"Other Lawful Quarry" - is it still a thing?

[Redgum]

 

Glos. seem still to be micromanaging then, which is somewhat dissapointing. About time these people all started singing from the same hymn sheet and following HO guidelines.

 

They certainly give themselves more work but the AOLQ does have its problems, if you get a .223 for fox should you be able to go and shoot small deer as in the correct handling in regard to food hygiene. And then, as mentioned earlier, what about species that don't have a legal calibre recommendation like boar.

[malkiserow]

I've also had a session with moderator wording ...... I thought it reasonable to swap them around when safe to do so. My conditions wording previously tied a mod to a specific rifle...... This restriction has now been lifted after 8 months.

[CharlieT]

 

They certainly give themselves more work but the AOLQ does have its problems, if you get a .223 for fox should you be able to go and shoot small deer as in the correct handling in regard to food hygiene. And then, as mentioned earlier, what about species that don't have a legal calibre recommendation like boar.

But does AOLQ pose problems.

 

The police for want of a better description administer firearms licensing on behalf of the Home Office. Their remit hinges around public safety and issuing licenses within the paramaters set out in the Firearms Act, carcass handling, food hygine and the like have nothing to do with it. Similarly, as the guidance points out, if someone is considered suitable to be granted a certificate they should be considered sensible enough to chose which caliber is species suitable. It must also be remembered that there is already robust legislation in place should any shooter commit acts of cruelty.

 

Personally, I find it appaling that certificate holders, one of the most law abiding group of people in the country, should be deprived of the AOLQ condition by a minority of police forces, for no justifiable reason other than the CC's wish to micromanage.

[Redgum]

But does AOLQ pose problems.

 

The police for want of a better description administer firearms licensing on behalf of the Home Office. Their remit hinges around public safety and issuing licenses within the paramaters set out in the Firearms Act, carcass handling, food hygine and the like have nothing to do with it. Similarly, as the guidance points out, if someone is considered suitable to be granted a certificate they should be considered sensible enough to chose which caliber is species suitable. It must also be remembered that there is already robust legislation in place should any shooter commit acts of cruelty.

 

Personally, I find it appaling that certificate holders, one of the most law abiding group of people in the country, should be deprived of the AOLQ condition by a minority of police forces, for no justifiable reason other than the CC's wish to micromanage.

 

I guess your right, AOLQ does not pose problems, carcass handling and food hygiene only comes into effect if you sell the meat and there is separate licencing for that, and of course this is included in the DSC1. You still need the permission of the landowner to hunt various prey species regardless of AOLQ so that has some control. A person who's considered suitable to be granted a certificate in theory should be sensible enough to choose which calibre to use on various species but will they bother to do a little research into deer law, shot placement etc. I say in theory as I know of many cases were a shooter just can't help himself to have a pop if an unsuitable quarry species presents itself. Maybe more control should be put in place before a certificate is granted so more basic knowledge is there already. Its a difficult one to have a conclusive answer as there probably isn't one, all I know is that I benefitted from being pressured into doing my DSC1, with AOLQ I probably would not have done it, saying that I have taken a few out on their DSC2's and wondered if they knew much about anything to do with calibre and species at all.

[bluesj]

I suppose there could be a problem with AOLQ in as much as the experience of the license holder, The police are in charge of making sure that someone is suitable to own a fire arm in respect to public safety but no one is looking at safe and appropriate use of a firearm.

Many of use on here started at a young age with an air rifle and a dad who would give you a thick ear if you did something that you shouldn't, then moved up to a 410 and a 22lr etc but some have not had that advantage. So how is someone to know that. 22 is fine for shooting rabbits but only ok for a fox in certain circumstances, or that a 243 may be legal for a red deer but not necessarily the best tool for the job.

[Scully]

I think AOLQ is a step in the right direction, but there are still improvements to be made yet; licensing of the person as opposed to the licensing of the object.

I also believe that if there was a lack of 'safe and appropriate use' of firearms the issue would have been addressed by now.

As responsible adults deemed as such by the police I think the less interference there is the better.

