themselves,and have they sat their own courses and passed?:p

What happens then when we have all passed these courses,and now we have educated poachers and ligit deer stalkers,and everyone is qualified with this final mission creep out of Coilte woods?Or will it be, you need a "refresher course every 3 years in stalking to keep your knowledge up to date!":rolleyes:
NOT a good idea for us TBH. This HCAP was intended for Coilte woods only,but has crept out due to vested intrests,and this is now a push to get us all in the net and profit from this.

Land owner permission should be dispensed with and replaced with competence certificate. As there was an exemption to the signed land owners permission this year due to the China virus, they claim this sets a precedence and all future land owner permissions should be dispensed with in lieu of the certificate of competence (they say from the HCAP but any certificate will suffice). Meaning once you have done the course you can shoot as you like.

So a landowner will have no say on who he then allows on his property then for 3 years?What happens if the landowner dies,sells the land passes it onto someone who is anti hunting,or has a falling out with the stalker? Or anything of the kind? There has to be a refusal mechanism for the land owner as well in this proposition.The simplest is not grant permission to stalk on the land.Otherwise the land owner has to have some way of directly informing the NPWS that he has revoked permission for the stalkers on his land.I doubt any farmer/landowner would allow an uninterrupted cycle of stalkers on his land without some sort of opt out for him?

Introduction of an €80 fee for the DHL to run concurrently with your firearm license in a bid to generate revenue for other proposals listed below.

NO!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! There is no guarantee that this will stay at 80 euros for a period longer than 12 months. Unless it is enshrined in the act,and takes a legislative change to increase the price.This will just become a money cow,and blamed on cost of administration and all the other justifications and slowly creep up as well. NEVER let and fight to the death on any monetary applications by a Govt dept on what was free before.

Also do the math on this which makes no sense.
We have now a figure of appx 5,500 liscenses in 2020 from the ministers statement 5,500X80 = 440,000 euros every 3 years = 146,666 Per annum divided by 36,000 an average beuracrat lower salary going by their last salary package offerings four yeas ago.It employs 4 NPWS people for a year with some chump change for the office party....

So they will need 4 people to operate a computer programme,that should cost no more than 500,00 to develop,procure and instal and test run,but being a Govt contract will be at least 1.5 million in total budget and take 3 years to develop and instal.... WHO IS KIDDING WHO HERE???:mad:

An online facility/site to accommodate application which can be completed and renewed online rather than via the post every three years.[/I]

Provided they can assure DPA compliance and secure information storage...And we can also do bag returns on it??

All of this to come into effect by no later than March 2021.

In what parallel universe Ireland are they thinking this will happen???:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Name me ONE Govt dept change or Irish Govt project in the last 30 years that has come on stream...Ontime within specification,within it's budget,that has worked straight away,and hasn't had some glitches that are only discoverd later on,or is so rigid ,it cant be adapted to more detailed information...[Looking at you Garda Pulse system]. Unless they are willing to make this an open bid for this project and ignore all the ol pals and brown paper envelopes and drinkies in the golf club deals.We will end up with the same sort of POS system as AGS did with the PULSE ,and we'll be no better off.

ALSO
Question not asked,and just as pertinent.
What happens with your foreshore liscense??Will this system be adapted to deal with these applications online as well??If so it also raises the questions;

1] Will duck hunters also be required to pay 80 euros?

2]Per annum or every 5 years?

3] Will they be rquired to do some sort of certification as well?Or is it only deer hunters being discriminated against on this?We end up paying as a minority group compared to duck hunters/game shooters/rough shooters for the whole system and they enjoy its usage for free,as you can be double damn sure,they will end up in this net too.

4] Will the hangover from the troubles as to what rifle,serial number and ammo type be dispensed with? NPWS cant actually cross reference this with AGS due to DPA anyway,and this act was written pre privacy and data protection laws?


Too many unanswerd questions here that need alot more answers from the Govt depts and whomever else before we sign off on this.

Kramer

Cass wrote: »

but at some point you have to say to someone you're not fit nor safe to hunt, take up Golf.

No Cass, that's not the way it works here in Ireland.

Take, for example, the green party.
In 2011, the Irish public basically told them "you're not fit to govern". 2020, they're back in government .

Actually, in that vain, FG were told the same in February. They've not yet got the message though.

Anyway, I wonder if there will be a Boardsie special or group deal for the mandatory testing? Maybe we should set up a gofundme for the deer associations?

.

