Advertisement

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Can someone clear up the magpie & greycrow situation please

  • 19-06-2008 11:41AM
    #1
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭


    What is their status please?
    Under what conditions can they be shot?
    Is a licence needed?
    Do they have a season?

    Informed comment only please.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,419 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
    Season ;No
    Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
    Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #3
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
    Season ;No
    Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
    Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

    That is the assumption I was under myself. Thanks Grizzly.

    However it's being disputed on another site, which is why I ask the question here.

    If anyone has anything further to add, again please only informed comment, I would appreciate it.


  • #4
    ivanthehunter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭ivanthehunter


    What about derogation.

    AFAIK and its IMO that derogation is an EU directive that forces the Irish Gov to monitor Irish wild bird (mainly unprotected in as far as the 76 act goes) population.
    A group of wildlife experts then look at the population trends and then decide whether or not to allow hunting of any of the unprotected species.


  • #5
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    And as long as the derogation is signed, which I believe it was? Then it's aim, squeeze, pop/bang - thump.


  • #6
    BryanL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭BryanL


    i'd like to hear from the rangers on this, i didn't think the derogation was a one time thing? but i'm open to correction;)


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Going from memory on the last time this was discussed. I believe that even if a derogation isn't signed, once the rangers aren't directed to take action against someone shooting greycrows/magpies then it's still fine to do so, sort of like the previous derogation still standing? There may have been other particulars I have forgotten since that discussion but I believe that was what was basically said. That said, the derogation was eventually signed I believe.

    Either way, I don't want to descend into history etc. Just interested in the situation as it stands at the moment.


  • #8
    thehair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭thehair


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976
    Season ;No
    Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC.
    Conditions to shoot them; anytime.

    i shoot them:eek: why they are vermin:) steve


  • #9
    thehair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭thehair


    can you image a garda in court with a black or grey crow judge this man
    or women shoot this bird:D


  • #10
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,419 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Termed that way in the act.Proably cos in the days of non political correctness,said critters robbed,and stole chicks and crop seeds at will??

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #11
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,419 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    ivanthehunter wrote: »
    What about derogation.

    AFAIK and its IMO that derogation is an EU directive that forces the Irish Gov to monitor Irish wild bird (mainly unprotected in as far as the 76 act goes) population.
    A group of wildlife experts then look at the population trends and then decide whether or not to allow hunting of any of the unprotected species.

    Yeah more reasons why the EU needs a good kick in the you know what.
    This sort of act and surveys are fine in Continental Europe,where years of intensive agriculture and pesticides have denuded plenty of species that we take for granted and are in plentiful supply here,EG the Common Crow,Jackdaw,Magpie.
    Of course if Professor Schmidt,does a crow count and finds that there are not very many in Oberdonnerhaufen Germany,the assumption must be that in all the EU there is a dearth of Crows or whatever.
    While in Rathnafeck Ireland the scenario is akin to the famous FR Ted scene of being attacked by flocks of Crows when they leave the parochial house!!!:)
    Off goes Prof Schmidt to his boss ,who reports the findings up the chain till it reaches Brussles and a weighty edict is prononced that a certain species must be protected at all costs.This was the story with the Woodies if I remember correctly.Why we now have a protected season on one of the most prolifigate birds and a survivor if there ever was one .
    So expect before long that Crows will have an open season as well!:rolleyes:

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • #12
    meathstevie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,778 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    The situation Grizzly is sketching exists in Belgium where my dad does his shooting. They have to apply for an open season derogation permit specific to a locality if they want to destroy corvid or other agricultural nuisances out of season. The way it works there is that the chap who holds the shooting rights applies jointly with the landowner to the town council who mostly just stamps the form. Most of the time the permits are granted on a month by month basis for a specific species be it woodpigeon or magpie or crow,...

    As for our jolly selves here John I think it's very much business as usual. I personally haven't heard or seen anything to the contrary.


  • #13
    J.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,430 ✭✭✭J.R.


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Status; unprotected vermin,excluded from Wildlife act 1976 protected unless causing damage
    Season ;No YES
    Liscense ;No,bar your normal FAC. but must be causing damage
    Conditions to shoot them; anytime.
    only if causing damage


    derogation2008001.jpg


    As far as I'm aware derogation still applies. Although the date above has expired the principle is still in force....just has to be updated on the dates.

    My intepration of derogation is as follows below.

    I double checked this with the local wildlife ranger and below is his intepretation of the law, as it stands.

    All birds, in effect, now have a season including 'vermin'.......crows, magpies, rooks, jackdaws, greycrows & pigeons.

    You are only allowed to shoot them if they are causing damage to flora, fauna, crops, livestock, aircraft etc. or pose a public health threat.

    Walking up through a farm and you shoot a magpie that rises from the bushes and you're technically breaking the law as the onus is on you to prove it was causing damage when you shot it.


  • #14
    Vegeta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    I know its a bit of corvid profiling but could it not be argued that by simply being a grey crow or magpie that they are a constant threat to fauna.

    Very simplistic I know


  • #15
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Good God. The sooner those no good Greens get put out of our misery the better :mad:

    Thanks for all the replies fellas :)


  • #16
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,419 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    [quo
    All birds, in effect, now have a season including 'vermin'.......crows, magpies, rooks, jackdaws, greycrows & pigeons.

    You are only allowed to shoot them if they are causing damage to flora, fauna, crops, livestock, aircraft etc. or pose a public health threat.

    Posing a public health threat. QED Soo if you see crows on your local dump and then shoot them at your property.You are perfectly legal,as they are scavangers and can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera spring to mind.All you have to see them is eating garbage.
    All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #17
    Gunter Mauser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 157 ✭✭Gunter Mauser


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    [quo



    Posing a public health threat. QED Soo if you see crows on your local dump and then shoot them at your property.You are perfectly legal,as they are scavangers and can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera spring to mind.All you have to see them is eating garbage.
    All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

    John Gormley, Grizzly 45 wants to shoot Crows & magpies rooks etc because they can carry diseases in their SHTE.Typhoid and Cholera may break out any time soon and the legisation is wooley what are you going to do about it.:mad:

    john_gormley_td_medium.jpgjohn.gormley@oireachtas.ie Homepage: http://www.johngormley.com Postal Address: Leinster House, Dublin 2, Ireland.


  • #18
    J.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,430 ✭✭✭J.R.


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    [quo

    All in all another so loosely worded wooly legislation from the Greens in Brussels that would be laughed out of a District Court if anyone tried to prosecute it.

    I agree with you entirely about the loosely worded legislation.

    It also states that landowners can control the species if causing damage.......doesn't mention shooters or anybody who has shooting rights on the land or anybody who has the landowner's permission!


  • #19
    meathstevie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,778 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    J.R. wrote: »
    I agree with you entirely about the loosely worded legislation.

    It also states that landowners can control the species if causing damage.......doesn't mention shooters or anybody who has shooting rights on the land or anybody who has the landowner's permission!

    To the best of my knowledge landowners can also ask or allow someone to do that for them.


  • #20
    NoNameRanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭NoNameRanger


    Fair play to JR for digging out the derogation, we've discussed this several times here before. But those threads were probably deleted, probably too informative.:D;) I don't see whats wooly about this piece of legislation.:confused: A farmer can control these spiecies by nominating who ever he sees fit to control them. A gun club or an individual can control these species on their ground if the are protecting fauna ( that includes pheasants!). This legislation was about long before the Greens took power, you can't blame Gormley for this one. Its quite a fine bit of legislation if you want to control these species if you ask me. I think the Greens have learned alot since they got power, they've seen a bit of how life works in the countryside and they see things are not as black and white as they once thought they were. They haven't changed much have they, even the one thing they've lobbied on for years, the Ward Union! The saying goes keep your friends close and your enemies even closer:D:)


  • #21
    Vegeta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    NoNameRanger wrote: »
    Fair play to JR for digging out the derogation, we've discussed this several times here before. But those threads were probably deleted, probably too informative.:D;)

    Thanks for your input NNR, its always welcome.

