Permit To Use Callers For Shooting Fox's, Magpies etc

Eddie B

Well lads, just wondering if this is true or not. My Mrs was on a hunting page on good old FB, and this came up. One of the admins said that there is no problem obtaining a permit to use calls for hunting fox, mags, etc. I've never heard of anyone with this permit. The lad done some work in Boora, partridge project, and so should know his stuff.

So anyone any information on this? Anyone applied for the permit? Anyone had a permit granted?

NARGC seem to say permits won't be granted for shooting purposes, only observation. So is this false information?

I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'll be applying for my permit before the day is out! lol

J.R.

Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000

Amendment of section 35 (certain use of scarecrows, decoys, birdcalls and calls of wild mammals restricted) of Principal Act.

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

(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.



Never had one - don't know which application form you would use:

https://www.npws.ie/licences

Eddie B

J.R. wrote: »

Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000

Amendment of section 35 (certain use of scarecrows, decoys, birdcalls and calls of wild mammals restricted) of Principal Act.

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

(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.



Never had one - don't know which application form you would use:

https://www.npws.ie/licences

See here


https://www.npws.ie/licences/hunting

The fact that it's under "hunting", he believes that
they will grant the licence for shooting, just like a fore-shore licence.

J.R.

Eddie B wrote: »

See here


https://www.npws.ie/licences/hunting

The fact that it's under "hunting", he believes that
they will grant the licence for shooting, just like a fore-shore licence.

Interesting alright that it classed under HUNTING

Would definitely be interested in hearing if any have been granted for the purpose.

I think it's ridiculous that decoys can be used for pigeon shooting but not for crow shooting - both species attacking / damaging tillage crops.

Eddie B

J.R. wrote: »

Interesting alright that it classed under HUNTING

Would definitely be interested in hearing if any have been granted for the purpose.

I think it's ridiculous that decoys can be used for pigeon shooting but not for crow shooting - both species attacking / damaging tillage crops.

Yes I think the whole thing is ridiculous. Why is there a need for such a law? What purpose does it serve?

Anyway, I sent the Mrs this from NARGC, which I thought would show that this licence will not be granted for hunting purposes to tge average Joe soap, but the guy replied that the article was not accurate, and certainly misleading.

Have a good read here, and tell me what ye think.

https://nargc.ie/predator-control-and-the-law/

cavan shooter

Ring Chris Gavican or Seamus hearty in the NARGC and have a chat to them.

Never used an electronic caller but if crows pop in for a look when shooting pigeons ....fair game and to think of it I've about 20 decoys including crows in the shed.

I'm worried if they now have added another layer of bureaucracy to few us over. A few years ago lads were being prosecuted for shooting pigeons on stubble, the NPWS argued that it wasn't crop so therefore no need to protect. However the judge accepted it made sense to get the birds before the damage was being done.