Deer Land as 'Good Reason for .308 or not

[Kes]

I may be wrong in this but here we go.

I think you can have a .308 without having your own deer land as 'good reason' is provided by going deer stalking on other peoples land.

However, how do you ever get an 'open' cert - is it just time and thus experience ?

Best advice please, as its rather critical at the present. Will explain in detail later.

Thanks,

Anyone getting the answer wrong will be hung, drawn and quartered publicly - Nah !

[David BASC]

Yes, I got 30.06 granted on first application based on a single stalking opportunity booked.

 

'Open' certificates - many forces will issue after a year or so, some are a bit more awkward! Almost all will grant on 1st renewal anyway.

[Luckyshot]

I may be wrong in this but here we go.

I think you can have a .308 without having your own deer land as 'good reason' is provided by going deer stalking on other peoples land.

However, how do you ever get an 'open' cert - is it just time and thus experience ?

Best advice please, as its rather critical at the present. Will explain in detail later.

Thanks,

Anyone getting the answer wrong will be hung, drawn and quartered publicly - Nah !

 

It will depend on what you mean by other peoples land, if you mean booking paid stalking with people then yes you can get a 308 or any other dear calibre for that matter. If you mean can you get a 308 by invites from tom **** or harry then you may struggle as there land may or may not be cleared for the calibre you have.

[Rim Fire]

As stated if you are willing to pay for stalking and got the dates booked in writing they should grant you after they have checked,

 

As for other peoples land i had to get the land owner to put in writing that he has giving me permission to shoot the Deer on his land

 

As for the open cert i had to wait for the 5 years on renewall

Edited December 18, 2013 by Rim Fire

[welshwarrior]

A friend got open ticket on 308 to come stalking with me on 2 bought days by explaining he wasn't rich enough to own a hill with red deer but could afford to go paid stalking and showed the booking conformations. He explained the ticket had to be open as he would not know if the estate was cleared or not. FEO said ok but if I don't feel you use the rifle enough I'll ask you to get rid of it at renewal.

[Kes]

Thanks chaps we'll see what happens when I send in my stalking receipts - the stalker is at present refusing to confirm them (I've had 4), so I may have to prove it via the bank records unless he sees this and realises, I'll give him one last chance, then bank receipts, then exposure.

[Kes]

Sounds like a professional arrangement.........not

I have asked him for confirmation 4 times, no reply - I mentioned the need for confirmation on the first stalk - he agreed - no problem at all. Now I am out quite a few hundred pounds with no proof of stalks and the police wont take my word. So much for FAC'S denoting truthfulness, and they, the police wont check and do not want to get involved.

So your comment meant? You will probably know him.

[kent]

You need good reason and with proof you can stalk somewhere on deer that's it covered. All Deer land is generally cleared up to 30 cal so as long as your bit isn't the odd ball out looks like you should be good. These days deer calibre rifles are often granted with added bits eg. Mentor, DSC 1 etc. but not always

[39TDS]

I once agreed to give permission to a chap renewing his .308 to shoot my land.

He did quite a bit of deer stalking but all as paid days up in Scotland, the firearms dept insisted he had local permission too.

After he submitted his renewal they replied that he had to have permission to shoot deer, not just to shoot.

So I rewrote his permission letter to include deer. This finally satisfied them but they insisted on inspecting the land.

No problem. They then asked me how long had I owned the land (40 years) and how many deer had I seen in that time. I had to tell them it wasn't very many.

There's been no deer on this land in my lifetime apart from one reindeer that escaped from a local wildlife park and passed through.

 

He got his license.

[spandit]

I have land with deer on it and Sussex wouldn't give me a .243... go figure

[kent]

I have land with deer on it and Sussex wouldn't give me a .243... go figure

 

If you also have the rights to shoot them I don't see how they can say no, there is more to this I feel sure

[spandit]

If you also have the rights to shoot them I don't see how they can say no, there is more to this I feel sure

It's my land, I have all the rights but Sussex are notoriously difficult. I think once I have some experience of .223 shooting then I'll go straight for .308 instead

[kent]

It's my land, I have all the rights but Sussex are notoriously difficult. I think once I have some experience of .223 shooting then I'll go straight for .308 instead

Are you shooting deer legal to use a .223 rem on? in that case I understand, calibre deduction tactics is common in all areas. This is one reason I spoke out about the changes to the deer act England. Its sounds daft but I know others turned down for 30 cal and told to buy .243 - 6.5mm for little to no gain in public safety!