[fortune]

Today I saw one. A new certificate issued by Kent. they are using the " AOLQ" in regard to use.

[malkiserow]

I think AOLQ is a step in the right direction, but there are still improvements to be made yet; licensing of the person as opposed to the licensing of the object.

I also believe that if there was a lack of 'safe and appropriate use' of firearms the issue would have been addressed by now.

As responsible adults deemed as such by the police I think the less interference there is the better.

 

It does make sense and put the onus on the shooter to be responsible. This is where the Police have issues, we are responsible enough to have a firearm but not responsible enough to know the law and make decisions about what constitutes undue suffering (too small a firearm). Quite a contradiction really. And there there are the staff who want to limit and control our usage because "they cannot be trusted" brigade.

[Dekers]

I understand in these parts it has been removed on renewal, mine isn't due for years so I can't confirm that first hand.

When you see some of the discussion regarding peoples interpretation of what it means on forums it is hardly surprising though.

 

Are you under Thames Valley?

[Dekers]

ACPO agreed to use AOLQ across the country two or three years back. That of course never happened, but it has been adopted by many.

 

Why anyone thinks it is a licence to do what you want is beyond me, when you get an OPEN FAC, you are deemed responsible enough to do what is safe and right, when you get AOLQ you should also be deemed responsible enough to do what is safe and right.

 

Nobody in their right mind would consider the likes of a .22lr etc suitable for Boar so why do you need to be told on your FAC!

Edited February 1, 2016 by Dekers

[Redgum]

ACPO agreed to use AOLQ across the country two or three years back. That of course never happened, but it has been adopted by many.

 

Why anyone thinks it is a licence to do what you want is beyond me, when you get an OPEN FAC, you are deemed responsible enough to do what is safe and right, when you get AOLQ you should also be deemed responsible enough to do what is safe and right.

 

Nobody in their right mind would consider the likes of a .22lr etc suitable for Boar so why do you need to be told on your FAC!

Well Dekers, I have news for you, been a few cases around my area and I expect the rifles are owned by FAC holders, then there is the debate, is it ok to shoot a boar with an hmr, hornet, or 222, all these calibres along with the .22lr will kill a pig when the bullet is in the right place at the right range. Should this be at the discretion of a FAC holder with little experience.

[Dave-G]

I recently renewed with ground game, fox and AOLQ on my centrefire but not on the air, 22LR nor HMR.

[Dekers]

Well Dekers, I have news for you, been a few cases around my area and I expect the rifles are owned by FAC holders, then there is the debate, is it ok to shoot a boar with an hmr, hornet, or 222, all these calibres along with the .22lr will kill a pig when the bullet is in the right place at the right range. Should this be at the discretion of a FAC holder with little experience.

 

 

I think you need to read my post again. I rather thought I was in the same camp as you and Charlie T ref #29.

 

Been a few cases of what?

 

...and a .22lr or even potentially an air rifle or a log are suitable and legal, to humanely dispatch a deer in the right circumstances, but nobody would advocate their use on a daily basis for normal deer stalking. (except perhaps our travelling friends)

Edited February 2, 2016 by Dekers

[Dunkield]

 

Are you under Thames Valley?

 

Yes

[Dekers]

 

Yes

 

 

I have to say I'm rather fond of my AOLQ, I hope mine stays on renewal, a while to go yet though!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I wonder if there is an opening here that for say £15 you could insure your FAC against problems like losing AOLQ and you could have someone fight your case for you!

[CharlieT]

Regrettably, legally there is no case to fight. There is no legislative requirement for CC's to embrace or issue the AOLQ condition. CC's can basically implement any condition of their choosing.

[kyska]

Notts have just given AOLQ to a 'movee' from Leicestershire I know, but only on rimfire, the CF is conditioned for deer and Fox, with verbal instruction that its not to be used as a sole foxing gun or used at night.....

[Redgum]

 

 

I think you need to read my post again. I rather thought I was in the same camp as you and Charlie T ref #29.

 

Been a few cases of what?