Kramer

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Or will it be, you need a "refresher course every 3 years in stalking to keep your knowledge up to date!":rolleyes:

Of course you will :pac:.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Also do the math on this which makes no sense.
We have now a figure of appx 5,500 liscenses in 2020 from the ministers statement 5,500X80 = 440,000 euros every 3 years = 146,666 Per annum divided by 36,000 an average beuracrat lower salary going by their last salary package offerings four yeas ago.It employs 4 NPWS people for a year with some chump change for the office party....

At 39 hours per week, it would take just one employee to process 3 licences per hour, or 24 per day, to cover all licences.

richiedel123

I remember questions about doing courses and a fee on it.
Too many groups claiming they are doing this and that and none of them doing feck all. I just read their aims and objectives. Give them a read. It's a good laugh now that I have read their proposals haha

Heavy handed

It was more the man over the HCAP that drafted these proposals and is rightly so getting roasted on social media for putting forward the idea of charging €80 for the DHL. utter nonsense asking us to pay up for the departments lack of modernisation. I don’t remember been consulted or asked about suggestions and improving the system so why does these groups think this is what we want.

kenneths

Hi All.
As secretary of the Irish Deer Commission I can categorically state that these proposals have nothing to do with the Irish Deer Commission.

They are the sole ideas of Liam Nolan whom is the Deer Alliance/ Hcap.

Could an Admin please PM in regards to this topic if further clarity is required.

Regards.

Kenneth Sewell

Kramer

kenneths wrote: »

Hi All.
As secretary of the Irish Deer Commission I can categorically state that these proposals have nothing to do with the Irish Deer Commission.

They are the sole ideas of Liam Nolan whom is the Deer Alliance/ Hcap.

Glad to hear irish deer commission is distancing itself from this, but I'm perplexed.

kenneths

Please see that this is a proposal by the Deer Alliance.
From the website it states....

http://deeralliance.ie/blog/suggested-reform-of-the-deer-hunting-licence-dhl-system/

Grizzly 45

Liam Nolan is getting a hammering and booting over on FB with these proposals.:eek:

A good point made was this.Did the costs of any of the more important documentation that we need in Irish life rise in cost when it went online? IOW we would be rewarding incompetency in a govt dept,if we let this go ahead in this format.

viper123

I would agree to some of it but would disagree with points 2 and 3. Two is clearly a money racket for the alliance thats proposing it, and for 3 it would be ridiculous to be able to get a licence only because you have competence irrespective of if you have land to shoot on or not. Theres enough poaching happening now by licencees with no permission to shoot.
I'd be for a fee for a stalking permit so long as it was ringfenced towards deer welfare and patrols rather than paying for a system which should have been in place years ago. At the end of the day there are maybe 5-10k applications per year no need for a complex online system when it can just be a simple case of apply via email

garrettod

Cass wrote: »

Got a call today from a friend about proposals that have been submitted....

Hi Cass,

Assuming it wouldn't get you, or your friend, in trouble, is it not time for hunters to make it very clear to the Minister that they have not been consulted on this and that they do not support it, for X, Y, Z reasons?

Sika98k

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's something not quite right about these shehannigans.

I remember trying to join a Deer Hunting association a couple of years ago and they were up in a heap because the secretary had left or was asked to leave after being exposed as not having the interests of the association at heart. Turned out he was a bit of a control freak with a flair for self promotion, I wonder whatever happened to him.

He went off and formed his own little group where he could issue statements of great peril and alarm to the general public on deer, their welfare and management or failed management as “a spokesman”
Go figure, I love me, what’s your hobby ?

Richard308

viper123 wrote: »

I would agree to some of it but would disagree with points 2 and 3. Two is clearly a money racket for the alliance thats proposing it, and for 3 it would be ridiculous to be able to get a licence only because you have competence irrespective of if you have land to shoot on or not. Theres enough poaching happening now by licencees with no permission to shoot.
I'd be for a fee for a stalking permit so long as it was ringfenced towards deer welfare and patrols rather than paying for a system which should have been in place years ago. At the end of the day there are maybe 5-10k applications per year no need for a complex online system when it can just be a simple case of apply via email

No money would be ringfenced. Unfortunately it would be used for whatever purpose they want. Motor tax money does not go to repairing roads, if it did we’d have the best roads in the world.

Rows Grower

We badly need to organise and have a voice that represents us as hunters.

It’s funding we should be looking for not ways to impose extra costs on ourselves.

