None crop protection shooting

[dhumble5]

Your advise please

Is it legal to shoot crows and feral pigeons on private property if you have permission from the owner.like a industrial estate if they are a lot and a nuisance. Do you have to obtain a special license. Of course this would be done safely with an air rifle and back drop in mind. I am a basc member.

Thanks.

Derek

[The Mighty Prawn]

As far as I know you can only shoot under the terms of the general license which is for crop protection or to prevent a health hazard to the public so being 'a nuisance' is unlikely to cut it and you run the risk of being in serious trouble if caught.

[fenboy]

It would depend on what the nuisance is , if they are creating a lot of mess or damaging foodstuffs etc you would be able to shoot them under the terms of the licence.

The feral pigeon may be shot under the lamp where they roost at night and that would be the best way to control them.

[birdsallpl]

If the birds are defecating in areas that could be a hygiene problem, then you are covered by the general licence. It would be covered in

II) to prevent the spread of disease.

[Scully]

I do this around a caravan site which is bordered on two sides by a Rookery which also houses thousands of Jackdaws. The amount of carp they drop has to be seen to be believed. I can't shoot in the Rookery itself as it is owned by 'townies', who, despite being back home in London most of the time, like to hear them. We also do this in farmers outbuildings where there is animal feed.

Carry on, I say.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scully

[malantone]

 

Program on this morning about pigeon control in a town centre, because of location they were trapping then killing, the guy said that feral pigeons are the one bird that can be killed without question, providing its in a humane manner.

 

CRACK ON GET THE JOB DONE

[hoggysreels]

I admire that you are sensible enough to have sought advice rather than just pulling the trigger without consideration, very commendable imho ... well done fella and good shooting

[LeadWasp]

Well said Hoggysreels for Dhumble5's question.

 

The General License that covers 'prevent serious damage or disease' (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf) does not seem to allow you due to Explanatory Note F unless you can strongly argue a disease scenario. Damage to property or noise/nuisance is not covered.

 

The General License that covers 'to kill or take certain birds to preserve public health or public safety' (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl05_tcm6-24150.pdf) does not seem to allow you due to Explanatory Note F unless again you can strongly argue a disease scenario. Note F expressly prohibits a noise/nuisance scenario.

 

The stupid thing is that the GL's allow you to stop birds crapping your corn but not on your head - gotta love the civil service!

 

You might be able to argue that Histoplasmosis or Psittacosis present a hazard especially to maintenance staff. On Health and Safety grounds, having identified a risk, rather than controlling it through PPE it should be removed where possible da da da da da.......

 

Another thing to consider on industrial estates where they may be many different landowners - fall of shot....where is that pellet landing when there's a miss? Technically it is a trespass and if you have tree huggers working there who want to make an issue of it then this becomes a consideration.

 

It's a bit of a pain really.......I've got nuisance levels of pigeon's at my workshops - the estate borders farmland and a housing estate too. However my immediate neighbour is 'opposed' to shooting AND a magistrate.....

[dadioles]

The terms of the General Licences are really restrictive but as pointed out by LeadWasp, there are several different Licences. Natural England do not make it easy for us and even locating the Licence information on their web site is not too easy. It is a big fine and the threat of imprisonment if you do not comply. http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife/licences/generallicences.aspx

 

The bird species covered: (Do read the full Licence details)

Crow, Collared Dove, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Jackdaw, Jay, Magpie, Feral Pigeon, Rook, Wood Pigeon, Canada Goose, Monk Parakeet, Ring-necked Parakeet.

You may not shoot Herring Gull but can destroy their eggs and nests.

Only Feral Pigeons may be shot at night or using artificial lighting.

 

Licence - To kill or take certain wild birds to prevent serious damage or disease

Purpose:

(i) Prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing

timber, fisheries or inland waters, and

(ii) Prevent the spread of disease.

You may not use it to prevent damage to other forms of property (such as damage to houses or cars) or to prevent nuisance (such as excessive noise).

Licence - To kill or take certain birds to preserve public health or public safety

Purpose:

To preserve public health or public safety.

You may not use it to prevent nuisance (such as excessive noise).

It is interesting that this licence excludes the sentence about damage to property.

