Jonno243

I firmly believe that there is not one person alive that joins a union to ensure an increased standard for his fellow man. Trade Unionism is driven by one thing, the desire to make things better for oneself and only oneself. In common parlance, selfishness. Please do not try to peddle all the "for the greater good" and "solidarity with my comrade" claptrap, it is repugnant.

Quist, From the BASC Scotland General License Information Sheet - March 2008: "There is no legal obligation to have tried non-lethal control methods such as proofing or scaring before conducting lethal control, only to be satisfied that non-lethal methods are ineffective or impracticable. You may wish to consider the following points: When decoying it is important to realise that pigeons are a highly mobile species and target vulnerable crops as and when they ripen and can vary their flightlines throughout the day. It would be ineffective and impractical to set up any stationary deterrent such as a scarecrow or scaregun as the pigeons would merely move field. When roost shooting you are targeting birds that routinely damage crops in the area but who are distributed over such a large area that is ineffective and impractical to shoot them on site or employ non-lethal methods. When controlling corvids for the protection of wild birds you should be aware that the target species are highly intelligent and quickly become used to static or mechanical scaring techniques, which therefore become ineffective and impractical. Because of this shooting, or the use of static or mobile cage traps, is an effective method of control for territorial birds such as crow, jackdaw, jay, magpie and rook." "It doesn't take a lot of effort to stay the right side of the law. What worries me is that someone who can't be bothered to even make a halfarsed effort to try" - I would say that doing adequate reading and following the guidance of a noted and respected countryside agency constitutes slightly more than "halfarsed". ATB, Jonno. (Edited for grammar and spelling)

Definitely a dead 'un.

Costa Rica a week tomorrow. For nigh on a month of sunshine, relaxation and fishing

fit like loon?

Depends how well you know your neighbouring guns If in doubt, let them give it both barrels then wipe his eye if he misses Enjoy your day, have a good laugh and most importantly, enjoy yourself. ATB, Jonno

I am sure that 99.9% of pigeon shooters keep these detailed documents since pigeon is also shot under the terms of the OGL.................................. On a serious note, the OGL states that the person carrying out the job must be satisfied that non-lethal methods would fail, it does not say that you must have tried them.

You sir, have a talent. If you wish to sell any then please add me to your customer list!

I am feeling slightly pedantic tonight. Up here in God's Country we have no specific minimum calibre stated in law. Our restrictions are as follows: A bullet designed to deform in a predictable manner of not less than 100grains with a muzzle energy of not less than 1750ftlbs and a muzzle velocity of not less than 2450ft/sec. (Covers all deer species. A different set of values applies for Roe Deer only)

Well said Scout, you have about summed it up in a nutshell. The DCS courses I see as a valuable tool in the stalkers arsenal, but to make it a mandatory requirement for the culling of deer is just slightly alarming. It would possibly pave the way for a raft of new possible legislation covering "trained hunters" as they have in Europe.

I understand your point leaseone, but there is already existing legislation concerning this, the Deer Acts and the Animals Act spring to mind. Why waste time and (taxpayers) money drafting more legislation? Should we insist on a legally required course on shooting foxes because otherwise people will be shooting them with inappropriate calibres?

Respectfully stuartp, I have to disagree. Although not a detractor of the DSC, I firmly believe that a certificate does not a stalker make. It is a valuable aid, and necessary for venison to enter the public domain, but in my humble opinion the experience gained from shadowing a stalker (be they professional or not) is a far superior way of learning. I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum are vehemently against a system of competence appraisal prior to the grant of an FAC or SGC, surely enforcing a DSC qualification is exactly the same on a smaller scale? (i.e. you cannot shoot deer until you have passed a particular exam). No-one would insist on a test before being allowed to shoot pigeon or fox, why different for deer? Especially in light of the "population explosion". Jonno.

Under Section 5 (1)(a) of the Public Order Act it is an offense to "use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby". So it is not so much what you say, it is how you say it. In response to the OP I think that swearing, like most things, has a time and a place but personally I don't like to hear ladies swearing excessively. I think it is probably just the way I was raised, I further acknowledge that it is probably some kind of chauvinism but that's the way I am.

And breathe............... B)

Cranfield, Apparently I don't have permission to view it! :wacko: Is it a top secret government report :blink: EDIT: ******** too slow.

Very well said sir.

Good God man, you gave me a fright.

Kenny, my comments were not aimed directly at yourself. They were, rather ironically, generalisations. Your statement highlighted above is what is called "inductive reasoning", or more properly "inductive logic", the process by which the particulars are used to "prove" the general. Logically (in both a philosophical and scientific sense) it does not hold water old boy. The fact that as human beings we are inclined to do it does not make it "right".

It is my belief that to say you dislike a particular race, or group of people is absurd. Surely it is one of the greatest generalisations ever made? For instance, say I have met 50 Australians throughout my lifetime; how can I then judge all of them? It is utterly ridiculous. One other thought. Have you ever noticed these things always start: "I'm not a racist, BUT...................."

Slightly pedantic perhaps, but under the terms of the General License "sport" does not come into it. They are disgusting things, worse than feral pigeons IMO, and if requested to deal with them (and the law allows it) then what is your issue?

Schoffel Ptarmigan...............accept no substitute.

History lesson courtesy of that well known on-line encyclopedia (highlighted for reference) The UK has no single constitutional document comparable to those of other nations, such as the United States. It is therefore often said that the country has an "unwritten" or de facto constitution. However, the majority of the British constitution does exist in the written form of statutes, court judgments and Treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (more than most countries except New Zealand and Israel) and the royal prerogatives. The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.

That is why I said population density. 1000 people living in an area of (say) 100,000 square miles will of course suffer less crime that 1000 people living in an area of (say) 100 square miles. For this reason crime rates are generally higher in city centres than they are in affluent suburbs. A random sample of an equal number of people will not produce an objective assessment of crime rates in this instance as you cannot compare the two areas.

As I remember it he was not disliked or victimised because he owned guns, it was simply that his neighbours were scum (for want of a more appropriate term). Whether his neighbours would feel threatened by the presence of firearms would happen if they were licensed or not and therefore your point is somewhat moot.

Hardly a major problem in the UK where guns are licensed and recorded, why would it happen in the US? True, but a gun is much easier and requires less thought. Most "crimes of passion" are committed with a gun or knife simply because they are quick to use. If the assailant had to beat someone to death with a stick or stone they would have to think about what they were doing, in the vast majority of cases this would bring reflection on the probable outcome, and probable punishment. Might this be something to do with population densities? In NY I would expect that the density far exceeds the other states you mention, in a far smaller area. Statistically speaking it is probability 1 (i.e. a certainty) that the crime rate would therefore be higher if you look at "state" figures.