 

...and a .22lr or even potentially an air rifle or a log are suitable and legal, to humanely dispatch a deer in the right circumstances, but nobody would advocate their use on a daily basis for normal deer stalking. (except perhaps our travelling friends)

 

apologies Dekers, it was the last sentence that threw me because there are numpties around that will try to take large game with .22lrs but as you stated we can probably guess who they are. The FC have reported cases of pigs shot with rimfires, don't know how they get their facts. It doesn't really matter what you have or don't have written on your license, it will be ignored by a minority so whether its a condition for a species or AOLQ. I'm just grumpy because someone nicked the spare from under my transit the other night, cutting the cable is the worse bit as its more costly to repair, the culprits were thoughtful enough to cable tie the loose bracket to a spring hanger, no doubt they would know something about pigs and .22lr's

[Dekers]

 

apologies Dekers, it was the last sentence that threw me because there are numpties around that will try to take large game with .22lrs but as you stated we can probably guess who they are. The FC have reported cases of pigs shot with rimfires, don't know how they get their facts. It doesn't really matter what you have or don't have written on your license, it will be ignored by a minority so whether its a condition for a species or AOLQ. I'm just grumpy because someone nicked the spare from under my transit the other night, cutting the cable is the worse bit as its more costly to repair, the culprits were thoughtful enough to cable tie the loose bracket to a spring hanger, no doubt they would know something about pigs and .22lr's

 

[Savhmr]

I'm with Glos too and when having a recent variation for my CF's actioned, I was advised that Glos view things a little more simply than many assume. The applicant may be safe and experienced generally, but changes of calibre from say rimfire to CF and AOLQ introduce a number of headaches for them, not least of which is they are responsible at the end of the day for doing their bit for public safety and whilst they try and deal with every application on merit (ie evidence supplied in support of the application) they often require two things:

 

1. that those new to CF can demonstrate evidence of being safe and competent to handle such firearms (ie not in just a controlled range setting but on their own in publicly accessible countryside), which is not an unreasonable request and;

2. that AOLQ is not considered appropriate for several reasons, one of which was cases of badgers being illegally shot by those holding FACs in recent years, hence the scrapping of the condition as it narrows the chances of numpties who don't know one end of the Wildlife and Countryside Act from the other from shooting protected species, hence specifically conditioned licences. OK...that could be outside of remit but at least one can see where they're coming from.

 

Mine just reads that I am conditioned for deer and fox on one of my CF's and fox and vermin control on the other.

 

In relation to 1 above, DSC1 was initially seen as evidence of some sort of competence, especially since it contains a safety assessment aspect, so less I think about food hygiene and more about safety and calibre choice. Mentoring was seen as further evidence that a person was observed as behaving in a safe and controlled manner when out stalking, albeit second hand evidence. It would be unreasonable to withhold a condition for deer in light of such evidence being presented.

 

The conditioning of the FAC for deer for example only follows when evidential assessment satisfies the licencing team that a person is safe and competent to be wandering the countryside with a high powered CF rifle.

 

Whatever my own personal feelings on the above, it is what Glos deem as the benchmark for granting of licences and the CC is at liberty to make these demands which the applicant is free to challenge if they consider it unreasonable, but the burden of proof of competence rests with the applicant and not the CC.

 

The fact that different forces call for different things is no surprise since there are variations in staffing numbers and experience within firearms licencing teams and pressures on budgets are growing. In that light, whilst Glos may be seen by some as a law unto themselves, they also need recognition that whilst under enormous workload pressures, they still seem to have a reasonable turn around for variations and are not cutting corners on their view of minimum requirements for public safety.

Personally, I do wish that some sort of national standardisation comes in and that budgets for licencing teams is increased to reduce workloads which can only be beneficial to us all.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Savhmr

[CharlieT]

 

 

The fact that different forces call for different things is no surprise since there are variations in staffing numbers and experience within firearms licencing teams and pressures on budgets are growing. In that light, whilst Glos may be seen by some as a law unto themselves, they also need recognition that whilst under enormous workload pressures, they still seem to have a reasonable turn around for variations and are not cutting corners on their view of minimum requirements for public safety.