Sheep breeder

Looking at this for the land part, it is basically saying they want the right to roam land like in the uk with out the owners consent, can’t see that getting by The ifa and any other farming bodies and not a requirement to get a licence to have land to shoot. Basically open season on shoot wherever you want in Ireland. What will be next the duck and pheasant and fox shooting will have do hacp type courses and can shoot any where

Sika98k

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Looking at this for the land part, it is basically saying they want the right to roam land like in the uk with out the owners consent, can’t see that getting by The ifa and any other farming bodies and not a requirement to get a licence to have land to shoot. Basically open season on shoot wherever you want in Ireland. What will be next the duck and pheasant and fox shooting will have do hacp type courses and can shoot any where

I think people are misconstruing this part about dispensing with the letter of permission. It’s already in the law that entering onto a persons land with a firearm is illegal. It’s called “armed trespass “.
You will still need permission to hunt deer on someone’s land. You need permission to hunt anything, pigeon, duck,rabbits,pheasants etc,etc on someone’s land. Otherwise you are a poacher.
You do not have the right to roam in the U.K. with a firearm. You may have the right to walk wherever you want but that was the Labour Government having a dig at the Tories. Let’s leave that sinking ship across the Irish Sea out of it.
Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

cookimonster

Sika98k wrote: »

I think people are misconstruing this part about dispensing with the letter of permission..

Absolutely, it seems that some lads are interpreting the lack of 'land permission' as carte blanche to enter onto any land. This is a ridiculous interpretation.

The proposal actually suggests to remove the current necessity to provide land permission for your deer hunting license. It does not suggest or even hint at the thought of DHL holders been able to enter onto land without permission. This is just pure b#llocks'olagy on behalf of some here.
The proposals again do not suggest that individual firearm owners don't need 'land permission' to obtain thier centre fire deer legal firaearms license. Think about it, one legislative work covering firearms requires you to have suitable land permission for said license. So if the Authorities grant us a centre fire licence for the purpose of deer hunting we must have 'land permission' for that process. Why on earth double up on this process when applying for a deer hunting licence ?

So apply for a DHL, receive that DHL, apply for your centre fire as per normal, with DHL in hand, land permission (as per FCA1) and all the other information as needed.

We whine about bureaucracy and the mounting paperwork, such as resubmiting photographs that are never used, yearly applications, repeating the same old details yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

cookimonster

From the Deer Alliance Blog -
Point 3 of thier Proposal- reference land permission-

3: Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard. Landowner permissions have been dispensed with for the current 2020-2021 Season, so the precedent has been established. By way of comparison – when a citizen obtains a driving licence, having undertaken the appropriate training and passing both the theory and practical tests, he or she is not limited to driving on highways but not on secondary roads. A person is either trained and competent (and certified as such) or is not. In the same way, the trained, competent and certified hunter should not need to prove access to 100 acres (out of 17.36 million acres). It is an irrelevancy where the hunter is deemed safe to use a deer-legal firearm (and is in any event assessed as such by the Garda Siochana) and competent in his or her knowledge of deer management practices. It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity, but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Lads need to start reading the written word!!!

Grizzly 45

Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

Talk to any solicitor or junior counsel on that one for a seriously differing opinion!:p

We whine about bureaucracy and the mounting paperwork, such as resubmiting photographs that are never used, yearly applications, repeating the same old details yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

We are having a hissy fit as this proposal has more holes in it than Joe Biden's short term memory,and its being proposed by an organisation that is far from trustworthy with its mission creep over the last decade out of its original remit.
It has the following problems;
1
] WADI /IDS doesnt speak for me and the majority of Irish deer hunters.So who asked Mr Nolan and gave him a remit to speak for the majority ,who simply want to go and get their liscenses in a timely manner for the 2020 season?

2]WADI/IDS has a bad track record of this kind of collusion with NPWS in trying to make THEIR organisation the be and end all on Irish deer hunting.They only seem to pop up is when there is a crisis or opportunity to push their agenda to monopolise the field.

3] There is no grauntee that this 80 euro PA will stay at this level unless it is fixed by law ,like the gun liscenses,and needs ministerial and dail debate to change this.80 euros this year 800 next year.Belive me,it can and will happen if this is allowed.

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

5] Collateral mission creep in these proposals.As said before foreshore liscenses for duck hunting are obviously going to be automated as well.It would be ridicilous not to,as they are going to be more every year than deer liscenses.Be stupid to have a dept half modernised,one half issueing liscenses by computer and doing it online ,and the other half still scratching them out by biro and mailing envelopes.So why are the deer hunters going to carry the cost of this soley?

