Jump to content

ClemFandango

Members
  • Content Count

    949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ClemFandango

  1. Damn it man stop dodging the REAL question!
  2. Nah. You had to deal with hairy growlers I guess the shaven haven came in around the late 90's.
  3. Holy ****. That sounds good. I'll do that tomorrow with some canada breasts I have in the freezer. This might be the best post on Pigeonwatch 2020.
  4. That's what I was thinking as I was responding to the thread. It's probably a combination of things but I bet the body language doesn't help.
  5. Totally agree. Good point well made. I once had a guy with a golden retriever, daily it would be off it's lead maybe 500 yards away from him across the fields. One day I managed to catch ahold of it. I put it in the van and it came to work with me for the day. I kennelled it overnight then phoned the dog warden. He collected that afternoon. Not sure if they still have dog wardens but apparanatley there is a £70 charge on collection when they reunite the dog with the owner. Perhaps you have been lucky. I wonder if it is your attitude perhaps.
  6. The first one was ****. I assume this will be **** as well.
  7. I frequently do and delight in doing so.
  8. My mother in law is a bully. Does that count?
  9. Walker is right, Sessile oak and Hazel. The middle one could be Black Walnut? That's a Black Walnut if it helps.
  10. I'm jealous I didn't think of it.
  11. If not buffalo horn a piece of brass looks good and can add weight
  12. I had said that I wasn't going to post anymore but as one of the few members on here who I respect I will try to do you the service of a reply. This is what the GL31 says regarding non lethal methods. b) Before using the licence reasonable endeavours must have been made to resolve the problem using the lawful methods identified in Annex 1 below (unless their use would be impractical, without effect or disproportionate in the circumstances) and any other lawful methods that may be appropriate in the circumstances. c) Reasonable endeavours must continue to be made to re
  13. **** that's spooky. I went onto Youtube earlier and it recommended this video to me. I watched it and then I come on here and...
  14. I am just repeating myself. Last response in this because I can't really say any more. The GL states that you must, when challenged by an officer of NE or the police be able to provide evidence of "Serious Damage" the licence defines what constitutes proof and it defines serious damage. It also states that you must be able to prove that you have taken steps to avoid lethal measure. It outlines several non-lethal methods. If you think you can meet both of the above great. If you can't you are breaking the law.
  15. You are allowed to use lethal control if it is reasonable to believe that serious damage may occur. You would have to also comply with the other conditions of the licence. Proof of damage proof of non lethal methods. "Future damage" doesn't mean you don't have to comply with the terms of the licence.
  16. If all of the fields you have access to are stubble then you aren't preventing any serious damage are you? You can't be responsible for crops not controlled by either you as a landowner or managed by a landowner who has not engaged you. Likelihood of getting caught is no reason to ignore the law. Complacency like that is what prompted the initial judicial review.
  17. Doesn't really matter what I am, what I may or may not have appointed myself or what your or my interpretation of the law is. You clearly have no understanding of the law and yet you are free to comment on here as am I. What matters is how the people that scrutinise our activity view our compliance or otherwise with the law and how they then act on that scrutiny. I suppose only time will tell.
  18. Can you reword that? I'm not sure I understand. The General Licence requires the shooter to prove that the pigeons they are shooting are causing serious damage and that they have taken adequate steps to avoid the need for lethal control. If you can't/haven't done those things you are breaking the law. I totally agree. The General Licence always was ridiculous which is why nobody, or at least very few actually followed the conditions for all the species covered. That is why they were challenged and why we came under and remain under scrutiny. It doesn't matter wh
  19. In the wording of the GL it clearly states that you do have to provide proof of Serious Damage. "Relevant evidence will include examples of actual losses in the present year or in recent years" Again. If the OP does not have access to the land the pigeons are feeding on and has to make a serious effort as they have asked in their first post to pull them in as they are going somewhere else he CANNOT provide evidence of actual losses. Nor can he provide evidence that preventative measures have been taken. The GL doesn't just say "damage" it says "serious damage."
  20. The onus is on the shooter to prove "serious damage" If you do not have access to the land pigeons are feeding on how can you prove when questioned that they are causing damage. Opening the crop and finding beans or wheat does not prove damage nor does it prove serious damage. You cannot say that the food in their crop was even from crop that was in the ground - it may have been spilt during harvest. the GL defines "Serious Damage" as “Serious damage” is damage to an economic or financial interest that exceeds mere nuisance, minor damage or normal business risk." a crop f
  21. In those circumstances it would most likely be reasonable to shoot as you would most likely have access to the land that damage is reasonably expected to occur on. Unless I misinterpreted the original post he doesn't have access to the land pigeons are roosting on so cannot be protecting crops on adjacent land, nor does he have access to the land they are feeding on so cannot be protecting adjacent crops.
  22. Good for you. I think that's extremely tenuous, it's the same as saying pigeons on my mates farm in Suffolk are eating crops so I am shooting pigeons in Oxfordshire in the hope of reducing the UK population. Ultimately it is your decision and if you are confident that if you are challenged that argument would stand up then fine. Doesn't apply to the OP though who does not have permission to also shoot pigeons where they are damaging crops... If they are even damaging crops in the first place. If the op only has access to a flight line they cannot have undertaken measure
×
×
  • Create New...