"Open ticket"

[SakoQuad]

In my county my fac for rimfire will probably say the same as yours as I cannot shoot fox with lr hmr. If I could it would have fox listed aswell as vermin.

 

Right, so if not positively stated as lawful quarry, fox is NOT legitimate and not included in the definition of vermin. I'd assumed it would be included as vermin unless ruled out! glad I asked

 

I use a heavy 12g load anyway when foxing but wouldn't have hesitated if I'd got a chance with HMR out to 50 yrds or so when rabbiting.

Thanks for reply.

Edited July 3, 2012 by SakoQuad

[al4x]

BAsc on the other hand went public and said go for it if you have vermin listed on the basis that it has never been challenged and foxes fit he dictionary definition of vermin. That effectively means we're anything to happen it would be impossible for the police to argue in court.

[kyska]

BAsc on the other hand went public and said go for it if you have vermin listed on the basis that it has never been challenged and foxes fit he dictionary definition of vermin. That effectively means we're anything to happen it would be impossible for the police to argue in court.

 

Thats all ok BASC saying that, my FAC states which calibre I can use for fox, I also have the wording vermin on the fac, my worry wouldn't be getting prosecuted, but having my ticket revoked because I've broken one of the very clear conditions typed on it.

[al4x]

How many times have you shot something and been questioned whether you have the condition to shoot it?

 

Indeed has anyone on here ever had it happen? then look at the definition of vermin and indeed you have fox listed against a more suitable caliber yup thats a specific foxing rifle. No one claims that rimfires are specific foxing guns but in certain situations they can be the perfect choice for the job. Clearing cubs with a centerfire is no where near as effective in some conditions as using a .22lr

If you're that scared of a revoke just check with BASC they published it in their magazine they should be keen to take it a step further and challenge a revoke. Simply because it then sets a precedent, there is no way it would go that far as it would be a complete waste of public money going to court to try and claim foxes aren't either pests or vermin. Thats before you bring in that some forces condition them for fox and others include foxes as vermin. This country is a country and little hitlers making up the rules do need to get an element of common sense and work on a countrywide approach. That really should be any legal quarry simply because there is no difference to shotgun use and by the time you are considered competent enough to have a FAC you should have an idea of what you can shoot sensibly.

[kyska]

Absolutely agree , but I don't fancy being the first one to have to go through the challenges for breaching my conditions.

 

I'm no legal expert but, would a challenge even work? However unlikely, if I were to be caught using a firearm in breach of my conditions, is there really a defence, I mean, I've been told not shoot fox with a rimfire, its written on my ticket not to shoot fox with a rimfire, so the argument isn't whether fox are vermin or not, its whether I have knowingly breached my conditions?

 

How many times have you shot something and been questioned whether you have the condition to shoot it?

 

Indeed has anyone on here ever had it happen? then look at the definition of vermin and indeed you have fox listed against a more suitable caliber yup thats a specific foxing rifle. No one claims that rimfires are specific foxing guns but in certain situations they can be the perfect choice for the job. Clearing cubs with a centerfire is no where near as effective in some conditions as using a .22lr

If you're that scared of a revoke just check with BASC they published it in their magazine they should be keen to take it a step further and challenge a revoke. Simply because it then sets a precedent, there is no way it would go that far as it would be a complete waste of public money going to court to try and claim foxes aren't either pests or vermin. Thats before you bring in that some forces condition them for fox and others include foxes as vermin. This country is a country and little hitlers making up the rules do need to get an element of common sense and work on a countrywide approach. That really should be any legal quarry simply because there is no difference to shotgun use and by the time you are considered competent enough to have a FAC you should have an idea of what you can shoot sensibly.

[al4x]

where does it say may not be used on fox?

[njc110381]

The whole rimfire for fox thing is a pain. I can see why they wouldn't want a new shooter to take it on as it's a pretty precise art but once you get the hang of the job they do work. I've shot more foxes with my .22lr than any other gun I should think. My Hornet may come a close second but it's the LR that always does cage trap work and if I see one within 50 yards out in the field I'll whack it too.

