HW682

They made a point of saying the photos showed a lamb alleged to have been attacked by crows. Then showed photos of crows hung on a gate and a blurred photo of a parcel sent to Packham and referred to death threats - without feeling the need to say alleged. (they probably were genuine because it only takes one to spoil it for the rest - but then we all know the lamb picture is highly likely to be genuine as well. So there was an in-balance in using "alleged" to cast doubt on the pro-shooting argument if you want to describe it simplistically as that, but not on anything Packham said.)

It had a mistake in the cross reference to the guidance for traps and decoys - now corrected to read GL33. I haven't checked if there have been any other changes.

BBC 6pm news now

After contacting NE about this, they have corrected GL26 and re-issued it today.

Contact the licencing authority? Probably the council?

From the NGO statement.... my comments/questions in blue ….urgent analysis by the NGO has found the new 11-page licence to be far more restrictive than the 5-page licence it replaces. The additional restrictions include: The new licence only allows crows to be killed “as a last resort.” It allows someone to kill crows only if they have previously tried non-lethal ways of solving the problems the crows are causing. This is worded differently to the old GL04: but not much different in spirit? It prevents someone from destroying a crow’s nest when it is not in use. it permits someone to take or destroy a nest that is in use, which would otherwise be an offence under WCA1981 but no licence is needed to take or destroy a nest not in use? It prevents the use of some types of cage traps. The type of traps permitted are listed in separate document WML-GL33, are these different the old requirements? There seems to be an error in the new licence WML-GL26 because it refers to WML-GU01 instead of WML-GL33? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/798011/wml-gl33-standard-licence-conditions-trapping-wild-birds.pdf It restricts the control of crows during their breeding season. the condition is ..so if controlling them outside the breeding season is unsatisfactory, they can be controlled in the breeding season? It is invalid in conservation areas such as SSSIs unless a further licence is obtained from NE. Is this different to the old GL-04 (see notes m, n & o)? And it requests users to “exercise restraint” when shooting or scaring crows in periods of severe weather. the wording is the same as the old GL-04? It took the NGO just moments to spot many serious flaws in the new licence, which was rushed out without any consultation, with no chance given to suggest changes. I'm not sure that many of the points above are actually materially different to the old GL-04? (but there does seem to be a factual error in the new GL which needs checking and if necessary correcting)

Thanks for the link, not easy to find on the NE website at the moment. That will probably improve once they have got a few more up. At first look, the licence doesn't seem too bad. Advice on what non lethal methods should be considered and advice on what constitutes "serious damage". The biggest change appears to be a strong recommendation to keep a log of activities.

Maybe they were more common in 1981 when the act was passed? (and not section 5 back then?) Interestingly, the definitions in section 27 exclude a S2 "3 shot semi", so they are legal already for killing birds (these apply to game as well as pests etc).

Basically, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 tells you what you can't do, by default - unless you have authorisation (eg the General Licences or individual licences etc) edit: add link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 I haven't seen one of the new Individual Licences (IL), but the old GL's and the notes in the application process for new IL's did/do specifically permit the use of semi-autos, use of artificial lighting for ferrals and certain species of live bird decoys. The old GL's used to have a reminder that sound recordings weren't permitted. But unless the new IL specifically permits it - then it isn't allowed whether the licence has a reminder or not.

There was a bit of discussion this morning on R4 Farming Today. Marian Spain from NE insisting that the new GL's will be available "in a few days". Starts at 6:39 minutes in. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004crk

Eh? what have I missed? I remember a thread a while ago where someone asked what the value was and where it came from, so I calculated it from first principles, with the sources cited for the constants. On that same thread other people had their own favourite values which I agreed will work just as well in the real world when you take into account all the measurement tolerances in the values you are putting into the equation. The point of the post was mainly to answer the question as to where the value came from, rather than to argue that any similar value which only differs by a few % is going to make any noticeable difference to any body. Because it won't.

It was black and blue on the TV news. Then they put it in front of a white background, shone bright light on it and played with the exposure of the camera until it "overloaded" and went white/gold to simulate what had happened to the photo. (Edit: wasn't really paying much attention at the time, it might have been a different dress where they showed the effect.)

True. But I can understand why people find it interesting that two people can look at the same picture and see apparently totally different colours. So they each think the other one is mad and so send it on to some friends for a second opinion and so it spreads.

It's been on the news as apparently it has "gone viral" on t'internet. The actual dress is black and blue, but the photo of it is over exposed (I think that is correct?) so to most people it looks white/gold or maybe light blue and gold. But some see it as black and blue. On my laptop, if I look straight on it looks light blue and gold to me, but tilt the screen slightly and it darkens and looks blue and black. (Also the bottom half is less over exposed so it turns blue/black (to me) first when tilting the screen. In fact even looking staright on, if I scroll the picture so that only the bottom half is visible it is almost black/blue to start with.

There quite a few from nearby lurking on here.

It would be interesting to see Hull Imperial game tested before moving on.

If this is still the current and correct legislation, then yes http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22

I don't shoot skeet often enough to be any use. However, welcome to the forum..........have a bump...........and good luck

Definitely worth posting up.

If you are going to re-install Google Earth - you might as well consider the Pro version as it is apparently free now............... http://www.cnet.com/news/get-google-earth-pro-for-free/

If you want to PM me an address I have probably got a few recent issues of sporting Gun I can send you.

I'll leave to it..............

Rather, I think you have fallen victim you your own hyberbole. If you had just said you had seen a clay get deflected you might not have gotten so much questioning? As you said 90 degree is absurd. Greater than 45 degrees isn't much better.

Any clay hit by a pellet will be deflected, that is a given. (Even if it is too small to be noticeable). The bit I am struggling with is a claim that it is deflected by 90degrees which means that it's velocity in it's original direction is reduced to zero. To do that by hitting a crossing clay in the side is surprising. Even a 45degree deflection means it moves sideways at the same velocity as it's forward direction. Unless I am missing something?

I would say 1 3 4