Licence - To kill or take certain birds to conserve flora and fauna (including wild birds)

Purpose:

(i) Conserve wild birds, and

(ii) Conserve flora and fauna.

This is the one that allows us to shoot Magpies etc.

Licence - To kill or take Ruddy Ducks

It looks as though the intention is to wipe these out as they are a significant threat to our native species.

[malantone]

Well said Hoggysreels for Dhumble5's question.

 

The General License that covers 'prevent serious damage or disease' (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl04_tcm6-24149.pdf) does not seem to allow you due to Explanatory Note F unless you can strongly argue a disease scenario. Damage to property or noise/nuisance is not covered.

 

The General License that covers 'to kill or take certain birds to preserve public health or public safety' (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl05_tcm6-24150.pdf) does not seem to allow you due to Explanatory Note F unless again you can strongly argue a disease scenario. Note F expressly prohibits a noise/nuisance scenario.

 

The stupid thing is that the GL's allow you to stop birds crapping your corn but not on your head - gotta love the civil service!

 

You might be able to argue that Histoplasmosis or Psittacosis present a hazard especially to maintenance staff. On Health and Safety grounds, having identified a risk, rather than controlling it through PPE it should be removed where possible da da da da da.......

 

Another thing to consider on industrial estates where they may be many different landowners - fall of shot....where is that pellet landing when there's a miss? Technically it is a trespass and if you have tree huggers working there who want to make an issue of it then this becomes a consideration.

 

It's a bit of a pain really.......I've got nuisance levels of pigeon's at my workshops - the estate borders farmland and a housing estate too. However my immediate neighbour is 'opposed' to shooting AND a magistrate.....

 

Quote from:- The leading experts in our field, H+R investigate problems in buildings and the built environme

 

Detritus and faeces

Pigeon detritus and especially pigeon faeces represent both an aesthetic and a public health problem, particularly in the interior of a building. Pigeon droppings quickly deface finishes both to the inside and outside of buildings and are difficult and expensive to remove.

Noise and disturbance

Though they are actively fed and encouraged by many members of the public, pigeons represent a public nuisance as well as a health hazard. This may be because of disturbance caused by calling or nesting activity in the early hours and by pestering for food.

Fleas and parasites

Pigeons can spread fleas and other parasites into inhabited buildings.

Faeces and human diseases

The presence of feral pigeons and most especially their faeces represents a potential health hazard to employees and to the general public. This is particularly so when large accumulations of filth build up inside a building. They are commonly carriers of a number of serious human diseases including salmonellosis, psittacosis and pseudo-tuberculosis. Their faeces provide an ideal environment for the growth of the organisms causing such diseases as histoplasmosis, aspergillosis, cryptococcis and listeriosis. Although the risk of infection from pigeons may be relatively low, the diseases are severe and may be life threatening. Pigeon faeces represent a health and safety hazard for employees who have to remove them or work in their vicinity. They are thus a special problem in the renovation of buildings where large accumulations have been allowed to build-up. Dealing with such accumulations can be expensive and time consuming because of the protective equipment and procedures that may be required.

Health and safety problems are also caused by the build up of faeces due to the slippery and unsafe footing it provides on walkways and ledges hindering proper maintenance. This may also be a particular problem during building works and renovation.

If measures are not taken to minimise pigeon activity around a building their presence will cause significant problems for building management and maintenance. These problems are both avoidable and expensive to deal with. They can also have an appreciable effect on the cost of renovation works and the time taken to complete a project.

[LeadWasp]

Your advise please

Is it legal to shoot crows and feral pigeons on private property if you have permission from the owner.like a industrial estate if they are a lot and a nuisance. Do you have to obtain a special license. Of course this would be done safely with an air rifle and back drop in mind. I am a basc member.

Thanks.

Derek

 

So it's fair to say that the general concensus of opinion is that as your stated REASON stands ( "if they are a lot and a nuisance" ) the general license will not allow you to. If you can make a robust case for it on H&S and public health grounds then yes you could. The burden of proof will no doubt be on you if the Authorities ever take you to task.

 

Hope this helps

[malantone]

At the end of the day I can`t see anyone giving a toss.

