Jump to content

ClemFandango

Members
  • Posts

    987
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ClemFandango

  1. I'm jealous I didn't think of it.
  2. If not buffalo horn a piece of brass looks good and can add weight
  3. 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 resolve the problem using such appropriate lawful methods alongside use of the licence.
  4. **** 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...
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 whether you or I agree with them or not though. They're all we have at the moment.
  10. 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." It goes to the lengths of defining what serious damage means and it describes what methods you must have had in place to reduce such damage. Admittedly it doesn't say that you have to cull where the damage is happening but I still think that if you were challenged shooting pigeons in your back garden a mile away from the farm you were protecting crops on you would have no defence when challenged on either of these issues. You cannot prove what crop the birds you are shooting are feeding on and therefore you cannot prove that the damage is serious nor can you prove you have tried to deter them.
  11. 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 full of wheat from a few pigeons does not constitute serious risk, especially if you can't even tell where they have been feeding. The GL also requires the shooter to be able to prove they have taken reasonable lawful methods to prevent damage. Annex 1 of the licence details what these methods are. You cannot, when challenged prove that you have attempted to deter pigeons from feeding on crops if you have no access to those crops. I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way. The original challenge to the GL came from people taking the **** and people continue to do so. I am pro shooting and am able to pick holes in an argument to shoot pigeons fairly easily... How will you get on justifying your actions to someone who is anti-shooting? Remember this is a public forum and Wild Justice used quotes from here as part of their argument for the Judicial Review. Exercise restraint and read the law is all I am trying to impress on people... There was a thread on here where someone was trying to argue that it is legal to use lead shot over wetlands in Scotland... Totally the opposite of the law. 16 years after the law was passed. That sort of rank ignorance will ruin shooting for everyone.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 measures to avoid the need for lethal control and they cannot prove damage is occuring. Therefore they cannot comply with the terms of GL31
  14. I was trying (and failing evidently) to make a joke.
  15. It's not opinion though is it? It's clearly written in law. Does nobody on this site actually read the general licence? If you don't have permission from the landowner to shoot pigeons where they are causing damage you can't prove they are causing damage can you? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/woodpigeons-licence-to-kill-or-take-them-to-prevent-serious-damage-to-crops-gl31 8. When this licence can a) Only as a last resort to prevent serious damage1 . be used 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 resolve the problem using such appropriate lawful methods alongside use of the licence. d) Only undertake lethal control of birds during the peak breeding season1 if lethal control at other times or use of other licensed methods (e.g. egg destruction) would not provide a satisfactory solution. e) Any person using this licence must be able to show, if asked by an officer of Natural England or the Police: (i) what type of crop any action under this licence is protecting; (ii) what lawful methods have been, and are being, taken to prevent serious damage to such crops by woodpigeon or why the lawful methods have not been taken; (iii) what measures have been and are being taken to minimise losses due to other species and causes; and (iv) why the threat of serious damage from woodpigeon is sufficiently serious to merit action under this licence. Licence users are advised to keep a record or log of crop damage and of efforts to address problems by legal methods. If you don't have access to the land on which they are causing serious damage you cannot prove what you are doing is lawful. What will you say if challenged? "I was just shooting these birds as they fly over because they must be doing some damage somewhere... I'm not sure what damage, or where because I don't have permission to access the land they are feeding on... Oh and I can't prove any damage because I'm not quite sure where they are going or coming from and even if I knew I am not allowed to access that land to prove it... I'm not even totally sure if they are actually damaging crops and if they are it is probably the case that the landowner where they are causing damage is already controlling them." Solid defence that.
  16. Carp? Might deter the Gos but risk attracting a Heron.
  17. If you don't have permission to shoot pigeons where they are landing or feeding you aren't protecting any crops and therefore aren't complying with the terms of the General Licence. Shooting pigeons in these circumstances would be against the law.
  18. Why are people patting BASC on the back for this? They haven't done anything. The government issued the guidelines. You didn't need BASC or any shooting organisation to clarify it was quite clear that shooting could continue.
  19. Technically don't need a certificate to purchase shotgun ammunition.
  20. Same. Been eating game shot with steel for a couole of years now. None of my teeth have ever exploded. It's just more nonsense from people with their head stuck firmly up their ****.
  21. Classic method and can be effective. Don't just hang them and forget about them though. With all scarers it is important to move them frequently as the birds become accustomed to them.
×
×
  • Create New...