6] The proposed timeframe is ridicilous.In less than 6 months in the middle of a Global pandemic?In Ireland? What colour is the sky on the planet these people are on?Or could we try some of the stuff they are popping or smoking:rolleyes:

7] Making it cumpulsory for everyone is just a money spinner.Like the kid teaching old hands how to drive a JCB from a book for some H&S requirement.
Also brings the question of EU recipority of documents.Will all foregin hunters have to take an Irish der hunting course?

8] Who has trained the trainers?And what recogniseable qualifications will anyone who will be teaching these courses ctually have? Have they even sat and qualified in their own course syllabus just for a starter? It brings up another can of worms on course standardisation between all teaching organisations,and oversight and all the rest..Who pays for all this on 144K PA in NPWS

Those questions are the reasons we should be really bitching and moaning about..VERY loudly.

Uinseann_16

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Talk to any solicitor or junior counsel on that one for a seriously differing opinion!:p



We are having a hissy fit as this proposal has more holes in it than Joe Biden's short term memory,and its being proposed by an organisation that is far from trustworthy with its mission creep over the last decade out of its original remit.
It has the following problems;
1
] WADI /IDS doesnt speak for me and the majority of Irish deer hunters.So who asked Mr Nolan and gave him a remit to speak for the majority ,who simply want to go and get their liscenses in a timely manner for the 2020 season?

2]WADI/IDS has a bad track record of this kind of collusion with NPWS in trying to make THEIR organisation the be and end all on Irish deer hunting.They only seem to pop up is when there is a crisis or opportunity to push their agenda to monopolise the field.

3] There is no grauntee that this 80 euro PA will stay at this level unless it is fixed by law ,like the gun liscenses,and needs ministerial and dail debate to change this.80 euros this year 800 next year.Belive me,it can and will happen if this is allowed.

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

5] Collateral mission creep in these proposals.As said before foreshore liscenses for duck hunting are obviously going to be automated as well.It would be ridicilous not to,as they are going to be more every year than deer liscenses.Be stupid to have a dept half modernised,one half issueing liscenses by computer and doing it online ,and the other half still scratching them out by biro and mailing envelopes.So why are the deer hunters going to carry the cost of this soley?

6] The proposed timeframe is ridicilous.In less than 6 months in the middle of a Global pandemic?In Ireland? What colour is the sky on the planet these people are on?Or could we try some of the stuff they are popping or smoking:rolleyes:

7] Making it cumpulsory for everyone is just a money spinner.Like the kid teaching old hands how to drive a JCB from a book for some H&S requirement.
Also brings the question of EU recipority of documents.Will all foregin hunters have to take an Irish der hunting course?

8] Who has trained the trainers?And what recogniseable qualifications will anyone who will be teaching these courses ctually have? Have they even sat and qualified in their own course syllabus just for a starter? It brings up another can of worms on course standardisation between all teaching organisations,and oversight and all the rest..Who pays for all this on 144K PA in NPWS

Those questions are the reasons we should be really bitching and moaning about..VERY loudly.

That is the point I cant get over any tom dick and harry can make a course and say theyre qualified to say I'm not qualified.
Its hilarious

cookimonster

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

Firstly I'm not discussing the other parts of the proposals, I am mearly pointing out assumptions been made here as to point 3., by my own assumptions. But I freely offer them as 'assumptions' not facts.

Please explain to me how in Gods name this particular proposal entitles an individual to entry a person's land if that permission is withdrawn. This is not a legal binding contract whether by gentleman's agreement or written word.
Are you seriously saying that the standard run of the mill permission given out by farmers will legally bind. No way.

Even contractual agreements with monies paid and licences issued as seen with Coilte and others has an out clause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

Chiparus

why cant they extend the deer hunting license over a number of years like they do with the foreshore license?

Vegeta

I read it the same as cookimonster on that point.

In general though this very much looks like the wolf trying to convince the sheaprd to let him mind the flock.

Just so much wrong with the proposal e.g. why oh why propose a fee? That's starting any discussion already bent over with your pants down.

Grizzly 45

Please explain to me how in Gods name this particular proposal entitles an individual to entry a person's land if that permission is withdrawn. This is not a legal binding contract whether by gentleman's agreement or written word.
Are you seriously saying that the standard run of the mill permission given out by farmers will legally bind. No way.

