wymberley Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 the BDS tested the terminals quite recently and they were not good to say the least (tested on Roe carcasses) i think the recomendation was about 15yds with the deer at full stretch if i remember correctly. Now, that is interesting. With a roe deer at full stretch and with a shotgun having 1/2 choke you're probably going to hit it with half the cartridge load at 15 yards. Let's say that the AAAs are not up to it so we'll use SSG to ensure that the higher pellet energy means the chest cavity can be penetrated (82 as opposed to 32 ft/lbs). Assuming a 1oz load, this will give a total striking energy of some 615 ft/lbs in theory. Subtracting 10% of that figure to cater for pellet distortion, stringing, etc, etc, we're still left with a healthy 550. I could easily achieve that in my 223 at 200 yards and even the Hornet will match it out to 125. No wonder for roe the Scottish system makes more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) I must admit to not keeping myself up to date with all the legislation reff shooting matters . If I need to gain some info on shooting matters then I will contact my local FEO . Not to many years ago I was asked by a neighbour of my farmer friend to control some deer that had been raiding his apple orchard . The deer had really done a lot of damage to the fruit and the young trees . When I went and had a look at the orchard I decided that it was not safe to use a centre fire rifle on the land .The orchard was about 10 acres and in the centre of the village with houses bordering two sides . I contacted my FEO and explained the situation and asked him if I could use a shot gun on the deer . The bucks were in season but the does were not . He came back to me with a letter giving me permission to shoot the deer in the orchard only if they were feeding on the fruit or damaging the trees .I was allowed to use SG and SSG shotgun cartridges on the deer and no others . To cut a long storey short I shot 5 bucks and 2 does in the orchard and there was never any more problem with the deer . If in doubt contact your local FEO ,thats what he gets paid for . Harnser . With respect, it's got nothing to do with a FEO. All he can do is advise as to what the law stipulates, ie the Deer Act, he can not give advice or instruction/permission above and beyond what the law permits. Edited September 19, 2012 by CharlieT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 why would he have been breaking the law? the shot size would have been fine as its AAA or larger and SSG is larger so by saying stick to that shot size the advice would have been correct. Then stating the animals needing to be actively destroying the crop is another aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Alex You are of course quite correct, ignore my ramblings. I got carried away. I have SSG's in the truck for that very purpose. I have amended my post accordingly - thank you for saving my embarrassment ! Edited September 19, 2012 by CharlieT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Presuming this was in England,the law states AAA shot must be used. IF that's how you read it, BUT could you read it as (my parentheses for clarity): Rifled slug of not less than 350 grains or (of not less than) AAA shot. (For Scotland it is 380 for the slug and specifies not smaller than SSG for all deer and not smaller than AAA for roe.) Edit: Please ignore. Charlie, I type exceedingly slow and did not see your last. Edited September 19, 2012 by wymberley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 bet you find they work quite well for the purpose as well, verging on frightening put down ability from my memories of using them. I've only shot munties with them but I can see anything would succumb with the right range and positioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Alex Yes, on the odd occasion I use them much prefer them to slugs. To be honest a rifle gets the job done much better but when I'm working and have a shotgun in the truck I always keep a couple of slugs and SSG's in the glove box just in case there is one hung up in wire or running around on three legs or worse still a bunch if hinds in a kale plot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) With respect, it's got nothing to do with a FEO. All he can do is advise as to what the law stipulates, ie the Deer Act, he can not give advice or instruction/permission above and beyond what the law permits. Let me just make it clear that the land owner persude the ministry of agriculture and fisherys as it was then, for the permission to control the deer in the orchard . My name was given to the local fire arms licencing dept as the stalker who would be controling the deer in the orchard .. I was accepted by my firearms licencing dept as a capable person to shoot the deer with a shotgun . For anybody who is interested the way I got to the deer was to build two hides from straw bales and branches from the trees and patiently waited for the deer to come to me . I can say with hand on heart that all the deer died instantly and did not suffer at all . Whilst the shotgun is in my opinion a suitable gun to kill deer under certain circumstances and at very close range it is not my choice of gun as I prefer the .270 or the .308 . Harnser . Edited September 19, 2012 by Harnser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 were the carcasses frozen at the time? AAA's are something I'd not want to be near at 15 yards or even 30, and SSG's well they dropped muntjac on the spot. Obviously a lot smaller but still Get this i dont and wont shoot uninjured deer with a shotgun, period! I have seen the results and it aint pretty. I have yet too shoot a muntie as there are non here but i have as stated i have been called to deal with very poorly Roe that have been given a charge of heavy shot. I have more respect for these animals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 I must