David BASC Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 On the contrary, its not your word against theirs, as I say the proposal is that YOU would have to PROOVE that you have taken reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve the problem, such as scaring and proofing before shooting. There is no definition of what “reasonable and appropriate steps” are. We certainly do not want this condition added to the GL, I hope we can agree on that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timd999 Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 The bottom line is these birds need to feed. Short of popping down to Tesco's for a bag of corn, that equates to feeding on someone's crops. 'Shooing' would simply move the problem on to the neighbouring land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 On the contrary, its not your word against theirs, as I say the proposal is that YOU would have to PROOVE that you have taken reasonable and appropriate steps to resolve the problem, such as scaring and proofing before shooting. There is no definition of what “reasonable and appropriate steps” are. We certainly do not want this condition added to the GL, I hope we can agree on that Of course. I would oppose any extra restrictions. However, if this new 'offence' is to carry a fine of up to £5000 and/or 6 months in prison I would expect to see a comprehensive set of legal guidelines for people to follow. The same as any other law. If I was to turn up at a field and walk off 500 pigeons, only to shoot them as they returned later on, then I would assume I have taken active steps to move the birds on by walking them off in the first place? In the absence of any set in stone guidelines who's to say I'm wrong? As far as I'm concerned I have fulfilled the criteria of 'scaring' them off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 I take your point. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 This may be a stupid question, but even if we can prove we have taken steps to scare off pigeons, as per the terms of the general license,aren't we then in breach of the terms of the general license by 'luring' birds back in to the decoys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azzurri Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 How would these proposals affect Friday/Saturday night roost shooting in February Azzurri. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 This may be a stupid question, but even if we can prove we have taken steps to scare off pigeons, as per the terms of the general license,aren't we then in breach of the terms of the general license by 'luring' birds back in to the decoys? I don't think so. The way I see it is that once we've established scaring methods haven't worked then shooting becomes necessary to prevent damage to the crop. Once shooting becomes necessary I would think decoying would be by far the most effective method of controlling the birds, thereby fulfilling the terms of the licence and protecting the crop. It would also seem right, on moral grounds, to get birds within the effective range of the gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 How would these proposals affect Friday/Saturday night roost shooting in February Azzurri. I think roost shooting and possibly stubble shooting could come under some scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 look out clay shooters,shoo befor you shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 I don't think so. The way I see it is that once we've established scaring methods haven't worked then shooting becomes necessary to prevent damage to the crop. Once shooting becomes necessary I would think decoying would be by far the most effective method of controlling the birds, thereby fulfilling the terms of the licence and protecting the crop. It would also seem right, on moral grounds, to get birds within the effective range of the gun. That's good enough for me. Like the new avatar by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 That's good enough for me. Like the new avatar by the way. Apparently it's not to everyone's taste!! As to the GL proposals. I just can't see how it could work. Too vague, no substance and unenforceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmer Fudd 1 Posted March 9, 2014 Report Share Posted March 9, 2014 this comment got me Its simple, all you need to do is force the farmers to instal and maintain signs clearly stating that the birds are not allowed on the property and offending birds will be charged with trespass. If they ignore the signs, the offending birds will be issued with a fixed penalty fine. The birds will then not destroy crops as the fine will act as a deterent. To ensure no birds are offended the signs will of course need to be multi-lingual. Crow, Pigeon, etc. If the number of offenders gets out of control we can then seconde a few divisions of police officers to set up a "Bird trespass armed response unit" with specially trained officers who have undergone an intensive training course that includes the correct way to shout shooooo and issue a warning before firing on the offender if it does not leave the property immediately. Now can i get a 100k a year job on the committee or is my idea not stupid enough?Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571214/Shoo-shoot-jail-warning-farmers-hit-crows-new-plans-labelled-ludicrous-countryside-groups.html#ixzz2vS7LftNH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Somebody needs to do a Janet and John and explain the object of the exercise is actually to kill a few to reduce numbers otherwise Farmer Bill won't be able to buy his new Range Rover. Plus all the stuff about rising food prices, how the poor and needy can't handle further price rises...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huffhuff Posted March 17, 2014 Report Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Setting the record straight over wildlife licensing myths; http://ow.ly/uFobX And a bit in The Shooting Times here; http://www.shootingtimes.co.uk/news/542425/Natural_England_denies_quotshoo_before_you_shootquot.html Edited March 17, 2014 by huffhuff 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.