Legality on garden shooting

[Colster]

 

plus if you look, its illegal to entice pigeons down with seed to shoot them, so further offenses committed

 

You're right but again it's a strange one. When you put down decoys you're enticing the bird in too, so should be just as illegal - giving the false impression of food on the ground as opposed to putting actual food down - is there really much difference (apart from decoys being more effective as a pigeon can see another pigeon from a greater distance than it could a bit of grain.

 

As for shooting in the garden, it really depends on your circumstances. I have quite a large garden, my four nearest neighbours all have at least shotgun licences and I have permission to shoot on the land that surrounds my garden, it's a rural area so the sound of a shotgun going off is unlikely to alarm anyone... so yes I do shoot pests in the garden.

[poontang]

There's more than one General Licence. They cover shooting for crop protection, health and safety and protection of flora and fauna (including wild birds).

 

Scroll to bottom of page and read them here: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/licences/generallicences.aspx

 

If a Woodpigeon is causing damage to your vegetable patch and you've tried to prevent it from doing so, but unsuccessfully, you can shoot it. If, however you don't have a veg patch and it's just eating food from your bird table you can't. If it's roosting in your garden and dumping everywhere you can shoot it. If it's just passing through and sat in your tree, you can't.

If a corvid is eating eggs/taking young birds in your garden you can shoot it, but again if it's just passing through and you have no nest sites on your property you can't.

You would need to show good reason, and that you've tried other methods to control the birds before shooting, should the **** hit the fan.

[Vince Green]

Its all very well discussing the details of the general licence. The bigger problem is when somebody phones the police and you get a couple of stroppy coppers on your door wanting to confiscate your air rifle and threatening you with being charged with a Public Order Offence which is a catch all law for anything that may cause annoyance or distress to the public.

 

Even worse, they might phone the RSPCA. An RSPCA inspector is one person you don't want to get on the wrong side of. Think in terms of an animal rights activist in a uniform with legal powers who probably hates all shooters and you are not far wrong.

Most of the anti air rifle campaigning has come from the RSPCA. They know that if they say you are causing unnecessary suffering, irrespective of what the truth may be, 99% of the time they will be believed. Their word is virtually unchallengable in court.

[BlaserF3]

Its all very well discussing the details of the general licence. The bigger problem is when somebody phones the police and you get a couple of stroppy coppers on your door wanting to confiscate your air rifle and threatening you with being charged with a Public Order Offence which is a catch all law for anything that may cause annoyance or distress to the public.

 

Even worse, they might phone the RSPCA. An RSPCA inspector is one person you don't want to get on the wrong side of. Think in terms of an animal rights activist in a uniform with legal powers who probably hates all shooters and you are not far wrong.

Most of the anti air rifle campaigning has come from the RSPCA. They know that if they say you are causing unnecessary suffering, irrespective of what the truth may be, 99% of the time they will be believed. Their word is virtually unchallengable in court.

 

 

The RSPCA IS A CHARITY. http://the-shg.org/The%20Law%20and%20the%20RSPCA.htm

Edited January 4, 2011 by BlaserF3

[poontang]

Its all very well discussing the details of the general licence. The bigger problem is when somebody phones the police and you get a couple of stroppy coppers on your door wanting to confiscate your air rifle and threatening you with being charged with a Public Order Offence which is a catch all law for anything that may cause annoyance or distress to the public.

 

Even worse, they might phone the RSPCA. An RSPCA inspector is one person you don't want to get on the wrong side of. Think in terms of an animal rights activist in a uniform with legal powers who probably hates all shooters and you are not far wrong.

Most of the anti air rifle campaigning has come from the RSPCA. They know that if they say you are causing unnecessary suffering, irrespective of what the truth may be, 99% of the time they will be believed. Their word is virtually unchallengable in court.

 

Exactly which public order offence could they charge you with?

 

Keep to the terms of the licence, keep within firearms law and there's nothing they can charge you with. You haven't broken any laws.

If you should injure a bird then a follow up shot or a quick dispatch by other means would negate any claim of unnecessary suffering.

Stick to the law, be sensible and you shouldn't have any problems.

Remember the RSPCA are unlikely to be there when you take the shot, so if someone complains the onus is on them to prove that you caused suffering.

[MC]

And what LEGAL powers do the RSPCA posess? Apart from wearing a uniform that makes them look like police?

 

They have no more rights than the average joe public guy on the street. If they want to enter your property they still have to go through the same channels as the police with regards obtaining warrants etc. Or they can turn up with plod and ASK you if they can come in. They do not have the right of entry.

[itchy trigger]

The RSPCA IS A CHARITY. http://the-shg.org/The%20Law%20and%20the%20RSPCA.htm

 

very interesting, a superb link BlaserF3,

thank you

 

supersport

[Vince Green]

And what LEGAL powers do the RSPCA posess? Apart from wearing a uniform that makes them look like police?

 

They have no more rights than the average joe public guy on the street. If they want to enter your property they still have to go through the same channels as the police with regards obtaining warrants etc. Or they can turn up with plod and ASK you if they can come in. They do not have the right of entry.

 

 

 

No but they do bring prosecutions themselves on occasions and are more often used as expert witnesses, in fact the only witness, in many police cases. They work very closely with the police and will not hesitate to bring the police into any situation they think warrants it.(and actually vice versa) Their people are trained in all the relevent laws ans acts. In court, I can't remember a single occasion off the top of my head when they haven't won their case. Their say carries an immense amount of weight in a court of law. You could almost say disproprtionally so because they alway appear to be the white knights riding to the rescue.