How will officaldom know that permission is withdrawn/ Yeah ring AGS,but unless they return,there is no "armed tresspass",which BTW could also be construed as someone entering your propety with a walking stick under the current law.It was more intended for house breaking than actual things happening out in the fields...But thats a different point.NPWS are still in the dark that there is a problem for the X remaining time,unless there is some offical way of reporting it,and I can tell you all this WILL be a problem if it comes in. Someone I bet you will try this very scenario on And yes ,it must have some sort of legal meaning as otherwise why would officialdom look for it?

Even contractual agreements with monies paid and licences issued as seen with Coilte and others has an out clause.

Might be a very pertinent point in the next few weeks,once people start realising they are losing money thru no use of their leases because of these liscense fuk ups!! We'll soon see some finer points of contracts being discussed ...In legal terms.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

The difference is this; You do not necessarily have to use your non deer hunting firearms specifically on the land you hold permission to shoot on.You can also go to a clay shoot anywhere else or join a rifle range,and dispense with a landowners permission.Or own your own land and shoot there. There is nothing wrong with this 3 year liscense concept at all.I'm just saying it needs refinement from a Landowners /Farmers perspective,as well as a good way of keeping some chacters on better behaviour.

cookimonster

I some what get your jist.

But, again, what is the difference between the firearms cert 3 year permission and the 3 year DHL permission. After day one of being issued your firearms license the landowner could withdraw your permission and the GS are non the wiser until 3 years later.

Many people like myself have a DHL licence granted on private permission, but rarely if ever hunt on it, most of my stalking is done on either Coilte Woods or club lands or other private permissions for which I don't use to secure my DHL. There is no illegal act there.
So in reality the NPWS could issue me a license as by the conditions of my FAC I have landowners permission to hunt..
Now if I were to apply for a DHL and use a licensed rifle that has been only granted to the individual for target shooting based on the relevant application then this is not legally compliant.
It is not up to the NPWS to insure legal compliance in this area. This like many other areas in our society is put upon the individual to ensure compliance.

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

Hi Cass,

Assuming it wouldn't get you, or your friend, in trouble, is it not time for hunters to make it very clear to the Minister that they have not been consulted on this and that they do not support it, for X, Y, Z reasons?

It won't get anyone in trouble. I only mention my friend as to how i came across this topic. He rang me asking if i knew of any changes to the Deer hunting laws, to which i said no. He then proceeded to tell me about a "list" of what he thought were new laws.

But absolutely people can and should write to the same departments voicing their opposition.

Sika98k wrote: »

Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

That is an argument from authority and is asinine in my opinion. He mentions the removal of the 100 acre issue, yet as a barrister he should know there is no law about needing 100 acres. Its something the NPWS stuck in themselves.

cookimonster wrote: »

Absolutely, it seems that some lads are interpreting the lack of 'land permission' as carte blanche to enter onto any land. This is a ridiculous interpretation.

Maybe its due to to the fact he begins that particular section with:

Proposal #3 wrote:

Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard.

Dispensed with. Done away with or got rid off. He then cites this year as an example which he is wrong about again. Permissions had to be supplied this year, just people could use last years permissions if they were not in a position to obtain new ones.

We whine about bureaucracy ............... yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

The problem is not just the proposals themselves it's the case of one person deciding to write to the PTB and offer up new procedures for a system that while flawed is working, and more importantly one that will greatly benefit the author financially as they run the hcap that they are demanding be used.

cookimonster wrote: »

Firstly I'm not discussing the other parts of the proposals, I am mearly pointing out assumptions been made here as to point 3.,

You cannot pick one point, complain people are not reading it right when it's written poorly, and ignore the other 5 points as its an entire proposal/document, not a single point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

Firstly land owners are not locked into any agreement to allow anyone to hunt on their lands for any period of time. A land owner can terminate that privilege at any time, so one year or three years is irrelevant.

Secondly some people have problems with all of the proposals and some with only a point or two.

The main issue once again is how one person has taken it upon themselves to decide to write to the authorities and ask them to do this by next year, without conutling anyone or any group in the process, and ask the authoritiesONCE AGAIN to provide legislative enforcement of a law that would financially benefit them.

It was the same with the pistol grab, the sports coalition's proposals on mandatory training.

Look at the thread i posted in about 4 weeks ago. One man wrote to the DoJ to complain about other RFDs selling the same item cheaper and the end result is he has kicked a Hornet's nest and now he has lost the ability to sell the very ite he wanted to have complete control over.

cookimonster

Cass
Maybe its due to to the fact he begins that particular section with:

Originally Posted by Proposal #3
Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard.

