Fellside

Marvellous!

Indeed.

Again it’s about context. The ‘spirit of the law’ is often more important than that which is written. In the case of firearms (which is their primary legal reference) they are ‘lethal’ and ‘weapons’ etc only in association with criminality. With knifes it’s the same. While used for their legitimate purpose they are merely a work tool. Carried without good reason or malicious intent they are a weapon. Try walking in to a gun shop and asking: “could I have a lethal barrelled weapon’ and a couple of dangerous bladed weapons please?” I think you may find yourself being lead away to a waiting police vehicle.

HO guidelines (as I acknowledged earlier), describe firearms as weapons within the context of potential criminality - which is what they primarily deal with of course. Glad you got a chuckle out of it anyway……🙂 The real legal core, of all gun use, is the 1968 Firearms Act. This throughout its very long (!) text refers to guns as firearms whatever type they are. You’ll need a free evening and a big glass of something if you want to wade through that one. As I mentioned earlier, I think I will stick with ‘gun’.

Yes indeed - proper guns alright.

Straight from the Home Office Guidelines Intro’: “Some firearms and shot guns may be held on a firearm or shot gun certificate issued by the police” etc. etc….. HO language and practice, setting out their stall so to speak. The word weapon isn’t used. Most of their terminology is around firearms and shotguns. However, they are further referred to as ‘weapons’ with in the context of potential criminality and harm - especially prohibited firearms. I’m sure your opinion will differ (and that’s absolutely fine), but I’m quite happy with the word ‘gun’.

I would see the legal side more like this: A gun is only a ‘weapon’ if used against another human - i.e weaponised. For our purposes it’s a sporting gun. Similar with a knife. It only becomes an ‘offensive weapon’ if carried out of context from its intended purpose as a work tool. If person is ever suspected of using either as a weapon, their feet don’t touch the ground - and that’s how it should be of course.

Westlands?

Watched the video thanks to the OP for sharing. All good advice really. I have no concerns and I don’t think many of us should - as we have ‘good reason’ for what we do in the field. That said if a deer stalker walked down the street to the takeaway and found themselves questioned about a 4” locked blade on their person…..?! Not a leg to stand on. It’s about the application of common sense.

P.S Plenty of goose shooting up there.

Most people (quite reasonably) due to the Viking traditions etc. assume that Norway once had sovereignty. However it was Denmark.

It’s bad form to get rid of unwanted wedding presents (publicly anyway). Perhaps a broken toaster if no one’s looking…..🙂. Orkney and ‘Zetland’ were gifted to King James IV by Denmark for his wedding. P.S I can’t imaging many natives speak Norwegian…..?!

Yes incredible birds. I suppose we’ve just been lucky not to have been hit by them. We’ve had a hen harrier around the pens, being close to the grouse moor (where they are left alone) and they don’t seem to like the thick pen cover. There’s also a breeding pair of peregrines on the moor, but they don’t generally bother birds on the ground. Having said that I have had several attack my pigeon flapper on barley fields. Dramatic stuff - great to see. In summary, we don’t suffer significant losses to BOP. I’m much more concerned about foxes of course.

Perhaps I’m lucky, but have found the poults are only vulnerable for 2 or 3 weeks. By the time they’ve put on some size and are a little more street wise (for that read not quite so brainless), then BOP predation starts to drop away. We are getting them 2 weeks older this year. After we’ve penned them for two weeks - we’ll be one month ahead. It makes a heck of a difference once they’ve put some size on. Like you - I also find that good cover is a must.

The shooting community need to hit back with examples of BOP conservation successes on shooting estates. There are plenty. I was helping a chap to get a barn owl box going. It currently has 6 young in it (probably too many). He quite surprised me by saying “the game shooters kill BOP don’t they”, even though he new I was one. I told him that 27 out of the 35 successful hen harrier nests last year were on grouse moors. There is a huge perception problem at the moment - which we need to sort out.

Thank you. Interesting. The actual contravention re wood pigeon isn’t given. However I do wonder if the wood pigeon was trapped: One count of killing a non-schedule 1 wild bird (wood pigeon) One count of use of an animal trap in circumstance for which it is not approved. It still isn’t clear that there was any GL contravention. All in all, I don’t think there is anything to worry about re the GLs and regular pigeon shooting etc. He was clearly breaking multiple laws and was connected with the illegal killing of BOP. He got the book and deserved it. I personally don’t think there are major implications for pigeon shooting.

It wasn’t long ago when cartridge makers boasted about even pellet sizes - having been sorted / riddled 5 times etc…… Efficient patterns etc. etc…..?!

Yes I agree - we have to be on the ball and certainly proactive re the big picture. As someone who has been interrupted by a wildlife officer after shooting a crow, and also reported for shooting legal quarry, in season, on a friends farm (!!), I remain legally confident. On both occasions I was legally in the clear, as I always make sure to be. If you demonstrate a good working knowledge of the legals and make an effort to help the police (they have a tricky job let’s face it), there isn’t any need to worry. Re the case in question here, I do wonder whether the pigeon shooting was tied in with a firearms offence and not a GL issue…..? After all there were incredibly 19 separate offences….! We might be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps someone might know.

Agreed.

I understand your concern marsh man. However we’ve been through this before on PW and also the shooting org’s have poured over it. Stubble shooting got the green light. Unless things have drastically changed, I can’t imagine any great difficulties.

I must confess to not having read the details - too hectic for that. I had assumed that he was hauled for contraventions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act appertaining to BOP. I’m surprised this is not the case….?! Ah well thanks for keeping me right Gas seal. Guilty of 19 counts is, as you say throwing the book at himself. He may not have even paid for his own representation in court if the evidence was overwhelming. Sounds like he got the book who ever threw it….🙂 Whatever the case, the problem here is with public perception. They often assume that if you’re involved in shooting, you kill BOP. In reality, for the vast majority of us this represents an abhorrent crime against nature.

I’m not familiar with the case or the circumstances in which the pigeon met it’s demise. However, as he shot BOP, I think they threw anything at him that they could remotely make stick…..stepping on the cracks of a pavement etc…?!

‘Unless it’s impractical to do so’ (may not be the precise wording). The GLs are riddled with contradictions and get out clauses. They have been written that way to avoid challenge. We’ve been here before on PW. I would ask the question: how can it be proven that a pigeon has not recently caused damage or is not about to (?) as that’s what they do for a living in farmland Britain after all. If you see the whole GL context in the round - especially GL42 - it’s about area wide protection and not necessarily the field (or even the single farm) in which they are shot. This was made clear by the House of Commons Committee following the last Natural England GL debacle. Are the GLs confusing…? Yes potentially in parts, but quite legally robust and tricky to challenge.

You can give reasons for unanswered Q’s in comments part - if you like.

Hi Conor, Just been filling in this form - PM sent. As others have observed, there is some coercive bias - particularly 18 and 19. The form can be submitted without completing these - and addressing the matter in comments at the end.