Cullen decision on shooting ban ‘to cost Government 118,000 votes’

ENVIRONMENT Minister Martin Cullen’s failure to lift a shooting ban on State lands will cost the Government almost 118,000 votes in the EU and local elections, a sports’ body has warned.

National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC) director Des Crofton reiterated a call for members not to vote for Government party election candidates when he addressed a weekend protest meeting in Blarney, Co Cork.

The meeting was called to highlight what NARGC described as the minister’s refusal to recognise and implement the findings of a 2002 independent scientific review into the Government’s current policy.

NARGC, which has 24,000 members in 925 gun clubs, said other large membership bodies such as the Irish Coursing Club (40,000); the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers (19,000); the Trout Anglers Federation of Ireland (20,000) and Countryside Alliance Ireland (15,000) are backing its campaign. The IFA in Cork had also added its support.

“NARGC members have been very understanding in attempting to resolve the current situation, but it would be a grave error for any party to underestimate our determination in this matter. We will fight this issue by every legitimate means available to us and this includes the democratic power of the vote,” he said.

Mr Crofton said NARGC members contribute over e6 million each year in shooting licence fees to the Exchequer. As such, they should have a priority call on resources, he said.

However, Mr Cullen said in a recent reply to a Dáil query by Fine Gael TD Bernard Allen he had examined the policy closely.

He had concluded that the prohibition of shooting on some national parks and wildlife properties should continue for a number of reasons.

The sites were acquired, in general, using public funds for the purpose of nature conservation and to serve as refuges and breeding places for species of wildlife.

Hunting could also disturb “non-quarry” species and their habitat, reducing the value of these sites as refuges for wildlife generally, he said, pointing out that facilities for hunting are extensively available on Coillte lands, as well as those of private owners and on foreshore.

Mr Cullen said he also had to consider public safety and the potential exposure of the State to claims for damages by persons harmed or otherwise adversely affected by hunting on national parks and wildlife services properties.

The Heritage Council recommended against any change in the long-standing policy of not permitting hunting on national parks and wildlife lands.

In reaching his conclusions, he said he also had available the report of a joint scientific group comprising officials of his department and nominees of the NARGC.

While the group’s report did propose a methodology, the implementation of this would require significant national parks and wildlife personnel resources which would have to be diverted from other priority work.

Mr Cullen said he did not consider that the scientific group’s report justified a departure from the existing established policy.