admit to not keeping myself up to date with all the legislation reff shooting matters . If I need to gain some info on shooting matters then I will contact my local FEO . Not to many years ago I was asked by a neighbour of my farmer friend to control some deer that had been raiding his apple orchard . The deer had really done a lot of damage to the fruit and the young trees . When I went and had a look at the orchard I decided that it was not safe to use a centre fire rifle on the land .The orchard was about 10 acres and in the centre of the village with houses bordering two sides . I contacted my FEO and explained the situation and asked him if I could use a shot gun on the deer . The bucks were in season but the does were not . He came back to me with a letter giving me permission to shoot the deer in the orchard only if they were feeding on the fruit or damaging the trees .I was allowed to use SG and SSG shotgun cartridges on the deer and no others . To cut a long storey short I shot 5 bucks and 2 does in the orchard and there was never any more problem with the deer . If in doubt contact your local FEO ,thats what he gets paid for . Harnser . Nope they are paid to collate and control firearms licencing. Their job does not include advice on deer management Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) In 1991 Deer Act there is a difference between the load permitted for "mercy killing" and "crop protection". section 6 para 5 c) "mercy killing" says: is loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than .203 inches (5.16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA or any larger size). wheras section 7 para 2 b ) "crop protection" says: a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is .203 inches (5.16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA). Whether it is deliberate or not, the law as written has a subtle but important difference in the wording. Edited September 19, 2012 by HW682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Interesting so AAA or bigger for mercy and AAA only for crop protection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Interesting so AAA or bigger for mercy and AAA only for crop protection thats what it says http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 "In 1991 Deer Act there is a difference between the load permitted for "mercy killing" and "crop protection". section 6 para 5 c)" Which has been superseded by the Regulatory Reform Act 2007 which states (3) For subsection (4), substitute— “(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(1) or (2) above by reason of the use of any reasonable means for the purpose of killing any deer if he reasonably believes that the deer has been so seriously injured, otherwise than by his unlawful act, or is in such condition, that to kill it is an act of mercy.”. (4) After subsection (4), insert— “(4A) In subsection (4) above, “any reasonable means” means any method of killing a deer that can reasonably be expected to result in rapid loss of consciousness and death and which is appropriate in all the circumstances (including in particular what the deer is doing, its size, its distance from the closest position safely attainable by the person attempting to kill the deer and its position in relation to vegetative cover).”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 "In 1991 Deer Act there is a difference between the load permitted for "mercy killing" and "crop protection". section 6 para 5 c)" Which has been superseded by the Regulatory Reform Act 2007 which states (3) For subsection (4), substitute— 85]“(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(1) or (2) above by reason of the use of any reasonable means for the purpose of killing any deer if he reasonably believes that the deer has been so seriously injured, otherwise than by his unlawful act, or is in such condition, that to kill it is an act of mercy.”. (4) After subsection (4), insert— 85]“(4A) In subsection (4) above, “any reasonable means” means any method of killing a deer that can reasonably be expected to result in rapid loss of consciousness and death and which is appropriate in all the circumstances (including in particular what the deer is doing, its size, its distance from the closest position safely attainable by the person attempting to kill the deer and its position in relation to vegetative cover).”. Just made it a bit clearer to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted September 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 [/font][/color] Just made it a bit clearer to read. Can you post section 4 (1) and (2 ) Hdav? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) Can you post section 4 (1) and (2 ) Hdav? Thanks I don't have the original link I just resized CharlieT post sorry DIrect link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/pdfs/uksi_20072183_en.pdf The Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007 Made - - - - 25th July 2007 Coming into force - - 1st October 2007 This Order is made by the Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 1 and 4(3) and (6) of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (“the Act”)(a). For the purposes of section 1(5) of the Act, this Order is made with the agreement of the Welsh Ministers(B). For the purposes of section 3(1) of the Act, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that this Order does not remove any necessary protection or prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. For the purposes of section 3(2) of the Act, the Secretary of State is of the opinion, in relation to any burden created by this Order, that— (a) the provisions of this Order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden, and (a) 2001 c. 6. The provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) (apart from section 13(1)(B) and (2), the definition of “the 1994 Act” in section 14 and section 15(1) and (2)) were repealed by section 30(1) of and the Schedule