But he finishes point three with-

It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity, but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Cass
You cannot pick one point, complain people are not reading it right when it's written poorly, and ignore the other 5 points as its an entire proposal/document, not a single point.

Yes I can, because in this instance based on point three of the proposal individuals are blatantly misrepresenting what is said.
As you have said to me 'You cannot pick one point.....' , then I will argue that you can not partially read that point and ignore the complete paragraph it covers.

Cass
Firstly land owners are not locked into any agreement to allow anyone to hunt on their lands for any period of time. A land owner can terminate that privilege at any time, so one year or three years is irrelevant.

...and this is my very point or counter argument to others who claim this will some how lock landowners into a 3 year period of land permission. Now if you have misinterpreted what I have said or I have not made my self clear then this is what I am talking about in the over all interpretations of parts of this statement.

cookimonster

By the way this is the full statement:


http://deeralliance.ie/blog/blog/

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

But he finishes point three with-

So its contradictory or incompetence?

then I will argue that you can not partially read that point and ignore the complete paragraph it covers.

I did not partially read anything. It's either dispensed with and replaced by the hcap or its not and still requires land owners permissions. Cannot have it both ways.

cookimonster

As a matter of curiosity, is there something wrong with the site, are posts disappearing?

Regardless back to the discussion:

1. Cass, your original post is not word for word perfect as per the statement realised on the Deer Alliance Blog. So in fairness why not refer to the original document.

2. How is point 3 either 'contradictory or incompetence'

3.

I did not partially read anything. It's either dispensed with and replaced by the hcap or its not and still requires land owners permissions. Cannot have it both ways.

Okay, and I freely admit this is my interpretation, one more time....
Point 3 would seem to indicate that an applicant would not have to provide details on thier official application form (because it would be amended under these proposals and no longer there) of thier land permissions for deer stalking.
It does not anywhere state as per your original post with the outline of the proposal -

Meaning once you have done the course you can shoot as you like.

But it does say, for clarification, that -

It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity,...

This is neither contradiction nor is the second part, that further explains the rational behind, is it incompetence.

but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Sika98k

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

I personally am not a fan of the mandatory courses its just a money racket:rolleyes:

There is nothing you will learn in them that is anything special

Maybe not but to a newcomer to the sport there is a lot to learn. Presumably you’ve been stalking for a number of years? Has your skill set improved with your experience ?
I have no connection to the Deer Alliance.

Grizzly 45

The comparison to driving is redundant and asinine. You pay tax on the car, the fuel, actual road tax, insurance which all go to the exchequer and that pays for the roads you drive on and the constitution gives you the freedom to travel unmolested within the state.

Not to mind incorrect. You can pass the drivers test here,but you still aren't qualified,as you have to display an N plate for 3 years?to show everyone you are a newbie,and might suddenly do something daft,and are limited FIK to more restrictions than an experianced driver:rolleyes:

Applying it to deer liscensing ,it would mean there would be a newbie class of deer hunters for X number of years,who can only move on no doubt ,if they do XYZ courses and fill someones bank account to become "qualified" to be able to go out by themselves or whatever...Noice little earner if that ever comes in.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

As a matter of curiosity, is there something wrong with the site, are posts disappearing?

My one did because i was editing it and deleted it by mistake then logged off without checking. Back up now.

1. Cass, your original post is not word for word perfect as per the statement realised on the Deer Alliance Blog. So in fairness why not refer to the original document.

My post is a personal summarisation of the list of points without directly copying them for the same reason i've just edited your post.

Copyright laws.

Which means we cannot copy and paste any text, full or partial, from another source without the author's permissions. You show me permission from the Author and i'll reinstate the post, otherwise the best we can do is link to the article/content.

As for the rest, I don't care enough to this anymore. I really don't. Year in and year out someone sticks their head up, claims to speak for the whole community, and ends up f**king up everything.

You get so caught up in nuances you fail to see the larger problem.

So have at it. Sit here and go back and forth about the finer points of what was actually meant in a single point in a larger document and ignore the other 5 points and the much bigger picture of the cheek of someone to ONCE AGAIN dare to stick their oar in.

The deer alliance runs the hcap, the hcap makes on average €250 per person for the course (the two days), and he wants this made mandatory for not just beginners, but everyone. He started this three years ago and managed to get the mandatory course introduced by doing the exact same thing, secret proposals. That backfired because it opened the door for anyone and their Mother to run a course, and with no regulation all of them had to be accepted.

So yeah, the real interest of the sport in mind there.

If you still believe that arguing over the subtleties of a single point is important, then do as you please.

I'm out.