CharlieT

You may find this interesting reading https://tbhub.co.uk/tb-testing-cattle/skin-testing/tuberculin-skin-testing/

Balderdash.

Indeed, along with shooting any of God's creatures or releasing pheasants for the sole purpose of blasting them out of the sky for entertainment.

Yes, I know. It's wasted on pointless exercises such as the letter a neighboring sheep farmer got from TfL advising him that his old Defender, which he uses on and around the farm, is not ULEZ compliant and should he use it within the zone he will be charged. Quite why the Mayor of London thinks he would drive his beaten up Land Rover from Exmoor to London for a jolly out is beyond our comprehension.

Agreed. The first nontoxic shot I will consider will be tungsten and then take it from there.

As I said earlier, I haven't tried steel. When the time comes, I will pattern my guns and shoot accordingly. I will however continue to shoot testing birds at the maximum range gun and cartridge will permit and enjoy being out with like minded folk. After all, that's what it's all about. Don't get too hung up on the word extreme. High bird shooting is a much more realistic description, extreme is a buzz word coined by journalists and idiots.

Given that steel works and the BASC commissioned report suggests steel has sufficient lethality at their 50 yd test, the simple way for you to make a judgement is to pattern with full choke at 60 yards. You will then know if your gun would do the job. Obviously presuming you are capable.

Nor have I. I guess we should ask the wildfowl shooters for their thoughts on how steel works in the real world. Just remember though, its pattern that kills. Obviously with sufficient penetration.

Have a read of these recently published findings by BASC and make your own mind up. https://basc.org.uk/lead-vs-steel-a-question-of-lethality/

I often read criticism in posts about how BASC waste money on junkets entertaining politicians and the like. Well, I was more than pleasantly surprised today to see that BASC's endeavors actually translate into positive pro shooting comments. Our North Devon MP's monthly newsletter arrived today and it contained the following......................... "When I am here I do try and spend my time out and about meeting people and organisations like the British Association of Shooting Clubs (BASC). Shooting is crucial to our rural economy, and last month I was on Exmoor, with a group of Austrian tourists with one of our professional shoots. This is a vital part of our winter tourism offering, supporting many jobs. It was great to be in Molland again as I had been there only a few weeks before with Exmoor Park representatives discussing sustainable farming. It was good to have time to speak to the the keepers and beaters drive the birds, to ensuring that shot does not end up in the food chain (as the game birds go on to enter the food chain), it really is a complex operation. I also spoke with a sheep farmer who works as a loader over winter, helping ensure he gets a steady income year round as farming is of course less fruitful in the winter months. North Devon is famous for its world class beaches and fantastic hospitality offerings over summer, and it is great to see the winter tourism economy growing too. Our shoots are also world class, with international and UK visitors coming to stay, eat, drink and shoot here in lovely North Devon."

Around 40 years ago, when we had a village Bobby who dealt with such matters, he used to turn up at 9.30 on a Sunday morning exactly at breakfast time, when he knew I'd be in from feeding the stock, to deliver my certificate. Did I complain and send him on his way with a flea in his ear for not phoning first.............no, my wife would but another couple of rashers of bacon and extra eggs in the pan, pour an extra coffee and he would pull up a chair and tuck in. His timing was always perfect. I didn't or wouldn't class that as unannounced, he was doing me a service delivering my certificate.

Not correct. The vast majority of FEO's are civilian employees of the police.

The whole purpose of unannounced visits is that they are just that, unannounced and designed to catch you on the hop, they are not designed to be convenient. Intelligence led unannounced visits first started around 2014 and at that time the police reported on how worthwhile the initiative had been and that they should continue. Police figures, at that time, stated that 1254 unannounced visits had been conducted resulting in 28 certificate revocations, 107 cases where "advice" had been given, 25 written warnings issued and 62 further cases were under review. A simple phone call to police HQ will confirm the visit is genuine. We might not like the idea of unannounced visits, but in the big scheme of things, I don't think it's a big deal..

Statutory Guidance on Firearms Licensing, which comes into effect on 1st November https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-for-police-on-firearms-licensing/statutory-guidance-for-chief-officers-of-police-on-firearms-licensing-accessible-version-from-1-november-2021 states........ Unannounced visits 4.7 In the case of certificate holders, the police should undertake an unannounced visit or inspection where it is judged necessary to do so, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm. It is not expected that the police will undertake unannounced visits or inspections at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns, and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate. 4.8 A power of entry, subject to warrant, is available to the police. While this is an important power, it will not be necessary in all cases where an inspection or home visit is required. It is expected that responsible certificate holders will co-operate with reasonable requests to inspect security arrangements or other aspects of suitability, and failure to do so may be taken into account when police consider suitability to possess the firearms. To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder, the police should provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit. 4.9 RFDs’ premises should be visited from time to time to inspect stock in hand and/or the register. Dealers are required by section 40(4) of the 1968 Act to permit such inspections by police officers or civilian officers, authorised in writing by the chief officer of police. Such written authorisation must be produced on demand.