[bobt]

someone was taken to task last year for shooting gulls in his garden.......

[Berettacocker]

Flying rats! Fill yer boots!, regarding the Ruddy duck, it doesn't interfere with our native species but interbreeds with the rare Spanish White Headed Duck. Thinking of changing its name to Poxy Duck!

[LeadWasp]

The point is all wild birds are protected "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) provides that all wild birds are protected and cannot be killed or taken except under licence" - you MUST have one of these justifiable reasons to take them. It is in the interests of the shooting community to act responsibly and frankly chaps you should know better.

 

Particularly given the recent hoo-ha over consultation on proposed changes to the General Licenses we need to be absolutely sure we abide by them before the 'powers that be' turn the tumbscrews even further. We put ourselves forwards as one of the most law abiding sectors of the population so we'd darn well better behave like it.

[dadioles]

The point is all wild birds are protected "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) provides that all wild birds are protected and cannot be killed or taken except under licence" - you MUST have one of these justifiable reasons to take them. It is in the interests of the shooting community to act responsibly and frankly chaps you should know better.

 

Particularly given the recent hoo-ha over consultation on proposed changes to the General Licenses we need to be absolutely sure we abide by them before the 'powers that be' turn the tumbscrews even further. We put ourselves forwards as one of the most law abiding sectors of the population so we'd darn well better behave like it.

+1

[malantone]

The point is all wild birds are protected "The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) provides that all wild birds are protected and cannot be killed or taken except under licence" - you MUST have one of these justifiable reasons to take them. It is in the interests of the shooting community to act responsibly and frankly chaps you should know better.

 

Particularly given the recent hoo-ha over consultation on proposed changes to the General Licenses we need to be absolutely sure we abide by them before the 'powers that be' turn the tumbscrews even further. We put ourselves forwards as one of the most law abiding sectors of the population so we'd darn well better behave like it.

 

Feral pigeons have no protection what so ever, they have no closed season and are recognised as a danger to health, they carry multi diseases, there droppings contaminate animal feed and are corrosive to metal work in buildings, and when dry if inhaled can make people very ill. Local councils spend a fortune trying to rid town centres of this pest.

the OP asked a simple question can he shoot feral pigeons, the simple answer is YES, he has permission, he is aware of safe shooting ie backdrops etc. he does not need to ask for a licence, he is already covered by the general licence. I think the OP`s comments they are a nuisance there are lots of them refers to their droppings rather than their calls.

as for (frankly chaps you should know better) I know the law and am not frightened of it, and I always act responsibly.

as said before dhumble5 crack on get the job done

Edited May 29, 2014 by malantone

[dhumble5]

Thanks for all of you're advice information and opinions.

Derek

[LeadWasp]

 

Feral pigeons have no protection what so ever, they have no closed season and are recognised as a danger to health, they carry multi diseases, there droppings contaminate animal feed and are corrosive to metal work in buildings, and when dry if inhaled can make people very ill. Local councils spend a fortune trying to rid town centres of this pest.

the OP asked a simple question can he shoot feral pigeons, the simple answer is YES, he has permission, he is aware of safe shooting ie backdrops etc. he does not need to ask for a licence, he is already covered by the general licence. I think the OP`s comments they are a nuisance there are lots of them refers to their droppings rather than their calls.

as for (frankly chaps you should know better) I know the law and am not frightened of it, and I always act responsibly.

as said before dhumble5 crack on get the job done

 

OK so.......if FP's have no protection then why are they listed in the General Licenses which are there to provide for exceptional circumstances where you can take a protected wild bird?

 

Quoting from elsewhere in support of my original answer the Dhumble5's question which this is all about.

 

"This extract from Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 simply confirms that it is illegal to kill or to injure a wild bird or to interfere with a nesting bird, its eggs or its nest. The exception to this rule is where a species is listed under the relevant General Licences as a bird that can be taken (in this context meaning killed), providing that the criteria of the Licence concerned is adhered to."