If not you have an easy win on the court steps I suggest even mentor and DC1 are poor defence once things get that far. A court will only look at your suitability (security wise) a good reason (got that) and then is it an accepted calibre for use (it most certainly is)

[spandit]

You are undoubtably correct, however, after discussion with the BASC and police, both face-to-face, it was deemed better not to rock the boat and to accept a non-deer calibre. In fairness, at time of application I had very little idea about shooting but I still find it odd that I'm allowed a CF calibre at all, but not a deer legal one (Roe & fallow).

 

It's a Sussex thing and I suspect there are some background shenanigans behind it

[Luckyshot]

You are undoubtably correct, however, after discussion with the BASC and police, both face-to-face, it was deemed better not to rock the boat and to accept a non-deer calibre. In fairness, at time of application I had very little idea about shooting but I still find it odd that I'm allowed a CF calibre at all, but not a deer legal one (Roe & fallow).

 

It's a Sussex thing and I suspect there are some background shenanigans behind it

 

If you want/need a Deer legal calibre I would either do it your self or get back onto your shooting organisation and force there hand to take it up with your local force demanding they give you what you require, do not roll over and accept second best when you meet the criteria required.

[kent]

You are undoubtably correct, however, after discussion with the BASC and police, both face-to-face, it was deemed better not to rock the boat and to accept a non-deer calibre. In fairness, at time of application I had very little idea about shooting but I still find it odd that I'm allowed a CF calibre at all, but not a deer legal one (Roe & fallow).

 

It's a Sussex thing and I suspect there are some background shenanigans behind it

Sorry I don't get it why should anyone grant a centrefire for some other if you want to shoot deer! this is another longer tale I suspect with bits missing. If they had issues with your experience they might just say LEvel 1 or mentor but not have a non deer legal CF rifle ??. If this was the case in full I cannot believe BASC didn't suggest other actions

[Kes]

In my limited experience, my authority said they would never approve a .223 for deer, yes, any deer.

Things are changing now however. I will get AOLQ for all rifles when I submit a variation to raise a .243 to .308. It was suggested I would get AOLQ to shoot deer with a .17 hornet but someone hasnt read the Deer Acts. Sadly there seems to be an awkward mix of good enthusiastic and helpful approach with limited understanding of legal issues on the behalf of the support staff and a bit of "you can only have what I agree" attitude from the FEO's, especially where they are ex-police.

A few test cases as the rules become more standardised will help expose poor practice.

[kent]

In my limited experience, my authority said they would never approve a .223 for deer, yes, any deer.

Things are changing now however. I will get AOLQ for all rifles when I submit a variation to raise a .243 to .308. It was suggested I would get AOLQ to shoot deer with a .17 hornet but someone hasnt read the Deer Acts. Sadly there seems to be an awkward mix of good enthusiastic and helpful approach with limited understanding of legal issues on the behalf of the support staff and a bit of "you can only have what I agree" attitude from the FEO's, especially where they are ex-police.

A few test cases as the rules become more standardised will help expose poor practice.

 

ha, ha already seen .22 hornet listed for deer on a real printed certificate but only CWD and Munties. Makes a mockery of it all don't it just? of course they know best

[spandit]

As far as I'm concerned, muntjac and CWD fall under AOLQ but not sure if there are any in Sussex.

 

Kent. I haven't missed out any details - the police said that to get .243 I'd need to demonstrate some experience or have a mentor. They essentially delayed granting the rest of my application (.22, .17HMR and shotgun) until I had this but were a bit hazy on how much experience I'd need before getting it granted. I don't understand why they would allow a sub-.243 CF but I could either jump through hoops, which would take months, go to court, which would take months, or get my own experience with the .223, which meant I could get the .22 in the meantime.

 

Not ideal, but believe me, trying to talk them round was like banging my head against a brick wall. The firearms guidance does state that suitable experience should be in place (I know it's not in the act) and I'd rather not stick my head above the parapet as I'm sure they could make things very awkward on renewals/variations. As has been said many times before, one can contest a refusal but not a condition. Although, in hindsight, this probably amounted to a constructive refusal, by caving in meant that I can get some CF experience which should satisfy them when I come to ask for something bigger.