The new Statutory Guidance indicates that it will be the police who contact the applicants GP requesting medical info. Medical information required by the police 2.26 When a person applies for a firearm or shotgun certificate the police will ask the applicant’s GP to: (i) (ii) confirm whether or not the applicant is or has been treated for any relevant medical condition which could affect their ability to possess a firearm safely; and place a firearm reminder code on the applicant’s patient record and confirm that they have done so. 2.27 GPs should not be asked to give general access to an applicant’s medical record. Nor should they be asked to either endorse or oppose applications. Responsibility for the decision about whether a person is suitable to be granted a certificate lies with the police, not the GP. Relevant medical conditions 2.28 Relevant medical conditions include: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma; suicidal thoughts or self-harm; depression or anxiety; dementia; mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness; a personality disorder; a neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy; alcohol or drug abuse; and any other mental or physical condition which may affect the safe possession of firearms or shotguns. Payment of a fee 2.29 In any case where the GP requests that a fee be paid in advance of responding to the police request for information, this is a matter between the applicant and his or her GP. It is not an issue that the police should become involved in. If the GP does not provide the information requested the certificate should not be issued If the GP declines to engage with the police 2.30 The provision of relevant medical information from an applicant’s GP is necessary in order to determine the level of risk to public safety arising from the grant of a certificate. The certificate should not, therefore, be granted or renewed if this information is not provided. The police should follow the procedure set out below. 2.31 Following the initial approach to the applicant’s GP, if the police receive no response within 21 days and it is not known why this is the case, the police should consider sending a reminder to the GP. 2.32 If a reminder is sent and the GP still fails to engage, the police should inform the applicant: a) that this is the case; b) that the application cannot be progressed in the absence of a response from the GP; and c) that the application will therefore be put ‘on hold’ pending receipt of the required information from the GP. 2.33 The application can be held for a period not exceeding six months, after which the applicant should be informed that it has lapsed. II. If the GP has a conscientious objection to firearms 2.34 If the GP indicates to the police that he or she is unwilling to respond because they have a conscientious objection to the possession of firearms, the applicant should be encouraged to pass the request to another GP in the same practice, or in another practice where practical, who may be willing to respond to the request. In the unlikely event that no GP in the practice or local area is prepared to respond, the applicant may need to consider moving to a different GP practice. If they do not wish to change their GP practice, the applicant should discuss with the police whether it would be acceptable to obtain a copy of their medical information from the GP practice for consideration by the force medical officer or by a private GP. III. If the GP indicates that there are medical issues 2.35 Where the GP indicates that there are relevant medical issues but does not provide further details, the police should ask the applicant to contact their GP to obtain a report about these medical issues. If the GP requires a fee to be paid for providing such a report, this will be payable by the applicant. If, following receipt of the above report, the police have concerns about any of the medical information given or wish to obtain a more detailed report, they may request this from the GP or, if appropriate, a relevant specialist. The police should meet any costs associated with the provision of this additional report. 2.36 If the applicant has declared a relevant medical condition on the application form the police may ask the applicant to obtain and pay, if required, for a medical report to assist with their consideration of medical suitability. If a further medical report is required, the police will pay for this. The role of Local Medical Committees 2.37 Good working relationships between the police and local GPs will help to ensure effective information sharing arrangements in the best interests of the efficacy of the local firearms licensing arrangements. 2.38 Engagement with the Local Medical Committee can help to secure a consistent set of arrangements in place across a local area within the context of the framework set out above. For example, if all parties are in agreement to developments or innovations that help to speed up application processes without compromising public safety, this is likely to be acceptable, provided that any variations from the processes described in this guidance are delivered on a voluntary basis, and that the procedures described here are adhered to if any concerns are expressed by the applicant.

Not quite correct. Applicants will be required to submit the separate "medical pro forma", duly completed by a doctor, with their application. No. It's been in the pipeline for some long while.

At those prices thank the lord mine comes out of a spring.

Too soft!

Ye Gods, you really are scraping the barrel in your quest to find and conjure up reasons to decry hunting. I've never read so much hearsay drivel in all my life. When the dreaded time comes, I chose to have our hunt staff come out to me and put down my horses and dogs with a simple shot to the brain. I am convinced this is the most compassionate way end their life, at home without stress, in surrounding they know and feel at ease in. As I just said, I can't think of a kinder or more compassionate way to do it. There's far too many people in this world basing their views on hearsay, unfounded assumptions or something they've read on the internet. Don't fall into that trap.

Just a little side note on the text I've highlighted. I've regularly ridden to hounds for over 60 years (with a variety of packs I may add) and never once and I mean never, witnessed of even heard whispers of such treatment. On the contrary, hunting is all about hound work and as such, the hounds welfare is paramount. I would dearly love to know what sort of inappropriate treatment you speak of being meted out by and I quote you "many" packs. Your above statement beggars belief.

I rather think this forum needs a change of name...................how about "Anti Field Sports Watch", where all and sundry can post disgraceful, unsubstantiated claptrap with the sole purpose of bringing about the end of country sports in general.

I would imagine you, a keen shooting man with regrettably no knowledge whatsoever of other field sports, except for hear say gobbledygook, decrying the perfectly legal and humane actions of another.

Take from the ITV news channel............. Secret cameras have recorded huntsmen shooting and killing hounds that had been used for hunting. The pictures, filmed by anti-hunting groups the Hunt Investigation Team and Keep the Ban and shared exclusively with ITV News, is the first time footage of a hunt shooting its hounds has been shown publicly. Hounds can be killed for several reasons including being too old to hunt, or if they get ill or injured. The practice is not illegal. The pictures were taken at the kennels of the Duke of Beaufort's Hunt in Badminton, Gloucestershire. The Duke of Beaufort's Hunt told ITV News that its hounds are "humanely euthanised" if they cannot be rehomed. It added that the majority of hounds are "unsuitable for rehoming" because "they are not house-trained and have only ever been used to living in a pack environment". The secret footage, recorded over several periods between April and September, shows four separate examples of hounds being shot: In two cases, a huntsman is seen putting a gun to the head of the hound and killing it. In another, the hound appears to be unwell and is carried onto the grass by the hunt staff before being shot.

The RSPCA does indeed put down dogs they can't find homes for. The latest figure I read was over 7000 a year. Perhaps 1282 should offer them his magic wand, or is it that the RSPCA is more realistic in that putting them down is the kindest thing to do.

If you hunt why on earth are you so vehemently against it.