to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c. 51) (“the 2006 Act”). However, section 30(2) of the 2006 Act provides that this does not affect the application of the 2001 Act in relation to the making of an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act giving effect (with or without variations) to proposals in a document laid before Parliament under section 6(1) of the 2001 Act before the day on which the 2006 Act came into force. A document containing the proposals to which this Order gives effect (with modifications) was laid before Parliament on 18th December 2006 and the 2006 Act subsequently came into force on 8th January 2007 (two months after the date on which it received Royal Assent – see section 33 of the 2006 Act). The function of the National Assembly for Wales in making a subordinate provisions order where an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act provides (by virtue of section 4(6) of that Act) for this power to be exercisable by the Assembly was transferred to the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph 30 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32) immediately after the end of “the initial period” (as defined in section 161(5) of the Government of Wales Act 2006). The initial period ended with the day on which the first appointment was made under section 46 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, that is to say, 25th May 2007. (B) The function of the National Assembly for Wales as regards the exercise of the power to give its agreement under section 1(5) of the 2001 Act was transferred to the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph 30 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32) immediately after the end of “the initial period” (as defined in section 161(5) of the Government of Wales Act 2006). The initial period ended with the day on which the first appointment was made under section 46 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, that is to say, 25th May 2007. 2 (B) the extent to which this Order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law, makes it desirable for the Order to be made. The Secretary of State has consulted in accordance with section 5(1) of the Act(a). The Secretary of State has laid a document before Parliament containing his proposals for this Order in accordance with section 6(1) of the Act. The period for Parliamentary consideration referred to in section 8(1) of the Act has expired. In accordance with section 8(4) of the Act, the Secretary of State has had regard to the representations made during that period and in particular to the Fourth Report of Session 2006-07 of the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee entitled “Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007”(B) and to the Fifth Report of Session 2006-07 of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee©. In accordance with section 4(2) of the Act, the Secretary of State has laid a draft of this Order before Parliament, with a statement as required by section 8(5) of that Act. The draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Citation, commencement, extent and interpretation 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007 and shall come into force on 1st October 2007. (2) This Order extends to England and Wales only. (3) In this Order “the 1991 Act” means the Deer Act 1991(d). Use of prohibited weapons and other articles 2. In section 4 of the 1991 Act (use of prohibited weapons and other articles), in subsection (4)(a) after “deer,”, insert “when the vehicle is moving or when its engine is running,”. General exceptions to certain provisions of the Deer Act 1991 3.—(1) Section 6 of the 1991 Act (general exceptions to certain provisions of this Act) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (2), insert— “(2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 or section 3 above by reason of taking or killing a deer that he reasonably believes— (a) has been deprived in any way (other than by an unlawful taking or killing by that person) of a female deer on which it was dependent; or (B) is about to be deprived, by death from disease or a lawful taking or killing, of a female deer on which it is dependent.”. (3) For subsection (4), substitute— (a) Section 5(1)© was amended by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26), Schedule 12, paragraph 81. (B) Session 2006-07, HC 411. © Session 2006-07, HL 44. (d) 1991 c. 54. 3 “(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(1) or (2) above by reason of the use of any reasonable means for the purpose of killing any deer if he reasonably believes that the deer has been so seriously injured, otherwise than by his unlawful act, or is in such condition, that to kill it is an act of mercy.”. (4) After subsection (4), insert— “(4A) In subsection (4) above, “any reasonable means” means any method of killing a deer that can reasonably be expected to result in rapid loss of consciousness and death and which is appropriate in all the circumstances (including in particular what the deer is doing, its size, its distance from the closest position safely attainable by the person attempting to kill the deer and its position in relation to vegetative cover).”. (5) At the end, insert— “(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(2)(a) above if he uses for the purpose of taking or killing or injuring any Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis) or muntjac deer (Muntiacus reevesi)— (a) a rifle having a calibre of not less than .220 inches and a muzzle energy of not less than 1,356 joules (1000 foot pounds), and (B) a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 3.24 grammes (50 grains).”