fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I posted on another thread that things were not quite as simple as shooting pigeon where ever they may be and claiming it was for " crop protection " I pointed out that to do so you actually had to have a crop or future crop to protect , I gave a couple of scenarios one which included someone who owned a large area of concrete and who had not other land or permission anywhere else to shoot pigeon . I pointed out that if he was shooting pigeon that flew over this concrete and claimed he was doing so because they were eating farmer Giles crop up the road that they would be doing so against the terms of the GL. I was largely ridiculed for my interpretation and even our PW BASC contact said they could legally be shot while saying my thoughts on the subject made him chuckle . So here as promised is Naural Englands reply . I did say I would be man enough to apologise if I was wrong , so I wonder how many of you who ridiculed me will be coming along to accept a slice of humble pie. Once again I will reiterate I care not what any of you do and it is up to yourselves if you comply or not. See reply below Thank you for your General Licence enquiry which has been forwarded to me for a reply. The General Licence WML GL04 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-take-or-kill-to-prevent-damage-or-disease can only be used for the following Purposes: · Prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters, and · Prevent the spread of disease. For info, there is another General Licence that includes the Wood Pigeon: - WML GL05 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-take-or-kill-for-health-or-safety-purposes · Purpose: Preserve public health or public safety. If the land owner, occupier or other authorised person have no crops to protect, unless they are shooting Wood Pigeons for any other purpose covered by WML GL04 or to preserve public health or public safety, they would be breaking the law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). I hope this information is helpful, but please contact us if you have any further queries. Many thanks, Andrew. Andrew Laborde Technical Support Adviser Wildlife Licensing Technical Services Tel: 0300 060 3900 E-Mail: wildlife@naturalengland.org.uk www.gov.uk/natural-england Edited July 28, 2015 by fenboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubby Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 I know how you feel fenboy, I was asked to join a group online as I'm a full time pestie, I spent the day looking through posts on people shooting wood pigeon in their back garden for crop protection, and correctly giving the advice above, apart from being slated by the posters, I was banned from the group within 24hrs, seems some shooters like to bury their heads in the sand and hope all the bad things go away, these are the people that give shooters a bad name, I'll add that some of the posts were made by the admin and group moderators, so it's all levels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes no doubt some will still argue that they are right and natural england and myself are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubear Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Thats very interesting and I for one wasnt aware of that particular wording! Thanks very much for sharing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Yes no doubt some will still argue that they are right and natural england and myself are wrong. You have exactly the same attitude as me, the 'spirit' of the GL is flaunted all the time, I've also been very outspoken about this on other sites, often with the same response you appeared to have had. I particularly gun for people shooting pigeons in the back garden because they have been pooing on furniture, claiming they are shooting them for protection of human health or because they have been eating strawberries or whatever. I mainly get accused of being elitist, as I have land to shoot over, this of course destroys the argument as it infers we should all be able to 'enjoy' killing pigeons! Edited July 28, 2015 by kyska Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes no doubt some will still argue that they are right and natural england and myself are wrong. Agreed . The law is quite clear on this matter . I never read the original post . Going to have a look now . But its sad you had to argue your point on this . Everyone should take half hr just to have a look at what they are allowed shoot . And the reason why there allowed to shoot it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 The truth is that 99% of folk on here have no real need to shoot anything at all and only do it for entertainment so why you would want to open a can of worms like this just to say I told you so is beyond me. Unless you are an arable farmer directly protecting your own fields you are killing for fun alone so let's ban us all eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Since when has pointing out the law being opening a can of worms ? People should at least know what the GL licence allows even if they choose not to follow it , just knowing it is a get out of jail free card . Original thread. http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/316861-new-permission-question/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny thomas Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 You have exactly the same attitude as me, the 'spirit' of the GL is flaunted all the time, I've also been very outspoken about this on other sites, often with the same response you appeared to have had. I particularly gun for people shooting pigeons in the back garden because they have been pooing on furniture, claiming they are shooting them for protection of human health or because they have been eating strawberries or whatever. I mainly get accused of being elitist, as I have land to shoot over, this of course destroys the argument as it infers we should all be able to 'enjoy' killing pigeons! why would you shoot if you didn't enjoy it unless you're a farmer or pest controller I love every minute I'm shooting but then again I shoot clays I've no objections to shooting sky rats I just don't have any land to shoot over and living in bristol I'm not likely to get any Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Since when has pointing out the law being opening a can of worms ? People should at least know what the GL licence allows even if they choose not to follow it , just knowing it is a get