Personally, I do wish that some sort of national standardisation comes in and that budgets for licencing teams is increased to reduce workloads which can only be beneficial to us all.

 

The actual problem is that some CC's take it upon themselves to implement their own agenda despite CC Andy Marsh (lead FELW) writing to them all advising that AOLQ be implemented to simplify multiple conditions and that mentoring conditions should be discouraged. He also asked that any CC not implementing this policy write to him stating their reasons why.

This has nothing to do with staffing levels, budgets or staff experiance (there is national training). It does however have all to do with a minority of CC wishing to set their own agenda. To suggest that people will shoot badgers as a reason not to implement AOLQ is laughable and an insult to certificate holders.

 

Rather than sticking up for for your CC you should be asking why he refuses to follow and implement national policy.

[Scully]

I'm with Glos too and when having a recent variation for my CF's actioned, I was advised that Glos view things a little more simply than many assume. The applicant may be safe and experienced generally, but changes of calibre from say rimfire to CF and AOLQ introduce a number of headaches for them, not least of which is they are responsible at the end of the day for doing their bit for public safety and whilst they try and deal with every application on merit (ie evidence supplied in support of the application) they often require two things:

 

1. that those new to CF can demonstrate evidence of being safe and competent to handle such firearms (ie not in just a controlled range setting but on their own in publicly accessible countryside), which is not an unreasonable request and;

2. that AOLQ is not considered appropriate for several reasons, one of which was cases of badgers being illegally shot by those holding FACs in recent years, hence the scrapping of the condition as it narrows the chances of numpties who don't know one end of the Wildlife and Countryside Act from the other from shooting protected species, hence specifically conditioned licences. OK...that could be outside of remit but at least one can see where they're coming from.

 

 

Personally I think the explanations above as claimed by Glos are nothing more than smokescreens; and quite poor ones at that. Many other licensing authorities don't appear to be faced with such 'headaches'.

I see no logical reason why there should be any difference between a persons suitability to own a CF as opposed to a RF for a safety point of view. Everything which is relevant to the safe shooting of a RF is equally applicable to a CF and vice versa.

As Badgers are protected their shooting is illegal, full stop. The term AOLQ includes the word 'legal'. Gloucestershire licensing authority must have a pretty poor opinion as to the intelligence of its countys' shooters if they feel it necessary to point out what can and what cannot be shot with each particular calibre when most other licensing authorities don't feel the need. They're extracting the urine.

Edit: Charlie T must have posted while I was typing; he has summed it up much quicker than me.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Scully

[Dekers]

 

The actual problem is that some CC's take it upon themselves to implement their own agenda despite CC Andy Marsh (lead FELW) writing to them all advising that AOLQ be implemented to simplify multiple conditions and that mentoring conditions should be discouraged. He also asked that any CC not implementing this policy write to him stating their reasons why.

This has nothing to do with staffing levels, budgets or staff experiance (there is national training). It does however have all to do with a minority of CC wishing to set their own agenda. To suggest that people will shoot badgers as a reason not to implement AOLQ is laughable and an insult to certificate holders.

 

Rather than sticking up for for your CC you should be asking why he refuses to follow and implement national policy.

 

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, and the Badger business is ludicrous!

 

[Dekers]

Personally I think the explanations above as claimed by Glos are nothing more than smokescreens; and quite poor ones at that. Many other licensing authorities don't appear to be faced with such 'headaches'.

I see no logical reason why there should be any difference between a persons suitability to own a CF as opposed to a RF for a safety point of view. Everything which is relevant to the safe shooting of a RF is equally applicable to a CF and vice versa.

As Badgers are protected their shooting is illegal, full stop. The term AOLQ includes the word 'legal'. Gloucestershire licensing authority must have a pretty poor opinion as to the intelligence of its countys' shooters if they feel it necessary to point out what can and what cannot be shot with each particular calibre when most other licensing authorities don't feel the need. They're extracting the urine.

Edit: Charlie T must have posted while I was typing; he has summed it up much quicker than me.

 

Scully, I'm not trying to make an issue of it but that is a common mistake. The L stands for LAWFUL, not Legal.