al4x Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 In this case its best to read the license, you will see facts from Greymaster are pure rumour with no foundation as its not against the law to shoot Canada geese whatever the situation due to their non native status they don't need to be causing damage or a health risk same as parakeets etc you can eat your heart out shooting them http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wlc-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf however pigeons do have a few technicalities attached so its best to know which bit you are using as good reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 It will be interesting when these theories are tested in court, that will then result in a definitive answer as to whether or nor shooting Woodpigeons on stubble (or in a wood for the matter) is legal or not. Until then we think it is legal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 This seems to be the attitude of Hampshire Police. when asked why you are shooting you have to state the correct purpose under the GL. A shooter was successfully prosecuted for shooting Canadas on a golf course when he stated that he was shooting vermin without stating it was related to control of disease etc... Iv not ever had any issues being stopped by hants police. Infact iv never been asked such questions, possibly because the police don't know the answers. I have only ever been asked if I have permission to shoot on the ground that I was stopped on. Producing a copy of the permission letter and shotgun certificate saw me back to shooting within minutes. Would be interested in reading about the goose case if you have a link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 there won't be a link as its fiction, its not against the law to shoot Canadas and no need to proove they are being a nuisance or a health issue. As a foreign invasive species they can be culled no conditions attached as per the general license as long as you stick to the law regarding gun use etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 there won't be a link as its fiction, I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefy Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 i concur with those above me Hes probably just trying to put you off to get you off the field so he can hit it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitey10765666 Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 What a Muppet,,next time shave ur stubble off that will stump him, waaaaaaaaaaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magoo the noo Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Well, just my two pennies worth, and with the absence of our learned aide to guide you.... You should of realised that 'talking' wasn't going to solve anything, the time had obviously come to engage the knuckles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magoo the noo Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Sorry, pressed the wrong button. Your comment made me laugh, reminds of my youth. I'm trying to be sensible now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magoo the noo Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 In this case its best to read the license, you will see facts from Greymaster are pure rumour with no foundation as its not against the law to shoot Canada geese whatever the situation due to their non native status they don't need to be causing damage or a health risk same as parakeets etc you can eat your heart out shooting them http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wlc-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf however pigeons do have a few technicalities attached so its best to know which bit you are using as good reason Thanks for the info mate, I had to read it a couple of times to understand it. Regards James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 commonsense to us says we are reducing the pigeon population but does it really fit the GL? We aren't protecting an existing crop since the crop has already been harvested, new crop hasn't been sown. Previous attempts at prevention of crop damage? Dodgy! Was there scarecrows or gas guns? Can you prove it? I'm not trying to be unduly negative but sooner or later someone is going to get challenged about shooting on stubble when there's no crop to protect within a mile or so. Roost shooting could be seen in a bad light as well, what about using decoys? deliberately pulling birds in range in a field that's already been harvested? Baiting birds is another great one, how many threads advocate using carcases or eggs to attract crows and magpies? Illegal if you abide by the GL. It's a massive minefield of loopholes, be careful! Lots of grey areas that we all need to be careful of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 come on then lets have a confirmation of that one, canadas are as an invasive non native species on the part of the GL where you don't have to proove damage. With regard to this case the technicality is correct as would be the question have you tried non lethal means of deterrent first? In practice everyone does shoot them but its a shady area but one that is unenforced. Speak with PC Mick Ames of Hampshire Police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) there won't be a link as its fiction, its not against the law to shoot Canadas and no need to proove they are being a nuisance or a health issue. As a foreign invasive species they can be culled no conditions attached as per the general license as long as you stick to the law regarding gun use etc Speak with PC 1536 Mick Ames of Hampshire Police. hart.rural.snt@hampshire.pnn.police.uk Read the account in the paper here: http://www.telegraph...-on-course.html The police brought a prosecution because he didn't state the correct purpose under the GL, but the Magistrates found in his favour by deeming the correct purpose, My point was that you need to be able to state the relevant clause under the GL or plod will have you up before the bench and you will be without your guns until the case is decided. I was led to believe by Pc Ames that they had won the case, but it seems they had won the point only. Sorry for any confusion. However, a condition did attach and you cannot simply state that they are vermin and not have plod in your face. Edited September 21, 2012 by Greymaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Strangely the cull was Badger inspired... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 just dont shoot innocent animals.... Just the ones that look guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Speak with PC 1536 Mick Ames of Hampshire Police. hart.rural.snt@hampshire.pnn.police.uk Read the account in the paper here: http://www.telegraph...-on-course.html The police brought a prosecution because he didn't state the correct purpose under the GL, but the Magistrates found in his favour by deeming the correct purpose, My point was that you need to be able to state the relevant clause under the GL or plod will have you up before the bench and you will be without your guns until the case is decided. I was led to believe by Pc Ames that they had won the case, but it seems they had won the point only. Sorry for any confusion. However, a condition did attach and you cannot simply state that they are vermin and not have plod in your face. That link purely shows the police making a tragic waste of public money and not understanding the law. It was as much about the slight issue of did he have permission or not. You need nothing to comply as far as shooting Canada's is concerned pigeons yes but not Canada's. It's a classic case where the wildlife officer needs more training or a strip torn off for not reading the gl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sako751sg Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 As above,again. Nowhere was it mentioned about stating the wrong reason for culling etc.As said,plod with no clue wasting resources and money chasing shadows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Re the reason for culling. I was given a very stern lecture by PC Ames about giving the "proper reason" and was told of the prosecution as a warning. Giving the "wrong reason" would be treated as an admission of a breach of the GL. My colleague who couldn't produce his SGC in the field was reminded again about the prosecution when he took it in to the local nick. The case does seem to be being used as an example, even though the shooter was vindicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Think I'd have enquired about wrongful arrest of the subject and criminal waste of public money in bringing a prosecution when they don't know the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Re the reason for culling. I was given a very stern lecture by PC Ames about giving the "proper reason" and was told of the prosecution as a warning. Giving the "wrong reason" would be treated as an admission of a breach of the GL. My colleague who couldn't produce his SGC in the field was reminded again about the prosecution when he took it in to the local nick. The case does seem to be being used as an example, even though the shooter was vindicated. This pc seems like a bit of a jobs worth......... You do not legally have to carry your sgc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samyw Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 when you next see him tell him its illegal to talk bull well said bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Well, just my two pennies worth, and with the absence of our learned aide to guide you.... You should of realised that 'talking' wasn't going to solve anything, the time had obviously come to engage the knuckles. Yeah, Chuck Norris styleee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulpicide Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 A lot of people have missed the point here the op needs to read the general licence its a condition of the licence that you read and understand it download it on to your computer so that if challenged you are able to demonstrate you have acsess to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang 666 Posted September 27, 2012 Report Share Posted September 27, 2012 Just cut open the crop of the pigeon, and say guilty, case closed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SniperCWF Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) In this case its best to read the license, you will see facts from Greymaster are pure rumour with no foundation as its not against the law to shoot Canada geese whatever the situation due to their non native status they don't need to be causing damage or a health risk same as parakeets etc you can eat your heart out shooting them http://www.naturalen..._tcm6-24149.pdf however pigeons do have a few technicalities attached so its best to know which bit you are using as good reason Can someone clarify the General Licence wording for me please? I'm reading it as the species listed in both (2)(i)(a) and (2)(i)( b ) can be killed only for the purposes set out in paragraph (1)...... Parakeets and Canada Geese included? as they are listed in (2)(i)( b ). I hear what everyone is saying about non-native, but where does it say exempt in the licence? Or am I just being thick? Edited November 1, 2012 by SniperCWF 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.