[Kes]

The fear of 'head above the parapet' is a real feeling I know and you dont want to appear 'short or stroppy' as that may affect your 'suitability' to own and keep guns. If you are a member of a shooting organisation tell them of your problem and see what they can do for you.

Otherwise, I agree with your course of action - get a .223, use it to gain experience then get a .308 with whatever condition they impose (question if totally unreasonable) and progress to 'open' on both. Make sure you fire a LOT of .223 ammo and apply to open in twelve months. The .308 may be a bit more sticky but try at 12 months nevertheless as then you will know in detail what you have to do to get that opened.

I sympathise - alot of shooters dont have problems - west yorkshire dont bother with closed certs - they must be really short on people to assess land !!!!.

[spandit]

Otherwise, I agree with your course of action - get a .223, use it to gain experience then get a .308 with whatever condition they impose (question if totally unreasonable) and progress to 'open' on both. Make sure you fire a LOT of .223 ammo

Already got the .223 and bought more ammo today (nearly up to my limit so better get some rounds down - barrel must nearly be broken in by now). I'm going to get a trail cam to prove there are deer on the land and I'll do a DSC1 at some stage too as I think there's much to learn

 

Just noticed you're from Cheshire, the other awkward county

Edited December 19, 2013 by spandit

[kent]

As far as I'm concerned, muntjac and CWD fall under AOLQ but not sure if there are any in Sussex.

 

Kent. I haven't missed out any details - the police said that to get .243 I'd need to demonstrate some experience or have a mentor. They essentially delayed granting the rest of my application (.22, .17HMR and shotgun) until I had this but were a bit hazy on how much experience I'd need before getting it granted. I don't understand why they would allow a sub-.243 CF but I could either jump through hoops, which would take months, go to court, which would take months, or get my own experience with the .223, which meant I could get the .22 in the meantime.

 

Not ideal, but believe me, trying to talk them round was like banging my head against a brick wall. The firearms guidance does state that suitable experience should be in place (I know it's not in the act) and I'd rather not stick my head above the parapet as I'm sure they could make things very awkward on renewals/variations. As has been said many times before, one can contest a refusal but not a condition. Although, in hindsight, this probably amounted to a constructive refusal, by caving in meant that I can get some CF experience which should satisfy them when I come to ask for something bigger.

 

This goes back to what I said earlier they offered it with a mentor or DSC1. Although I agree you could do equal damage with a .223 to a .243 the fact remains that the guidance notes to Police suggested "experience" should be taken into account on granting the "larger deer calibre rifles" They did not in fact refuse you anything, you just didn't come up with the mentor or training they required, correct?

[spandit]

This goes back to what I said earlier they offered it with a mentor or DSC1. Although I agree you could do equal damage with a .223 to a .243 the fact remains that the guidance notes to Police suggested "experience" should be taken into account on granting the "larger deer calibre rifles" They did not in fact refuse you anything, you just didn't come up with the mentor or training they required, correct?

My mentor was not deemed suitable as he didn't have an open certificate, so no, I didn't find a mentor according to their made up rules.

They wouldn't grant me a .243 if I only did a DSC1, they required further training/experience. The main issue was that they delayed the issue of my licence so much that I changed my application to something they would grant. Considering I was about to drop the CF request, getting a .223 wasn't a bad compromise

[kent]

My mentor was not deemed suitable as he didn't have an open certificate, so no, I didn't find a mentor according to their made up rules.

They wouldn't grant me a .243 if I only did a DSC1, they required further training/experience. The main issue was that they delayed the issue of my licence so much that I changed my application to something they would grant. Considering I was about to drop the CF request, getting a .223 wasn't a bad compromise

 

As I see it that's the big issue with "mentors" . The first time I saw it I rang licencing to ask exactly what was required of me as a mentor for a newly granted FAC holder in my area only to be told " to have deer on your ticket", " is that it seriously?" " yes!".

Open ticket has become a joke now target shooters get them with practically nil or nil field experience, some forces grant within a year or even immediate just to cut inspection costs IMO.

[spandit]

As I see it that's the big issue with "mentors"

Quite agree. The chap I named had deer on his licence and a .243. It was ridiculous that I could shoot his .243 on my land, with him there, but not shoot my own, with him there.

 

He's now got an open licence, as it happens, so when I decide to upgrade, I can use him as a mentor unless they move the goalposts again