 

"Loosely translated this means that any property owner experiencing entrenched problems with feral pigeons on his/her property can instruct an agent or contractor to kill pigeons and destroy nests on that specific site or building, providing that the terms and conditions of the relevant General Licence are fully met. Should the authorised person be unable to demonstrate that the problems being experienced have resulted in, or are likely to result in, a risk to public health or safety, ..................and would be deemed illegal as a result. The owner/occupier would then be liable for prosecution.

 

Dhumble5's original post did NOT meet the criteria of the General License.....but hopefully we can help him out.

 

Seriously Malantone please read the General Licenses - I've given you the links and the Note references. In each one Note F clearly says noise/nuisance is not an arguable reason. Sure probably nobody will give a damn until.................... I hate the blasted things as much as the next person.

However I'm not making it up and a 'slay 'em all' attitude, especially in the face of the law, is not going to keep shooting alive in this country. We need to be absolutely sure why we are allowed to kill an animal before we do it.

Edited May 29, 2014 by LeadWasp

[malantone]

tell you what Leadwasp, I`m sick of all this, I have shot ferals all my life, and I will continue to do so, they are officially pests and that's all I need to know, I`ve never been criticized for shooting one and I doubt if I ever will be.

Have a good life bye

[Therealchucknorris]

Fair play to you LeadWasp, I tried to bring a spot of GL education to someone on another forum. My failing was that I didn't notice he was somewhat of a simple chav and I copped a load of abuse for it then someone else chipped in that I'd be better off on the LACS forum.

 

Simply put, there are laws that everyone needs to abide by, some are more complex than others. It's always best to ensure you understand where you stand before heading out as it only takes one person to complain and you need to be able to back your position with something more than brazen confidence and a vague notion of 'doing the right thing'

[robbiep]

I agree, well pointed out by Leadwasp.

Quite frankly, whether you hate them or not, you NEED to make a case for killing them. Whatever that is, however you word it, you NEED to have that in place, and in compliance with the GL's. Failure to do so is not somewhere I would ever want to be.

 

As an aside, someone I know was asked to reduce/eliminate the population of ferals on an industrial estate. A number of food producers were based on the estate. The reason of public health was thus used. Problem solved.

[The Mighty Prawn]

tell you what Leadwasp, I`m sick of all this, I have shot ferals all my life, and I will continue to do so, they are officially pests and that's all I need to know, I`ve never been criticized for shooting one and I doubt if I ever will be.

Have a good life bye

Not wanting to start a flame war but whether you have always shot them or whether you classify them as official pests is irrelevant, the bottom line is that the law, as we all have to abide by, clearly states a limited number of situations where ferals can be shot - if those conditions are not met it becomes an illegal act.

 

To take it to a deliberately absurd example, a serial killer has always killed people and will not be told otherwise, now there are a few ways someone can be legally killed but if our serial killer is not in one of these situations the act becomes an illegal one - again I say this is a deliberately exaggerated example but I'm just trying to demonstrate the perils of popular knowledge or beliefs versus what the law actually says.

[malantone]

Program on this morning about pigeon control in a town centre, because of location they were trapping then killing, the guy said that feral pigeons are the one bird that can be killed without question, providing its in a humane manner.

 

CRACK ON GET THE JOB DONE

 

So do you think the council in question fall foul of the GL. their only concern seemed to be the bird lime on the seats and statues, and the cost of cleaning the same.

[dadioles]

Sorry malantone but this is really getting quite boring.

 

You have been presented with the facts and the law is quite clear.

 

If you think that because you see something on tv or read it in the paper that it must be true or legal or that you have been given the whole story then you are deluding yourself.

 

All of the media is about entertainment, ratings and making money. That applies to BBC News just as much as it does to the Sun newspaper.

 

If as you quote 'the guy said that feral pigeons are the one bird that can be killed without question' he is wrong. He and you should know better. Especially you after reading this thread.

 

My guess is that the council have asked a pest controller to kill the birds because they are pooing everywhere in a public area which is clearly a health hazard. I also expect that they have already tried closing off nooks and crannies with nets and put bird spikes on ledges. They can therefore demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to control the pests and shooting is, therefore a last resort. That is not the case in the OP.

 

The Wildlife and Countryside Act and the terms of the General Licence apply to all of us, including Councils. Councils are particularly careful to comply because people are watching and would love to catch them out.