out of jail free card . Original thread. http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/316861-new-permission-question/ The fact is that stubble shooting and roost shooting would both be disallowed under the heading of crop protection as much as shooting over concrete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 why would you shoot if you didn't enjoy it unless you're a farmer or pest controller I love every minute I'm shooting but then again I shoot clays I've no objections to shooting sky rats I just don't have any land to shoot over and living in bristol I'm not likely to get any I agree, the point I'm making is people try and bend the law to make it appear they are controlling pests. I'm in a privileged position where I love shooting, but also contribute to the family livelihood by shooting over crops. It's the back garden shooters that annoy me when they try and shoehorn and justify shooting what is effectively a protected animal at that moment in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stubby Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 just had a read of the other post as had not seen it, and feral pigeons were brought into the argument, funnily enough I shoot them every night of the week on behalf of london underground, I'm solely sub contracted to them for feral pigeon control, and I'm allowed by law in that instance as I'm a full time pestie, to not only remove/cull the pigeons, but also remove nests,eggs and fledglings, yet if I walk outside of any london underground structure and do the same, I'm in breach of the GL, just because it can be done in one scenario, does not mean it can be done everywhere, people need to start reading the GL and understanding it, each time they go shooting it may be different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 The fact is that stubble shooting and roost shooting would both be disallowed under the heading of crop protection as much as shooting over concrete. This is a common argument, it's the 'prevention' of damage to crops. Again it's the 'spirit' of the GL that makes it obvious that shooting pigeon indiscriminately and claiming you're protecting crops for an unknown land area and a unknown quantity of land with crops growing on it. I know for certain that 200 birds on stubble are going to return at drilling time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 The fact is that stubble shooting and roost shooting would both be disallowed under the heading of crop protection as much as shooting over concrete. No you miss understand , if you are roost shooting you can do so while still protecting crops same with stubble . My whole post and argument was aimed at those who have no crops to protect at all . Chances are if you are roost shooting then you are doing so on land that has crops , same for stubble , the activity does not have to take place over the particular crop that needs protecting . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 just had a read of the other post as had not seen it, and feral pigeons were brought into the argument, funnily enough I shoot them every night of the week on behalf of london underground, I'm solely sub contracted to them for feral pigeon control, and I'm allowed by law in that instance as I'm a full time pestie, to not only remove/cull the pigeons, but also remove nests,eggs and fledglings, yet if I walk outside of any london underground structure and do the same, I'm in breach of the GL, just because it can be done in one scenario, does not mean it can be done everywhere, people need to start reading the GL and understanding it, each time they go shooting it may be different Exactly , you will have seem my post where if I choose too I could shoot pigeon in my garden as I have crops to protect over the fence , where if someone had no crops to protect they could not simply shoot a pigeon in their garden and claim it was for crop protection, I am surprised people cannot seem to get their head around this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 This is a common argument, it's the 'prevention' of damage to crops. Again it's the 'spirit' of the GL that makes it obvious that shooting pigeon indiscriminately and claiming you're protecting crops for an unknown land area and a unknown quantity of land with crops growing on it. I know for certain that 200 birds on stubble are going to return at drilling time. It's largely hypocrisy on your part to condemn others who also want their sport but haven't the same opportunity. All you're claiming now is that you are protecting your crops from birds that may return at some time in the future, which lets face it, is as flakey as shooting them over concrete so they don't eat your strawberries. I doubt killing something on the basis that it may return one day is in the spirit of the general licence, but we all do it. That said, despite coming decoying with me sometimes and enjoying it, if I shot any of the creatures we encourage into our garden my missus would shoot me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Folk need to get over the fact that most of us shoot for fun. Dress it up and try to call it something else but most folks opinions will be coloured by the amount of access they have to satisfy their desire to hunt and will view the GL accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 I shoot for sport / fun too , but I do it while protecting crops , there is nothing in the GL to say you cannot enjoy yourself , I guess there are few among us who do not do so for the sport other than a few farmers and professional pest controllers . But as with most things there are laws involved , and just like driving a car , its up to the individual if they wish to follow them or not and as with cars it it up to the individual to accept any punishment that is dished out if they choose to ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I think the Law, as is often the case, is written very poorly. Just looking at the Natural England response, you could take the narrow view that you would have to prove you were protecting a specific crop from damage after exhausting other methods. However, delve deeper into the Licence and you have this, which implies future protection. After all an egg cannot damage a field of peas now. So, I think, the intention and spirit of the law includes future protection in the taking of birds and eggs that might cause damage in the future: Subject to all the terms and conditions of this licence and solely for the purpose(s) stated above, this