A O L Q

[r1steele]

I had my ticket changed to ALQ specifically in response to my request for dogs worrying sheep. Farmer lost 19 sheep to a dog. .223 sorts a dog just as easily as a fox. The ticket was changed the same day. Really good service.

Thank you. I have already said that it has been done before in quote #9 but no response. I have been in your position and like you know that it does cover dogs worrying livestock. As I have said in different topics before, just because you haven't seen or heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[CharlieT]

Thank you. I have already said that it has been done before in quote #9 but no response. I have been in your position and like you know that it does cover dogs worrying livestock. As I have said in different topics before, just because you haven't seen or heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

Well bully for you.

 

However, long ago I learned not to take everything at face value. Shooting a dog can land the shooter in more grief than a few sheep are worth. When the dog's owner creates a god almighty stink and the local papers latch onto the story the police will investigate robustly, knowing they will be in the media spotlight. That is when the value of a specific firearm condition for shooting dogs whilst worrying livestock is worth its weight in gold. To argue that a dog is a quarry species is like trying to argue that a cow is, hence killing cows and dogs have a prescribed condition.

 

Rely on AOLQ if you want, but as a sheep farmer, I prefer to have the correct condition enabling me to defend my actions knowing that they were justifiable and legal.

[Vipa]

 

Well bully for you.

 

However, long ago I learned not to take everything at face value. Shooting a dog can land the shooter in more grief than a few sheep are worth. When the dog's owner creates a god almighty stink and the local papers latch onto the story the police will investigate robustly, knowing they will be in the media spotlight. That is when the value of a specific firearm condition for shooting dogs whilst worrying livestock is worth its weight in gold. To argue that a dog is a quarry species is like trying to argue that a cow is, hence killing cows and dogs have a prescribed condition.

 

Rely on AOLQ if you want, but as a sheep farmer, I prefer to have the correct condition enabling me to defend my actions knowing that they were justifiable and legal.

 

The dog owner doesn't stand a chance against the farmer.. media stink or not.. many years ago I lived in the dales and used to walk my dog up the same country road every day.. she wandered into one of the farm fields once and I immediately re-called.. That evening I had a knock on the door and it was plod.. the farmer had seen the dog in the field and claimed she had had one of his sheep by the throat (if you had seen my dog you would have realised how rediculous an accusation that was!) anyhoo... she had not been anywhere near any livestock.. it just turns out he was a bitter and twisted ****** who hated townies passionately.. everyone in the village knew this..

 

I digress... Plod made it clear in no uncertain terms that if they received 1 more compllaint from the farmer the dog would be destroyed!!! I went to see the farmer to appologise and start some kind of dialogue and was told to **** off.. he didn't want my appology, it wasnt accepted and if he saw my dog so much as a foot through one of his gates she would be shot!

 

Not nice folk some farmers... the most self righteous bigotted bunch on the face of our green and lovey land! (present company excluded Charlie! ) other than the few good ones I know personally I have no time for them at all.. but.. the moral of the story is.. Farmers have such pull in smaller communities that the shooting of a dog 'accused' of worrying livestock will be met with praise and applause, not anger and villification.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Vipa

[JonathanL]

fox is not classed as vermin though it has to have its own stipulation.

 

Rubbish. Foxes are vermin.

 

Besides, as people will gather from the previous occasions we have discussed conditions, I don't agree with what most people think they mean. A condition means that you must use a particular firearm for a particular purpose (they derive from your good reason for acquiring it) not that you may only use it for something.

 

Leaving aside the new All Lawful Quarry wording; If a condition says that the XXXX rifle shall be used for shooting deer then I fail to see how you commit an offence if you shoot a fox with it unless you want to employ some bastrardised version of English. If it said that it shall only be used for shooting deer then I would agree but none of them have ever been worded like that, as far as I am aware.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

We have been saying for ages that a licnencing system akin to shotguns is more practical - licence the perosn not each gun.

 

David

 

I totally agree but I doubt that that is likely to happen. I may be wrong but I believe that European law stipulates that certain firearms are subject to individual authorisation before they can be acquired.

 

J.

 

Ah but David what if it says Vermin and any other lawful quarry.

 

I know I'm being pedantic but there is a difference between a condition which reads Any lawful quarry and one which reads Vermin and any other lawful quarry.

 

Also if a member was to shoot a species larger than the named species on their license, for example someone has a .222 conditioned for fox and AOLQ and shoots a small deer, would BASC, having advised members that it is Ok to do so, fight the members corner through the courts if their licensing department prosecuted or revoked their fac.

 

The certificates I've seen don't use the word 'other'. They don't specify any species and simply say 'any lawful quarry'.

 

J.

[Vipa]

 

Rubbish. Foxes are vermin.

 

Besides, as people will gather from the previous occasions we have discussed conditions, I don't agree with what most people think they mean. A condition means that you must use a particular firearm for a particular purpose (they derive from your good reason for acquiring it) not that you may only use it for something.

 

Leaving aside the new All Lawful Quarry wording; If a condition says that the XXXX rifle shall be used for shooting deer then I fail to see how you commit an offence if you shoot a fox with it unless you want to employ some bastrardised version of English. If it said that it shall only be used for shooting deer then I would agree but none of them have ever been worded like that, as far as I am aware.

 

J.