. Edited September 20, 2012 by HDAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 HDVA Thank you deer Sir. Kes, the link is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2183/contents/made It was the legislation that also included the use of .22 c/f for small deer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) "In 1991 Deer Act there is a difference between the load permitted for "mercy killing" and "crop protection". section 6 para 5 c)" Which has been superseded by the Regulatory Reform Act 2007 which states (3) For subsection (4), substitute— 85]“(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 4(1) or (2) above by reason of the use of any reasonable means for the purpose of killing any deer if he reasonably believes that the deer has been so seriously injured, otherwise than by his unlawful act, or is in such condition, that to kill it is an act of mercy.”. (4) After subsection (4), insert— 85]“(4A) In subsection (4) above, “any reasonable means” means any method of killing a deer that can reasonably be expected to result in rapid loss of consciousness and death and which is appropriate in all the circumstances (including in particular what the deer is doing, its size, its distance from the closest position safely attainable by the person attempting to kill the deer and its position in relation to vegetative cover).”. Not quite. The 2007 Act amends subsection 4 slightly and adds a new (4A). subsection (5) that I quoted is unchanged. as is 7 (2) (b ) so that crop prorection is still AAA only. However, I was wrong in describing 6 (5) as "mercy killing" as that would have been a better description for 6 (4) which even before the ammendment allowed the use of any smooth bore gun (now ammended to allow any reasonable method) 6 (5) allows AAA or larger for use as a Slaughtering Instrument. The main point of my original post was to highlight that crop protection is AAA only, rather than to suggest than anyone carrying out "mercy killing" was doing anything wrong. Apologies for any confusion. Unless there have been further ammendments of course or I have missed anything. I would welcome your comments. (Edited to remove annoying auto smiley) Edited September 20, 2012 by HW682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 In 1991 Deer Act there is a difference between the load permitted for "mercy killing" and "crop protection". section 6 para 5 c) "mercy killing" says: wheras section 7 para 2 b ) "crop protection" says: Whether it is deliberate or not, the law as written has a subtle but important difference in the wording. What you say is right enough, but I think I'll go for, "or not" because the alternative does not make sense (ballistically/lethally speaking). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HW682 Posted September 20, 2012 Report Share Posted September 20, 2012 What you say is right enough, but I think I'll go for, "or not" because the alternative does not make sense (ballistically/lethally speaking). I agree that it does seem odd. I was only pointing it out, not preaching that it is right or wrong. But I thought it curious that if they had meant to say "AAA or larger" then why didn't they as they did in a different clause a few lines above. Also as Charlie T rightly points out, the 1991 act was ammended in 2007 - but again they didn't take this opportunity to "correct" it, if it was a mistake. Another thing that probably ought to have been included is a minimum load weight rather than just size of shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Get this i dont and wont shoot uninjured deer with a shotgun, period! I have seen the results and it aint pretty. I have yet too shoot a muntie as there are non here but i have as stated i have been called to deal with very poorly Roe that have been given a charge of heavy shot. I have more respect for these animals Obviously you have not shot deer in New york state USA . I have and you can only shoot deer in that state with a shot gun . I have shot a number of deer over there using a self loader and slugs . The slugs are as good as you will get for humanely killing deer up to ranges of 100 yards . They will certinly kill deer at ranges of 300 yards but become inaccurate after 100 yards . Dont knock the shotgun as a weapon for taking deer in the right circumstances . I have also been called out over the years to put down injured deer and have allways used a shotgun . Harnser . Edited September 21, 2012 by Harnser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Get this i dont and wont shoot uninjured deer with a shotgun, period! I have seen the results and it aint pretty. I have yet too shoot a muntie as there are non here but i have as stated i have been called to deal with very poorly Roe that have been given a charge of heavy shot. I have more respect for these animals If you have no desire to go anywhere near a deer with a shotgun that is your choice. But, I have to say that is a bit of a wide reaching blanket statement. I have seen deer badly shot with rifles, and I have seen deer very deceased from shotguns (including several I have shot myself), suggesting shotguns are not suitable in such a categorical manner is innacurate. ATB! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 wide reaching blanket statement that'll be kent then The amount of energy in say a slug is somewhere round 2300ftlbs at the muzzle and still approaching 1000 ftlbs at 100 yards you can start to see why the europeans use them on large game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 There is a lot of difference between a solid slug and shot especially as its mostly shot through rifled chokes etc. still cannot think of any reason to preffer a slug in the UK- they bounce something terrifying. Proper buck shot as used in the states through specialised chokes (again) is substantially different from AAA from a std game gun. shotgun (even the smaller bore ones are ideal for humane destruction). Still The Americans also use Bows, crossbows, muzzle loaders and in some states even rimfire is permitted- Am i gona change my personal viewpoint that shotguns are not the thing for deer hunting? No. The sheep are welcome to run with the other sheep though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.