licence permits Authorised Persons :i.to kill or take any of the wild birds listed at (a) and (b) below, to take, damage or destroy their nests or to take or destroy their eggs: Woodpigeon Edited July 28, 2015 by TriBsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Yes no doubt some will still argue that they are right and natural england and myself are wrong. I couldn't give a flying **** whether you're right or wrong, any more than you care about what other people do with the information you've obtained. What I do care about is the fact that in your quest to prove your righteousness, you have obtained from and published a letter from Natural England on a public website which will very likely have the effect of shovelling a huge quantity of **** onto the heads of shooters by drawing unwarranted and unnecessary attention to the behaviour of members here, most of whom do their very best to undertake crop protection within both the letter and spirit of the general licence, but who may now find themselves in danger of prosecution because they've argued against your conclusions in the previous thread. Let's just look in detail how that might happen: Fenboy posts response from Natural England. Jobsworth from Natural England searches forums for letter sent recently to Fenboy and finds it. Jobsworth writes down the usernames of all the people who - though probably obeying the law in practice - argued against Fenboy's interpretation in the discussion. Jobsworth sends list of usernames to the police. Police obtain warrant from judge to force PW to release the personal details of those members where suspicion of wildlife crime may have occurred. Police seize firearms of those members as a "preventative" measure whilst investigations occur. Investigations continue for 18 months. Members are found to be innocent of any crime, but are prevented from regaining FACs / SGCs because "balance of probability" means the respective Chief Constables can refuse to re-instate certificates. A career-minded liberal MP takes up the cause... of preventing anyone not employed as a professional pest controller from using the general licences to shoot pigeons, because the incident demonstrates that the law is not well-understood by the common man. Further restrictions are placed on shooters in light of the incident. Fenboy sleeps soundly, safe in the knowledge that being right was more important than ruining livelihoods and ending pigeon shooting in this country as we know it. Ok - so numbers 9-11 may be a little far fetched (though has anyone remembered the name of Kenny McAskill who's done just that with air guns in Scotland?) but I'll leave Fenboy with this advice: Try to remember that your petty disputes, played out in public, can have huge consequences. Needless to say, giving my personal opinion of your actions would get me banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 I couldn't give a flying **** whether you're right or wrong, any more than you care about what other people do with the information you've obtained. What I do care about is the fact that in your quest to prove your righteousness, you have obtained from and published a letter from Natural England on a public website which will very likely have the effect of shovelling a huge quantity of **** onto the heads of shooters by drawing unwarranted and unnecessary attention to the behaviour of members here, most of whom do their very best to undertake crop protection within both the letter and spirit of the general licence, but who may now find themselves in danger of prosecution because they've argued against your conclusions in the previous thread. Let's just look in detail how that might happen: Fenboy posts response from Natural England. Jobsworth from Natural England searches forums for letter sent recently to Fenboy and finds it. Jobsworth writes down the usernames of all the people who - though probably obeying the law in practice - argued against Fenboy's interpretation in the discussion. Jobsworth sends list of usernames to the police. Police obtain warrant from judge to force PW to release the personal details of those members where suspicion of wildlife crime may have occurred. Police seize firearms of those members as a "preventative" measure whilst investigations occur. Investigations continue for 18 months. Members are found to be innocent of any crime, but are prevented from regaining FACs / SGCs because "balance of probability" means the respective Chief Constables can refuse to re-instate certificates. A career-minded liberal MP takes up the cause... of preventing anyone not employed as a professional pest controller from using the general licences to shoot pigeons, because the incident demonstrates that the law is not well-understood by the common man. Further restrictions are placed on shooters in light of the incident. Fenboy sleeps soundly, safe in the knowledge that being right was more important than ruining livelihoods and ending pigeon shooting in this country as we know it. Ok - so numbers 9-11 may be a little far fetched (though has anyone remembered the name of Kenny McAskill who's done just that with air guns in Scotland?) but I'll leave Fenboy with this advice: Try to remember that your petty disputes, played out in public, can have huge consequences. Needless to say, giving my personal opinion of your actions would get me banned. Just the type of response I was expecting from you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 I had started to type a response, but neutron619 has done a far better job than I could. Well said neutron, I wholeheartedly concur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted July 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Seems like my first post about humble pie was correct You were all more than willing to show your " righteousness" in the original thread where you a happy to try and shoot me down in flames , you were also happy to show you have no understanding of the GL "In the public domain" So please jump down from you high horses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 Just the type of response I was expecting from you My pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodie Posted July 28, 2015 Report Share Posted July 28, 2015 In reply to neutron619 : If you obey the relevant law you surely have nothing to worry about. Fenboy got clarification on the law - where's the problem except for people who do not want to know. Remember - Ignorance is no legal defence. 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.