Jump to content

Some one got to have had a drink when they come up with this one


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Not BASC bashing but I wonder what the Chairman (BASC) thinks of this - given he was Uplands Director for NE ? Is he shocked, outraged on our behalf or acquiescent with former colleagues proposals? I'd like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite a lot of detail in the new proposals, with species coming on and off, changes to the terms and conditions (like this one in the thread, a requirement to have read and understood the licences before being able to use them), proposals for voluntary or compulsary reporting of numbers shot etc. So far the discussions on PW have concentrated on Greylag geese.

 

link to NE page http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/licences/wildlifelicensingconsultation.aspx

 

all details in the top document http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/cl-consultation-document_tcm6-37389.pdf

 

the section on the condition discussed is:

 

 

 

The ‘No Satisfactory Alternative’ legal test

Summary: Proposal to amend the wording of the condition requiring licence users to have considered legal, non-lethal measures before they rely on a General Licence.

Explanation and Rationale

The wording of conditions must be clear and enforceable. We have received a number of queries regarding the obligation required by this wording, including from the Police, suggesting that the current condition is insufficiently precise.

This condition is included in certain general licences to ensure that Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act is satisfied; this stipulates that:

"(1A) The appropriate authority—

(a) shall not grant a licence for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) unless it is satisfied that, as regards that purpose, there is no other satisfactory solution;"

In respect to decisions regarding general licences, the licensing authority makes a general assessment of alternatives prior to issuing a licence. Where appropriate, the licensing authority may also make it a condition of a general licence that potential users fully consider and, where appropriate, try alternative measures before taking any action under the authority of the licence. This condition ensures that the licence is only used in appropriate situations, and allows the licensing authority to issue a licence without knowing the details of each occasion in which it may be used.

The current wording of the condition is:

"In respect to the species listed at paragraph 2(i)(a) above, this licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised person is satisfied that appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem such as scaring and proofing are either ineffective or impracticable"

Proposal(s)

31(a) Amend the wording of the following condition from:

"In respect to the species listed at paragraph 2(i)(a) above, this licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised person is satisfied that appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem such as scaring and proofing are either ineffective or impracticable"

to:

 

 

"In respect to the species listed at paragraph 2(i)(a) above, this licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised person has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve the problem, such as scaring and proofing".

Consultation Question(s):

Question 31(a): Are you aware of any reasons why the change outlined in Proposal 31(a) should not be made?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is not going to affect much in practical terms if you are on your own or with a syndicate and shooting but what about people who make hunting shows like Fieldsports Britain. Would they have to prove on camera that they are scaring the birds first? If they just shot them straight way they couldn't exactly pretend that they tried scaring them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, correct me if I'm wrong, but this condition has been in the general licence all along?!? It's not new and you shouldn't be surprised.

 

Essentially, you're all (and more worryingly, our shooting bodies) admitting to shooting outside of the general licence conditions.

 

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

I just checked the oldest version I have of the licence, from January 2011. The very first condition is;

 

3. In respect to the species listed at paragraph 2(i)(a) above, this licence can only be relied on in circumstances where the authorised person is satisfied that appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem such as scaring and proofing are either ineffective or impracticable (see note o).

Edited by huffhuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have got the wrong end of the stick, currently the shooter is left to judge for themselves the best method of control, and if their view simply scaring would be ineffective, then its perfectly legitimate to shoot pigeons.

 

Under the proposed changes to the GL the burden of proof would rest with the shooter that alternative methods such as “scaring” have been tried before shooting.

 

David

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have got the wrong end of the stick, currently the shooter is left to judge for themselves the best method of control, and if their view simply scaring would be ineffective, then its perfectly legitimate to shoot pigeons.

 

Under the proposed changes to the GL the burden of proof would rest with the shooter that alternative methods such as “scaring” have been tried before shooting.

 

David

 

 

 

I can't be ***** to read the whole thing again, but is there a list of 'scaring' methods which would have to be adhered to? Or is it, once again, just a load of ill thought out waffle from some old twitcher with a dodgy beard at NE?

 

Either way, without guidelines as to what actually constitutes 'scaring' the narrative will be useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with the proposal is that the burden of proof would rest with the shooter to prove that alternative methods had been tried before shooting is used, the existence or not of a definitive list makes no difference I am afraid

 

Well in the absence of any definitive guidelines as to what actually constitutes an 'alternative' method of control I really can't see any problems, as there would be nothing to 'enforce'.

 

It would become a 'my word against yours' scenario, and totally unenforceable.

 

Seems to me that NE are trying to appease the hand wringers by being seen to be doing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...