 

Mine used to say.. 'shooting fox ONLY whilst shooting deer' now, if you think of the logistics of that, in particular the time, I could never lawfully shoot fox unless during the day as I would have a hard time explaining to the beak why I was out shooting deer at 2am!

[JonathanL]

Wether we like it or not I would say in the next five years it will probably compulsory to have some kind of compulsory training to acquire an fac, and whilst I'm against it in principle I think to myself do I want joe bloggs shooting a .308 on neighbouring land who has never owned or fired a rifle before, would it have been sensible for joe to have done a basic one day firearms course to show him the basics of handling a rifle ensuring a safe backstop is used basic firearms law etc etc??

 

The thing is though is that there are very, very few firearms accidents which would have been avoided by the shooter undergoing a compulsary training course. Moreover, the number of people who apply for a FAC to acquire a .308 having never had any firearms experience and not knowing anyone who shoots already because they fancy trying to slot a few deer they've seen wandering around their land will be absolutely tiny, if actually non-existent.

 

Having said that, I'm not entirely against the idea that people should have a certain basic level of safety instruction.

 

J.

[Vipa]

 

The thing is though is that there are very, very few firearms accidents which would have been avoided by the shooter undergoing a compulsary training course. Moreover, the number of people who apply for a FAC to acquire a .308 having never had any firearms experience and not knowing anyone who shoots already because they fancy trying to slot a few deer they've seen wandering around their land will be absolutely tiny, if actually non-existent.

 

Having said that, I'm not entirely against the idea that people should have a certain basic level of safety instruction.

 

J.

What has gone before is irrelevant.. the world is changing all the time, attitudes, the media etc.. whether there is or has been a problem in the past is moot... it will only take 1 incident in the future and with a vehement, almost militant in some instances rejection of any kind of training requirement, the shooting community will suffer greatly..

 

A 1 day basic firearms handling and safety course... is that too much to ask? When I bought my Stihl chainsaw the dealer was obliged to spend a good hour taking me through basic safety and handling! amazing to think we attach more potential danger to a garden tool than a firearm!

[CharlieT]

J

 

The letters AOLQ speak for themselves, Any Other Lawful Quarry.

 

Mine for instance says (remembering that I have everything from a .22rf upwards) the firearms and ammunition shall be used for deer/fox and any other lawful quarry.

 

The directive from ACPO states any other lawful quarry. However, if some licensing managers chose to substitute that for any lawful quarry that is their prerogative.

[JonathanL]

Thank you, your answer is very clear. Despite there being no history of inexperienced newbies posing a threat to themselves or others BASC favour compulsory training if the only alternative is a refusal of applicant.

I cant help but wonder why BASC is reluctant to press this matter.Does BASC lack the will or the clout ( or both) to confront the relevant bodies regarding this matter?

Considering how resentful the police are of the general public being in possession of firearms

I find it surprising that the lack of any formal training as a prerequisite of ownership hasn't come to the attention of the media, given the latters voracious appetite to seize on any opportunity to spread the word about the evil influence guns have over those who are interested in them,or could it be that the police would then have to admit that despite a lack of any formal training incidences regarding

new applicants are negligible?

My nephew will be reassured to hear that his more than ten years of shooting experience will stand him in good stead when he reapplies for his first FAC..... Won't he?

 

As David says; the media don't care because it's a non-story. The reason that it's a non-story is the reality of the situation. Although there is no stratutory requirement to undergo training the fact is that it almost always happens anyway. In some circumstances it's already compulsary but people just don't realise. If you join a Home Office approved target shooting club the club has to conduct a course of safe gun handling with you as part of it's approval. So, already a huge number of shooters are subject to training by default. The same will go for clay shooting grounds even though there isn't any legal compulsion to do so; no one is going to just hand a shotgun to someone who has never shot before.

 

With live quarry shooters it is almost always the case that their route into shooting is via existing shooters who will train them (with varying degrees of competency, admittedly) hoew to safely handle guns.

 

The number of people who are granted FAC's, and to a lesser degree SGC's, who have never had any shooting experience will be bsolutely tiny. As regards FAC's it is likely to be virtually zero.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

It's easy to get defensive over our rights but in some cases, do the more experienced among us not find it a bit worrying that there's a chance someone can be allowed out on their own with no previous experience?

 

I was mentored and I found it a great help. I think at the very least people with no experience should have to join a club and pass the probationary period. That will at least train safe handling and what to do in the case of a misfire etc.

 

This is a possibility but exteremely unlikely. The police must be satisfied that the applicant can posses a firearm without danger to public safety or the peace. I don't see how any licensing authority can be so satisfied if the applicant has no experience of firearms. In fact, it would logically appear to be an impossible bar to clear.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

 

I am one of those who feel some sort of base line experience/training with firearms should be mandatory.. whether there is a recorded issue or not the way it stands is that someone who has never handled a firearm in their life can apply for and be granded a FAC, purchase a powerful CF rifle and go and blast away somewhere with no supervision.

 

I know that will bring criticism from those that feel otherwise but lets face it, no one would want untrained inexperienced drivers on the road, why would we want untrained inexperienced shooters oout in public?

 

If formal training via HM Forces, Police, gun club etc cannot be shown then there should be a requirement for a recognised training course having been undertaken before grant!

 

As I say above; theoretically they can but in reality it is not going to happen. If you have no experience then the police cannot be satisfied that you do not present a danger to public safety or the peace.

 

J.