 

At my last variation they left off the any other lawful quarry condition. I've just put in for another change and have written a pretty specific letter as to how I want my conditions laid out. I've said to ring me if they can't word it like that and if they send it back as it is now it will go straight back in again.

 

There's no reason not to allow a .22lr for fox to the right shooter. Every gun has it's limit and once you're good enough to judge where that limit is you should be able to use what you like.

[kyska]

where does it say may not be used on fox?

 

Yea, this is the confusing bit, I think because of my job I see things very black and white.

 

It doesn't say I can't shoot fox with rimfire, but it says the centrefire is for fox, does omission of fox on the rimfire conditions make an assumption that they are not suitable in the eyes of my local plod?

 

I guess I'm thinking along the lines that I was granted a CF for fox as they didn't deem RF suitable, why do that if it is suitable and encourage me to buy a bigger calibre.

[al4x]

you know what they say about assumption being the mother of all F ups, the vice versa is if they don't want foxes shot with them why not write it on the ticket.

 

they aren't classed as a dedicated fox gun so shooting at any great range which is where CF's come in, you've obviously had a discussion with them but that is still only verbal not on paper. I've had fox on my HMR and I've had pests and vermin at different times depending which side of bed they got out when they printed the ticket. Thats across all guns I'd add there is an element where most people just carry on and don't ask too many questions in the knowledge its never been tested and it would be a serious waste of public money for a force to try and test it. Add to that BASC backing if you are a member they wouldn't stand a chance of making a revoke stick. After all you've got to get past the being told off discussion when you discuss the definition of vermin

Sometimes I think things are left vague so there is leeway, though some departments just don't think when you think of shooting cubs weighing not much more than a kilo you do wonder why you are supposed in certain areas to use a centerfire.

[njc110381]

I've had fox on my HMR and I've had pests and vermin at different times depending which side of bed they got out when they printed the ticket.

 

I've often wondered how that happens? You'd think at least that the same force would have the same opinion every day but they change like the weather! it's like a lottery sending in for a variation!

[Vipa]

Haven't read through this lot but the big question is.....

 

(and I couldn't get Cleveland to do this!)

 

If your ticket states 'Deer and other lawful quarry' Can you go shoot boar

[al4x]

yes as where is it listed that boar are not legal quarry. Caliber wise there are only recommendations out there as well nothing in actual law. Naturally you would be foolish to step too far outside the guidelines but then there are wild boar and there are large piglets.

[CharlieT]

Haven't read through this lot but the big question is.....

 

(and I couldn't get Cleveland to do this!)

 

If your ticket states 'Deer and other lawful quarry' Can you go shoot boar

 

I have spoken on this very subject and also the history and implementation of the "AOLQ" condition with those responsible for bringing it forward, the NGO, ACPO and my licensing area.

 

I am advised that the AOLQ condition, brought in to permit those with deer caliber rifles to shoot lesser species, should follow the primary listed species. So ones fac would state Deer and AOLQ.

 

As boar are considered a larger primary species than deer(and with many licensing departments having specific thoughts on boar), a DEFRA/ACPO recommended minimum caliber of .270 I do not think that AOLQ would cover pigs.

 

I have deer and AOLQ and have been advised by my lot that I need to have boar listed.

[CharlieT]

Absolutely agree , but I don't fancy being the first one to have to go through the challenges for breaching my conditions.

 

I'm no legal expert but, would a challenge even work? However unlikely, if I were to be caught using a firearm in breach of my conditions, is there really a defence, I mean, I've been told not shoot fox with a rimfire, its written on my ticket not to shoot fox with a rimfire, so the argument isn't whether fox are vermin or not, its whether I have knowingly breached my conditions?

 

Kyska

 

A very pragmatic view. The correct one in my opinion.

 

All very well people suggesting that it's only a silly condition one would be breaching BUT do they realise that it's a little more than that. Non compliance with a condition is a summary offence punishable buy 6 months in prison or a level 5 fine or both. Hardly a technicality.

