I move amendment No. 16:

In page 28, subsection (2), to delete " or trap gun " from line 21.

Section 33 is aimed at restricting the use of certain types of firearms and ammunition in hunting wild birds or wild animals because of the excessive or indiscriminate killing which such weapons or ammunition can cause and, in certain cases, because of their inability to effect a clean kill.

This amendment seeks to delete the reference to a trap gun in subsection (2). The intention was to outlaw guns which are fixed or set as traps to be discharged on contact with wires attached to the triggers. However, it has now been brought to my notice that by general definition a spring gun, which is also prohibited under this subsection, comprehends the type of trap gun I have just described. While, on the other hand, in modern sporting terms, a trap gun is generally understood to be an under-and-over type shotgun used in clay pigeon shooting. That type of shotgun would, of course, be quite acceptable for shooting game birds and there would be no valid reason for banning it.

The amendment is really a technical one to clarify the position.

Has the Minister taken a lot of technical advice on this?

I have.

This section is designed to prohibit or restrict the use of certain firearms, weapons, ammunition and explosive devices in order to eliminate excessive, indiscriminate or inhumane killing or injuring of fauna. The section bans certain weapons which are generally accepted as being inappropriate for the killing of wild birds or certain wild animals and gives the Minister flexibility to prescribe by statutory regulations, as the occasion demands, the type and calibre of weapons and ammunition which may be used for such purposes. As Deputy Haughey said, this is a technical section and I have sought the best technical advice possible on it.

There are many semi-automatic guns, especially used to shoot geese, which carry as many as eight cartridges and have to be manually operated for each shot.

They now have to be adapted to carry not more than three.

I do not see much sense in that. They are only semi-automatic because the magazine has to be operated each time.

I am told they would be called " repeaters ".

But if the rifle is only for protective purposes?

The object is to give the farmer permission to kill vermin.

Why is there a restriction to three cartridges? Why a silencer? What is the relevance of this?

It is considered that to permit the use of a gun with unlimited carrying capacity is not giving the bird a fair chance. A gun with a silencer is a sneaky way of shooting and is very often the weapon of a poacher.

That is a point I want to raise. I can tell of personal experience on this point. I had occasion to deal with black-backed gulls which were doing a considerable amount of depredation to some protected species. This happened during the breeding season and we did not want to shoot these gulls with shotguns because we would disturb the breeding. The only way we could deal with these gulls was to go after them with .22 rifles fitted with silencers.

That may well be, but to balance your handicap with the unfair advantage that would be conferred on poachers, I think the right thing to do would be to outlaw the silencer.

I would be very reluctant to agree to that.

Deputy Desmond is here now.

I am trying to win this by sheer force of argument.

I do not see any logic in it.

I want to give the Minister the benefit of my experience. This is not hysteria. It was in the interests of conservation that I wanted to use a .22 rifle with a silencer in the breeding season. You could not go after these black-backed gulls with an ordinary shotgun because it would disturb the breeding programme of the mallard. This was the only way we could go after them.

I am not very happy that the guns should be confined to three cartridges.

Is the argument that people with these pop guns have grounded more birds than they shot?

There has been a long discussion about the multi-cartridge gun and after this discussion the three-cartridge chamber was agreed to.

The only time a person would want to use repeaters would be in a driven shoot. Then the thing to do is to have an ordinary shotgun beside you and a fair, attractive, loader beside you.

That could distract you.

It is only in driven shoots that repeaters are in operation.

They could cause a great deal of damage on a flighting of ducks in the evening.

I am against them anyway.

It is rather difficult to shoot geese. One needs four or five chances at a gaggle of geese.

I hope the Deputy does not need more than one for each bird.

I am getting away from guns. I am speaking for the people who are concerned about the hare in coursing. In County Dublin there are certain superstitions about shooting a hare. Why, in subsection (3), do we have the phrase " other than a hare "?

It is generally accepted that to shoot a deer with a shotgun is a painful way of killing the animal, it could maim him and he would be at large, and in pain, for a long time. On the other hand, it is also generally accepted that rabbits and hares can be safely dispatched with a shotgun.

A number of gun clubs in the western regional area contacted me and wanted the pursuit of the hare prohibited entirely. While I am not in favour of that myself, I felt I should mention it.

We have power to do it under the open season——

Only the unsophisticated hunters shoot rabbits and hares.

I would not agree with that. Again I have experience of the damage rabbits and hares can do. Sometimes the only way to deal with them is to shoot them.