The object of this section is to enable the Minister to control hunting over certain State-owned lands which comprise either foreshore, including estuaries, or inland lakes and their accretions, that is, lakeshore land which is " created " due to permanent lowering of the water level of a lake. The areas in question are usually important wildlife habitats, particularly for wild birds. Shooting over such areas is invariably uncontrolled and can be unduly heavy except where the Minister has prohibited shooting, by annual Game Birds Protection orders made under section 6 of the Game Preservation Act, 1930, or where perhaps local game interests, by virtue of some supposed traditional rights to shoot there, may be exercising a degree of de facto control.

I know that we could have very interesting discussions on what constitutes who owns what, or what constitutes State ownership. I will tell the Committee that this section does not interfere with ownership one way or another. It does not either acquire or seek to acquire ownership or to abandon ownership, but deals with the lands mentioned in it under the ownership of the State.

I do not think this is as simple as it seems. I had an idea that all foreshore property belonged to the State.

A lot of it does but not all of it.

In fact, is the Minister cutting out most wild duck?

No. We are regulating them, we are not cutting them out. Ninety per cent of the foreshore is owned by the State, and we are not cutting it out, but we are saying that people will not be entitled to go in there and use land which has been used for this purpose before. They will have to get a permit from the Minister to shoot on this land.

Just to clear this up, what is the position of a man on the foreshore shooting at birds flying in from the sea?

I suppose if he went out to sea far enough it is all right but he will be regulated in so far as shooting birds over the foreshore is concerned.

That is very inefficient in certain places.

I understand that the Deputy is getting at the traditional galloway type of foreshore shooter. The difficulties are that certain people coming from urban areas are going into these areas using motor cars and doing harm. Damage is done by overuse of certain snares. I refer to Malahide as possibly one of those areas, and possibly outside of Wexford as another.

I have not got an answer to my question. The foreshore is very often a very narrow strip of land. Does it mean I actually have to be standing on that foreshore shooting to be doing what is made unlawful under this Bill.

No, I would say if you are shooting over it. I mean, if I am standing in my own field and I shoot over a neighbour's field I am guilty of trespassing.

The sea is different.

If it is intended to include shooting on or over, the section actually says so. The explanation is that some areas of foreshore and certain inland waters are equally subjected to intense, indiscriminate shooting with serious detrimental effects and general disturbances of wildlife and damage to valuable habitats. The regulation of shooting in such areas is regarded as an important aspect of wildlife conservation and in order to bring this about only persons who have obtained permission from the Minister will in future be entitled to hunt over such places.

It may be necessary but it will be a pretty revolutionary step, doing away with a very traditional type of sportsmanship here. I do not know whether it is intended to give permission in a reasonable way or whether this section is intended to be a complete clamp-down.

No, it is not. It is a section that is designed to prevent abuses.

Will this prohibit the hunting of seals?

Seals are protected.

Section 30 does not apply to protection in any form?

No.

It is very sweeping and comprehensive in its implications.

It is, but the abuses can be equally sweeping.

Has the Minister taken into account the damage that seals do in deciding——

Section 42 covers that.

I must confess that I am not quite clear about the matter of getting permission from the Minister. It says here that it shall not be lawful for any person to shoot over land or foreshore belonging to the State without permission from the Minister. But it is not lawful to shoot anywhere without the permission of the Minister.

I see the Deputy's point but this would make it an offence for anybody to enter on this land or shoot over it without permission from the Minister.

In addition to the normal certificate?

Yes, just as a person who has a hunting licence cannot enter on the Deputy's land or on any other private land without the consent of the owner.

It is already provided in sections we have already passed that before a licence is granted to any person he must show proof that he has permission to shoot over a certain area?

Yes.

Would not that cover it?

No, because we want to make the position clear here because it has gone abroad that the foreshore is free for all and no man's land and anybody could have a go; we want to point out that is not so.

I think there is some little technical flaw here because the Minister said in reply to Deputy Daly that section 42 would cover seals but section 42 deals only with protected wild birds and protected wild animals and if there were some fauna which was not protected——

But seals will be protected.

I accept that it covers seals but if there were some fauna that are not protected which were doing damage, the foreshore provision would apply to them. Perhaps that is something to look into.

Yes, but I think that in order for that form of fauna to be doing damage it would have to leave the foreshore because usually the foreshore is not a place where there are crops and if it left the foreshore it would be——

I do not see why section 30 is not confined to protected animals.

There are some interesting species on the foreshore. I am advised that the disturbance factor is the principal thing her. For example, in other sections, with which we will be dealing later, we are confining shotguns to what I call three-cartridge guns. That applies to vermin as well as protected birds. I am advised that if uncontrolled shooting or interfering with non-protected species on the foreshore were permitted it would have the effect of disturbing protected species and perhaps interfere with the habitat.

I mentioned on the previous occasion that it is quite common for boards of conservators to pay a bonus for the destruction of certain predators and these are shot on the foreshore as a rule or from the foreshore. What is the position about that now?

What sort of predators has the Deputy in mind?

Cormorants and common seals, certain gulls. Some boards of conservators of which I have been a member gave 10s per head for the destruction of these. They are not protected and therefore section 42 will not apply to them.

We are dealing with section 30 here and it visualises permission——

Why should we have to go to the Minister for permission to shoot a cormorant?

The cormorant is controversial but he is protected.

But some non-protected fauna?

Such as? Can you think of anything offhand? They are all protected.

The otter is protected also and he does immense damage.

I want to make it clear that the object of this section is to relieve pressure on wildlife on the foreshore.

As a friend of mine said, it is rather loop-holish.

Even though I may be accused of making a debating point its object is to remove loop-holes.

I think it is very sweeping and I do not like it.

May I ask if the Minister has discussed this with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

Yes. We are dealing now with State lands.

I think it is perfectly right in regard to State lands. It is the foreshore that worries me. There are places all over the country where genuine sportsmen follow this form of sport.

But it may not be a desirable form of sport to have somebody go on to the foreshore and start in right, left and centre disturbing the wildlife there.

That is what we are trying to cover, over-shooting.

If a man is out wildfowling at the side of the sea at 6 o'clock in the morning he must be a very dedicated sportsman.

We are not banning him: we are regulating him in section 30.

Will it be difficult to get licences?

No. This is an effort to prevent abuse.

In other words, where it is the traditional thing it is not intended to do anything about that?

There is no such intention.

Where is the majority of this land that is referred to in the section?

The bulk of it is the foreshore.

The Minister can include other areas?

Inland lakes, and so on. Only State-owned property.