    As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Vegeta wrote: »
    As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.

    I can find a total of 18 threads which mention the word "derogation". Out of those threads, 3 of them have deleted posts:

    Restricted List out
    - The word derogation in this thread did not refer to the hunting derogation
    Can you hunt rabbits with Air rifle
    - There were 3 deleted posts in that thread, all deleted by DeVore. None of them include useful information.
    Criminal Justice Bill 2004
    - The word derogation in this thread did not refer to the hunting derogation

    Another tip on this point: I always wondered if old posts disappear, but the forum by default will make threads invisible if there has been no activity in them for a while. If you want to always see all threads, edit your options and change the "Default Thread Age Cut Off" option.


  • #23
    NoNameRanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭NoNameRanger


    Vegeta wrote: »
    Thanks for your input NNR, its always welcome.

    As to the deleted posts you mention, did they get deleted before or after the new batch of mods were put in place. I ask as I don't recall them, PM me if ya want and I can try and look into it.

    I was referring to a time before the new mods when several threads just vanished without a word after some body would start saying things they shouldn't, so instead of deleting what they said the whole thread would disappear, I can't remember the topics. I hope this has stopped since the new mods took over.
    It's part of the reason i haven't been so active lately. Didn't see the point of putting up information only to have it deleted once a troll started messing about. Anyways this is way off topic so i'll say no more.


    As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation. So basically there are no legally recognised vermin in this country as far as i can see. :) To refer to such noble sporting quarry as the Rabbit and Fox as vermin is unfair, i think unprotected species does them more justice, although i think there should be a closed season for breeding on all species unless they are causing damage like in the derogation for birds.


  • #24
    J.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,430 ✭✭✭J.R.


    NoNameRanger wrote: »
    As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation.

    WILDLIFE ACT (ammendment) 2000

    43.—Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—


    Prohibited:


    (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 wood pigeons, wild duck and wild geese, or


    “(d) use an electrical or other instrument or appliance (including recording apparatus) emitting sound, for the purpose of hunting any wild bird or any wild animal.”,


    Trying to clear up a matter:

    Some friends and I in the gun club beg to differ on the intepretation of the following:

    My question is
    (a) if all birds are now classed as protected then, under derogation, is one still allowed to use crow decoys to entice birds in
    and
    (b) are electronic crow callers permitted to decoy them in when they're attacking a crop?


  • #25
    NoNameRanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭NoNameRanger


    J.R. wrote: »
    NoNameRanger wrote: »
    As a point of interest the word Vermin is not used in the wildlife act 1976 & 2000, we simply have protected species and unprotected species. All bird species are protected except when covered by the derogation.

    WILDLIFE ACT (ammendment) 2000

    43.—Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—


    Prohibited:


    (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 wood pigeons, wild duck and wild geese, or


    “(d) use an electrical or other instrument or appliance (including recording apparatus) emitting sound, for the purpose of hunting any wild bird or any wild animal.”,


    Trying to clear up a matter:

    Some friends and I in the gun club beg to differ on the intepretation of the following:

    My question is
    (a) if all birds are now classed as protected then, under derogation, is one still allowed to use crow decoys to entice birds in
    and
    (b) are electronic crow callers permitted to decoy them in when they're attacking a crop?


    Electronic callers are not permitted for any species of bird according to the act. They may be used in conjunction with a section 42 licence when included in the licence as a condition of the licence. So basically it is possible to get a licence to use a crow call in certain circumstances. Crow decoys are not permitted under the act but again they could be permitted with a section 42 licence. Hope this answers your question.


  • #26
    Terrier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 708 ✭✭✭Terrier


    Good stuff to know lads! Had a few to many anti's giving out lately.
    My 18 Lasen traps out all over my clubs lands are legal so :)


  • #27
    J.R.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,430 ✭✭✭J.R.


    NoNameRanger wrote: »


    Electronic callers are not permitted for any species of bird according to the act. They may be used in conjunction with a section 42 licence when included in the licence as a condition of the licence. So basically it is possible to get a licence to use a crow call in certain circumstances. Crow decoys are not permitted under the act but again they could be permitted with a section 42 licence. Hope this answers your question.


    Very clear concise answer - exactly to the point ....which is brilliant!

    Just wondering how shooting supply shops are selling crow / greycrow / magpie decoys if they're illegal? (unless having a section 42 licence for crows)

    Have any shooters ever applied for a section 42 licence to use decoy crows and an electronic caller?


  • #28
    NoNameRanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭NoNameRanger


    J.R. wrote: »
    Very clear concise answer - exactly to the point ....which is brilliant!

    Just wondering how shooting supply shops are selling crow / greycrow / magpie decoys if they're illegal? (unless having a section 42 licence for crows)

    Have any shooters ever applied for a section 42 licence to use decoy crows and an electronic caller?

    Illegal to use the decoys without a licence but not to own them or sell them, the same applies to callers. S42's have been issued for this purpose, mainly to NPWS and NGO staff who need to be whiter than white for conservation projects in the public eye.


  • #29
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    I'm not particularly quibbling or anguing with anyone here I just find one thing curious. That decoys can be used without licence for certain game birds, ducks, geese and woodies. Yet to use them against species such as greycrows and magpies requires a licence. Naturally I understand why one would want to use them wildfowling and pigeon shooting and I think it's right you can. Thing is, with all the damage greycrows and magpies cause both to other wildlife and to stock it puzzles me why a licence would be needed in the first place. I know greycrows aren't in all parts, or at least I'm told that, around here however their population is extremely high. I remember driving along the coast from where I live up to north Mayo and again it's the same story. Magpies aren't in any shortage either.

    Now I know I'll be told well get a licence then. That's not my point. My point being it doesn't seem to make sense to me why a licence is needed in the first place for those two species. The reasoning behind it seems flawed.


  • #30
    NoNameRanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 273 ✭✭NoNameRanger


    johngalway wrote: »
    I'm not particularly quibbling or anguing with anyone here I just find one thing curious. That decoys can be used without licence for certain game birds, ducks, geese and woodies. Yet to use them against species such as greycrows and magpies requires a licence. Naturally I understand why one would want to use them wildfowling and pigeon shooting and I think it's right you can. Thing is, with all the damage greycrows and magpies cause both to other wildlife and to stock it puzzles me why a licence would be needed in the first place. I know greycrows aren't in all parts, or at least I'm told that, around here however their population is extremely high. I remember driving along the coast from where I live up to north Mayo and again it's the same story. Magpies aren't in any shortage either.

    Now I know I'll be told well get a licence then. That's not my point. My point being it doesn't seem to make sense to me why a licence is needed in the first place for those two species. The reasoning behind it seems flawed.

    You are right John it is a flaw. Decoying was tradionally used on the game species mentioned and they were afforded protection by the wildlife act. When the wildlife act was first concieved in 1976 grey crows and magpies were not a protected species amongst a few others including the bullfinch. Decoying of greycrows and magpies was not a common practise either. Then we joined the EU and they said we had to protect all bird species. So we did. So the law then read:
    S35(1)( c )Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act apart from this section, but subject to section 42, a person shall not 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.
    This made decoying both pigeons and crows illegal. This was addressed in the 2000 ammendment with the inclusion of woodpigeon in that sentance. The issue of crow decoying seems to have been overlooked and is something that needs changing. It could be covered by the derogation and should be easy to include decoys and electronic calls for corvids to the derogation especially if the IFA asked for it.:D


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    NoNameRanger wrote: »
    It could be covered by the derogation and should be easy to include decoys and electronic calls for corvids to the derogation especially if the IFA asked for it.:D [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

    I have Padraig here on speed-dial :D


Advertisement
Advertisement