 

All very well BASC spouting forth, it's not them going to be behind bars.

[njc110381]

I would say it does cover boar. What the police feel the wording should mean and what it clearly states on the FAC are two different things entirely. Do you really think that standing up in court and saying "we meant anything smaller than the listed quarry, not any other lawful quarry" would get any reaction other than a good laugh?

 

They wouldn't even bother taking it there in the first place.

 

The only issue I can see is if you were to shoot one with your .223, which would under most circumstances be considered cruel and would open you up to prosecution under other laws. Of course you wouldn't be silly enough to do that anyway so all should be well.

[al4x]

Thats my view on things NJC why not write it clearly if that is what they actually mean, the idea of imprisonment for claiming foxes are not vermin is frankly a little extreme. Hence BASC who are very risk averse with printing these kind of things came out with a go for it in a rather large box in their magazine. But it is up to everyone to make their own decision rather than listening to anyone on the net, I'm happy with my conditions at the moment well I did when I sent it off the other day have pests and deer and will continue shooting foxes as to me they are indeed pests.

 

Some of the interpretations going really make me wonder what is going on, it would be very easy to write conditions that didn't need de cyphering but they just don't do it. as for Any legal Quarry and turning round and saying but we didn't mean Any we meant except just can never stack up in a court.

[Vipa]

 

 

As boar are considered a larger primary species than deer(and with many licensing departments having specific thoughts on boar), a DEFRA/ACPO recommended minimum caliber of .270 I do not think that AOLQ would cover pigs.

 

 

 

 

And there was me thinking the Red Deer was Britains largest indigenous species!?

[CharlieT]

Alex

 

Whilst I take on board and actually agree with everything you say, I think that we have to look at firearms licensing as a two way partnership.

 

Many of the gripes we read come from those who have not held their FAC past their first renewal. Not withstanding the fact that some "forces" are just plain obstructive most are open to a bit of arm twisting once one has held a fac for some years and built up a rapport. Mine have never once refused my requests and have always bent over backwards to word my certificate to fit my requirements. I take the view that the law states that if I demonstrate good reason my request must be granted. I don't ask, I tell in a polite business like way and expect my request to be processed. However, having said this, I don't take the mickey and don't take advantage or circumvent the rules. I appreciate that my job may bring certain advantages but at the end of the day it all comes down to "good reason" and the fact that every applicant should be treated as individual and decisions should be based on that individuals personal needs.

 

Why one man needs his .22rf conditioned for fox will not necessarily be the same as an others and quite rightly so, blanket policies help no one. I know of a chap who's job is to fill up pheasant and partridge feeders (that's all he does), he applied for a .22rf with fox as his primary reason. His application was granted no problem as he was treated as an individual.

 

What needs to happen is

1. For those forces who consider foxes as vermin but refuse to list it on certificates to confirm this in writing to their certificate holders.

2. BASC to lobby ACPO for a ruling on the classification of foxes.

3. When such a ruling has been made to publicly take those forces who still refuse to comply to task.

 

Regarding the Boar issue, it does not take much effort to write to ones CC asking what his forces policy is on boar and if AOLQ (providing you have it) does in fact cover them. You will have a response in writing directly from the horses mouth. I always go by the rule that it is my responsibility to seek out and understand the law and rules that govern my doings. Knowingly circumventing the rules to fit my needs is not what I do.

[CharlieT]

And there was me thinking the Red Deer was Britains largest indigenous species!?

 

 

I rather think that the size of the beast was based on minimum caliber requirements.

Edited July 4, 2012 by CharlieT

[Radar70]

They all seem to word it differently if you havent contacted the firearms and asked for the restrictions to be removed then its not an open ticket .Normaly they will be lifted after 2 to 3 years experiance and a fair ammount of ammo shown on you licence.And depending on caliber and what you have on your land ie If you have no deer on your land its not likly they will grant an open ticket on a .243 but will a .223 .