 

I'll bet a lot of coppers would like to have everything they say accepted the way the RSPCA often do in court. However, they are not politically neutral. They are a campaigning organisation currently active in trying to bring about changes in the gun laws. Many of their employees are openly active in other branches of the animal rights movement as well in ways that a copper would never be allowed to compromise his neutrality.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Vince Green

[poontang]

No but they do bring prosecutions themselves on occasions and are more often used as expert witnesses, in fact the only witness, in many police cases. They work very closely with the police and will not hesitate to bring the police into any situation they think warrants it.(and actually vice versa) Their people are trained in all the relevent laws ans acts. In court, I can't remember a single occasion off the top of my head when they haven't won their case. Their say carries an immense amount of weight in a court of law. You could almost say disproprtionally so because they alway appear to be the white knights riding to the rescue.

 

I'll bet a lot of coppers would like to have everything they say accepted the way the RSPCA often do in court. However, they are not politically neutral. They are a campaigning organisation currently active in trying to bring about changes in the gun laws. Many of their employees are openly active in other branches of the animal rights movement as well in ways that a copper would never be allowed to compromise his neutrality.

 

Vince,

 

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the RSPCA bullpoop.

 

As has been mentioned already they have very few powers, and can only prosecute by way of private prosecution, in the same way you or I could.

 

As for being expert witnesses? I don't think so.

 

It's one thing taking photo's/video's of emaciated/ill treated dogs to court, the pictures speak for themselves. However, going back to the original post, if I were to shoot a pigeon in my garden (following the relevant laws), and they were to bring a prosecution I would happily have my day in court with them.

[Sprackles]

Vince, if you re-read that link, you will see they do not have expert witness status and RSPCA has in fact withdrawn them from some cases...(because they were challenged and shown up)

[HDAV]

The RSPCA will prosecute privately when the CPS can't justify it. As for shooting in a garden with a shotgun, it's the fall out which is the issue, I looked at putting a clay trap at my uncles, 10 acres ish and to have the recommended 300m fall out zone it was tough and wouldn't really work. As for the pigeon issue that's a whole other issue!

[southeastpete]

what about shooting in a field when there is potential for shot to fall over a road or houses?

[HDAV]

what about shooting in a field when there is potential for shot to fall over a road or houses?

technically if shot falls outside your boundary/permission it's armed trespass.....IIRC (or airgun pellet bullet

 

There are also rules about not shooting within 50m of a public right of way if likely to cause distress

Edited January 6, 2011 by HDAV

[Colster]

technically if shot falls outside your boundary/permission it's armed trespass.....IIRC (or airgun pellet bullet

 

There are also rules about not shooting within 50m of a public right of way if likely to cause distress

 

It's constructive trespass for shot to land on land that you don't have permission to shoot on.

 

 

...and it's 50feet not metres.

 

..... and it only applies to highways not all rights of way.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Colster

[southeastpete]

i thought it was 50 yards from a highway or dwelling?

[guest1957]

i thought it was 50 yards from a highway or dwelling?

 

To clarify, this is the relevent piece of law:

 

Highways Act 1980 s.161

 

161 Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance

 

(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway in consequence of which a user of the highway is injured or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale].

 

[(2) If a person without lawful authority or excuse—

 

(a) lights any fire on or over a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or

 

( B ) discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,

 

and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.]

 

(3) If a person plays at football or any other game on a highway to the annoyance of a user of the highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

 

(4) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, allows any filth, dirt, lime or other offensive matter or thing to run or flow on to a highway from any adjoining premises, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

Edited January 7, 2011 by guest1957

[UKPoacher]

Shhoting over stubble or roost shooting is justified under the 'serious damage to crops' in that you are reducing the pigeon numbers that cannot be deterred from damaging crops. I agree it is little different from shooting a woodie in your garden that you say is eating your cabbages except that in the first instance you may well be defended by lawyers paid for by BASC and NFU whereas in the garden case you are on your own.

 

There are no public order offences that can be committed in your garden as long as the pellet does not stray outside your garden. You could be found guilty of shooting phesants out of season or birds not on the GL though.

[southeastpete]

thats cool then. I'd never shoot a bird sat in the hedge around my garden but shootin a squirrel running across it is within the regulations.

Its interesting though, the way that article 2 posts up is written, makes it sound like you can shoot within 50ft of a carriageway, so long as no injury or damage is caused.

[HDAV]

To clarify, this is the relevent piece of law:

 

Highways Act 1980 s.161

 

161 Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance

 

(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, deposits any thing whatsoever on a highway in consequence of which a user of the highway is injured or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale].

 

[(2) If a person without lawful authority or excuse—

 

(a) lights any fire on or over a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or

 

( B ) discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,

 

and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.]

 

(3) If a person plays at football or any other game on a highway to the annoyance of a user of the highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

 

(4) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, allows any filth, dirt, lime or other offensive matter or thing to run or flow on to a highway from any adjoining premises, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

 

Thanks for the clarification I couldn't remember the units so erred on the side of caution, there is lawful authority and excuse bit which i guess allows humane despatch of injured animals by the highway, but who knows?

 

It's not as simple as damage or injury as it includes endangered and interrupted, simple answer is it's not simple and only the courts can decide, I have a mate whose neighbour (gardens back to back) has a son who constantly shoots his air gun/pistol at the fence i assume using the fence as a back stop, tho how suitable it is depends on what's being fired.

[rob4586]

If the question is can he shoot an airgun in his back garden the answer is yes,as long as the projectile doesnt leave his boundary and its done in a sensible safe manner.As for what he can shoot,he needs to make sure he abides by the general license conditions for the species involved.

:stupid: