Muntjac question

[Luckyshot]

WHY !!!!! Any calibre .240 and above has Deer etc below. 240 in England will have CWD and/or Muntjac because if a .22 CF just had Deer AOLQ it would mean you could shoot ALL six species with a .22 CF .

My 6.5x55 has Deer AOLQ my .223 has CWD and Muntjac AOLQ my .17HMR Vermin and AOLQ

My 243 is conditioned for alq only deer doesn't need to be present on your conditions.

[craftycarper]

sorry my mistake, i was just thinking that if i had a .223 for fox and AOLQ was on the ticket as well then i could shoot Munties, So i have to add deer although i would only be interested in the munties, do i have to add rabbit as well then?....only joking

Edited December 31, 2015 by craftycarper

[Luckyshot]

sorry my mistake, i was just thinking that if i had a .223 for fox and AOLQ was on the ticket as well then i could shoot Munties, So i have to add deer although i would only be interested in the munties, do i have to add rabbit as well then?....only joking

 

 

You could shoot them if you wish.

[old man]

So are you suggesting that deer are not legal quarry.

 

It would be a very stupid chief constable who decided to prosecute, in a court of law, someone who shot a deer (within the terms of the deer act) who's fac he had conditioned for fox and any other legal quarry.

Not at all Charlie, just that it is my understanding that your certificate must be conditioned for deer?

 

So am I Dougy.

 

Does this help?

 

 

 

Appendix 3: Conditions for firearm

certificates

Forces must ensure that where additional conditions are applied to certificates that they are

kept to a minimum and are only applied where they are both proportionate and necessary.

Where the firearm is authorised for more than one purpose, care must be taken to omit the word

‘only’ in the conditions.

An asterisk conditions specific firearms on a certificate but may be replaced by the phrase, “The

firearms and ammunition…..” where a single condition applies to all firearms (and ammunition) on

the certificate.

1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)

• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and

ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as

appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing on ranges, on land deemed suitable by

the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the holder has

lawful authority to shoot.

(The words underlined may be omitted once the certificate holder has demonstrated competence.

There is no set time for this and each case should be considered on its individual merits).

Edited December 31, 2015 by old man

[al4x]

WHY !!!!! Any calibre .240 and above has Deer etc below. 240 in England will have CWD and/or Muntjac because if a .22 CF just had Deer AOLQ it would mean you could shoot ALL six species with a .22 CF .

My 6.5x55 has Deer AOLQ my .223 has CWD and Muntjac AOLQ my .17HMR Vermin and AOLQ

No it wouldn't conditions on ticket don't over ride the deer act. All my rifles have any legal quarry on but I'd be stupid to shoot a fallow with my hmr which by your logic I could do

[Redgum]

Gloucestershire firearms dept will not give AOLQ, I called them about it and they said it was due to the fact that deer needed to be listed separately as need more experience to deal with which is understandable( they almost insist on DSC1 or mentoring), to list each species individually ( they list fox and vermin as separate things on my license) makes it more clear in their eyes. The lack of communication and different conditions between all the forces does make it all so confusing. Take for instance the subject of wild boar, there is no legal calibre like there is for deer, so in theory you could shoot them with .22lr or .17hmr if you had AOLQ conditioned on these calibres but should you wound or cause unnecessary suffering you would be up for a animal cruelty charge. But who's checking on all this, shooting deer at night was made illegal with the amended 1991 Deer act, we all know and probably many have reported such goings on but as yet there has never been a conviction.

[oowee]

Gloucestershire firearms dept will not give AOLQ, I called them about it and they said it was due to the fact that deer needed to be listed separately as need more experience to deal with which is understandable( they almost insist on DSC1 or mentoring), to list each species individually ( they list fox and vermin as separate things on my license) makes it more clear in their eyes. The lack of communication and different conditions between all the forces does make it all so confusing. Take for instance the subject of wild boar, there is no legal calibre like there is for deer, so in theory you could shoot them with .22lr or .17hmr if you had AOLQ conditioned on these calibres but should you wound or cause unnecessary suffering you would be up for a animal cruelty charge. But who's checking on all this, shooting deer at night was made illegal with the amended 1991 Deer act, we all know and probably many have reported such goings on but as yet there has never been a conviction.

I think the rule of law as established should be followed by the police. I understand how these things get interpreted by individuals and then again by FEO's to male the situation far more complex than it needs to be. It then follows that we get a discriminatory approach to the application of the la which cannot be right. If its more experience to deal with deer is required (and i can understand why this might be the case) its not up to the police to make that decision etc etc. You have mentioned boar the same could be said for goats too? Animal cruelty could be pursued even with legal calibres if not used appropriately?

[6.5x55SE]

No it wouldn't conditions on ticket don't over ride the deer act. All my rifles have any legal quarry on but I'd be stupid to shoot a fallow with my hmr which by your logic I could do

Look at my post 25. And with 40 year's stalking Deer Culling them into the thousands I'm well aware of what is legal and not legal

[Redgum]

I think the rule of law as established should be followed by the police. I understand how these things get interpreted by individuals and then again by FEO's to male the situation far more complex than it needs to be. It then follows that we get a discriminatory approach to the application of the la which cannot be right. If its more experience to deal with deer is required (and i can understand why this might be the case) its not up to the police to make that decision etc etc. You have mentioned boar the same could be said for goats too? Animal cruelty could be pursued even with legal calibres if not used appropriately?

 

Then who is it up to then that needs to make that decision. Things change with experience don't they, I remember wanting to move up from a rimfire to larger calibres and bigger quarry. Everything the police put in the way I saw as just un necessary obstacles as I thought I knew just about everything. Now, after dealing with larger deer and boar my outlook is completely different and I think more training should be compulsory whether legal courses or legal mentoring. You could say I feel this way because I can now shoot larger animals with larger calibres but I see it differently, I'm glad I was pushed into doing my DS1, if I hadn't done that I wouldn't have gone on to my DSC2 which opened up stalking opportunities. As an accredited witness I take others out and it reminds me of how I was and how much I really didn't know and how much training should be put in place. Muntjac are small deer but shot placement, follow up, and the handling to the plate is a long way from skinning a rabbit.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Redgum

[oowee]

 

Then who is it up to then that needs to make that decision. Things change with experience don't they, I remember wanting to move up from a rimfire to larger calibres and bigger quarry. Everything the police put in the way I saw as just un necessary obstacles as I thought I knew just about everything. Now, after dealing with larger deer and boar my outlook is completely different and I think more training should be compulsory whether legal courses or legal mentoring. You could say I feel this way because I can now shoot larger animals with larger calibres but I see it differently, I'm glad I was pushed into doing my DS1, if I hadn't done that I wouldn't have gone on to my DSC2 which opened up stalking opportunities. As an accredited witness I take others out and it reminds me of how I was and how much I really didn't know and how much training should be put in place. Muntjac are small deer but shot placement, follow up, and the handling to the plate is a long way from skinning a rabbit.

I agree with all that you say re experience and the benefit for both the game and the individual. I can see the benefits of making it a requirement as well as the down side of costs and that others may gain the experience in other ways. I dont shoot larger game but if I wanted to go down that route i would certainly do my DSC 1 as a starting point. The only issue i have is the police making those decisions its a clear breach of human rights (ie the right of law). We vote for our politicians, they make changes and the police enforce them. Any other approach leads to corruption.

[bluesj]

I think some are missing a few words that are in the conditions " subject to the suitability of the caliber"

If the condition on your fac for your .243 says fox you can only shot foxes if it says deer you can only shoot deer. I you have fox and any other lawful quarry you can shoot deer as well

I have the same condition on all my rifles but that doesn't mean i can shoot deer with my 22lr because another law says (deer act) says i can't.

[Savhmr]

Gloucestershire firearms dept will not give AOLQ, I called them about it and they said it was due to the fact that deer needed to be listed separately as need more experience to deal with which is understandable( they almost insist on DSC1 or mentoring), to list each species individually ( they list fox and vermin as separate things on my license) makes it more clear in their eyes. The lack of communication and different conditions between all the forces does make it all so confusing. Take for instance the subject of wild boar, there is no legal calibre like there is for deer, so in theory you could shoot them with .22lr or .17hmr if you had AOLQ conditioned on these calibres but should you wound or cause unnecessary suffering you would be up for a animal cruelty charge. But who's checking on all this, shooting deer at night was made illegal with the amended 1991 Deer act, we all know and probably many have reported such goings on but as yet there has never been a conviction.

 

That's true but Gloucestershire also view each application on its merits, ie the available evidence supporting an application, before deciding on conditions. For someone new to CF, they usually will insist on both DSC1 and mentoring as conditions irrespective of what Home Office guidelines say or what the ACPO recommends, because it is up to each CPO to decide, then to justify their own policy for granting CF and associated conditions. The removal of AOLQ was in response to issues with badgers being shot (so Glos Constabulary Firearms Licencing staff have told me) but I am unsure if this was without proper licence or just with inappropriate calibres c/w the appropriate licence. The granting of CF within Gloucestershire tends to stipulate on the specific conditions which animals are covered and whether any other conditions apply, so if you don't have fox specifically listed for example, as I understand it you could get into hot water if caught shooting fox by Glos firearms licencing where it was reported.

 

The experience needed to deal with deer is neither here nor there because it is beyond the remits of firearms licencing and is more specifically covered by the Deer Act, training and experience. Deer calibres are more closely scrutinised and treated more rigorously purely because Gloucestershire require reassurance that the applicant is safe to carry and use a deer calibre in open countryside as opposed to a closed and supervised range, due to the inherent additional risks to the general public, other livestock and workers.

 

I think that irrespective of how legal or otherwise this situation is (ie some might view it as something to be challenged in court), there is also the argument that you have to try and develop a mature and equitable relationship with your own particular firearms licencing team, as it ultimately makes future variations etc more stress free and less likely to result in confrontation.

 

All said and done, forums are not really the place to be asking for and taking specific advice as that surely is what your firearms licencing team are for, plus of course the advice available from your shooting organisations. No harm in discussing the subject though but personally, I'd be careful about generalising advice when policy seems to differ between forces. Not an ideal situation, but its the one we're lumbered with for now,as are the obvious issues of licencing teams being largely under staffed (all the more reason to try and keep on side to avoid lengthy delays).

Edited January 2, 2016 by Savhmr

[Scully]

Isn't it all fairly straight forward? If your .223 is conditioned for example 'Fox and AOLQ' and you reside in England, then obviously you can't shoot Roe for example, because that would be illegal. Regardless of what your conditions are, it is the word 'legal' within the AOLQ condition which specifies what can and can't be shot with that particular calibre.

That's how I see it anyhow.

[CharlieT]

Isn't it all fairly straight forward? If your .223 is conditioned for example 'Fox and AOLQ' and you reside in England, then obviously you can't shoot Roe for example, because that would be illegal. Regardless of what your conditions are, it is the word 'legal' within the AOLQ condition which specifies what can and can't be shot with that particular calibre.

That's how I see it anyhow.

Exactly.

 

Some posters would be well served by reading BASC's advice sheet by clicking the download below.

 

additional quarry shooting conditions on firearm certificates

[jonny thomas]

Mrs Thomas did one on the westbound m4 at 80mph she has no licence at all but certainly killed

[Redgum]

 

That's true but Gloucestershire also view each application on its merits, ie the available evidence supporting an application, before deciding on conditions. For someone new to CF, they usually will insist on both DSC1 and mentoring as conditions irrespective of what Home Office guidelines say or what the ACPO recommends, because it is up to each CPO to decide, then to justify their own policy for granting CF and associated conditions. The removal of AOLQ was in response to issues with badgers being shot (so Glos Constabulary Firearms Licencing staff have told me) but I am unsure if this was without proper licence or just with inappropriate calibres c/w the appropriate licence. The granting of CF within Gloucestershire tends to stipulate on the specific conditions which animals are covered and whether any other conditions apply, so if you don't have fox specifically listed for example, as I understand it you could get into hot water if caught shooting fox by Glos firearms licencing where it was reported.

 

The experience needed to deal with deer is neither here nor there because it is beyond the remits of firearms licencing and is more specifically covered by the Deer Act, training and experience. Deer calibres are more closely scrutinised and treated more rigorously purely because Gloucestershire require reassurance that the applicant is safe to carry and use a deer calibre in open countryside as opposed to a closed and supervised range, due to the inherent additional risks to the general public, other livestock and workers.

 

I think that irrespective of how legal or otherwise this situation is (ie some might view it as something to be challenged in court), there is also the argument that you have to try and develop a mature and equitable relationship with your own particular firearms licencing team, as it ultimately makes future variations etc more stress free and less likely to result in confrontation.

 

All said and done, forums are not really the place to be asking for and taking specific advice as that surely is what your firearms licencing team are for, plus of course the advice available from your shooting organisations. No harm in discussing the subject though but personally, I'd be careful about generalising advice when policy seems to differ between forces. Not an ideal situation, but its the one we're lumbered with for now,as are the obvious issues of licencing teams being largely under staffed (all the more reason to try and keep on side to avoid lengthy delays).

 

Why would FA dept drop AOLQ because of calibre choice on a protected species, that makes absolutely no sense and this brings me to the second highlighted paragraph. Forums are the place to be asking specific advice as someone reading your post may actually know a little more of the law than your licencing team. I was told by one of 'the team' that I could not change a variation slot for FAC air rifle for a .243 as the calibre jump was to big, I was advise on this forum that this was rubbish and to contact BASC. If someone hasn't done a course or been mentored they may not have a clue about deer regarding bullet type, legal velocities etc, you could just go to the library or trawl the net, but just easier to ask here.

[Savhmr]

True, but that doesn't change what the licencing team, or rather head of licencing will agree, which is my point. I may not like it any more than you or anyone else, but when I contacted BASC for advice myself their response was that "... they'd given up..." with Glos who do things their own way. I am pretty well clued up on the law, probably more so than some of the licencing team, but that doesn't seem to help, so how would you suggest these things are agreed with them? Genuine question, and one I'd love to know the answer to

 

Also, I didn't mention anything regarding calibre and AOLQ, those were your words; I simply repeated what I was told by licencing staff ie AOLQ (irrespective of calibre) was no longer being used on conditions.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Savhmr

[bluesj]

A quick question, aimed mostly at Savhmr as it seems your are it the situation. Do you have different conditions for each rifle?

All my rifles have same condition,. just one on my ticket.

[Redgum]

True, but that doesn't change what the licencing team, or rather head of licencing will agree, which is my point. I may not like it any more than you or anyone else, but when I contacted BASC for advice myself their response was that "... they'd given up..." with Glos who do things their own way. I am pretty well clued up on the law, probably more so than some of the licencing team, but that doesn't seem to help, so how would you suggest these things are agreed with them? Genuine question, and one I'd love to know the answer to

 

Also, I didn't mention anything regarding calibre and AOLQ, those were your words; I simply repeated what I was told by licencing staff ie AOLQ (irrespective of calibre) was no longer being used on conditions.

 

Well the law is the law but your right about having a good relationship with your Firearms dept and being a pig headed know all will not do you any favours but there is such a thing as subtlety. The police are offering a service and there is a time to make a complaint and not be scared of future bad treatment in response. I have always managed to sort any problems with my dept without to much hassle but on my last shotgun renewal I did have a problem that became a bit of stale mate. I completed my forms as soon as FA sent me a reminder, I think 3 months before expiry yet my license expired and no renewal, I contacted the license team two weeks before the expiry and was told not to worry the license had been granted but just waiting to be delivered, the dead line came and went and was told further not to worry. I contacted BASC who confirm, in theory, I was now outside the law regardless of what I had been told, they gave me two emails to complain to which I did instantly explaining I would be forced to store the guns with a RFD and I would send them the bill. I had a call from one of the team that afternoon and the license was delivered the next morning. So for me anyway I have found a sort of balance between subtlety and using BASC ( who may not go banging on the station door but have always offered very useful help).

Back to the badger thing and AOLQ, apologies but must have misread your post, but regardless of calibre I still cannot see why a firearms dept would stop using that condition because of confusion in shoot a protected species Now I was told it was because of the complications with .17hmr, originally conditioned for fox/vermin then on a renewal fox was taken off ( rightly so I think but is .17hmr legal or not for fox ?)

 

A quick question, aimed mostly at Savhmr as it seems your are it the situation. Do you have different conditions for each rifle?

All my rifles have same condition,. just one on my ticket.

 

I'm with the same force as Savhmr and I have the conditions written down for each rifle and the quarry I can use them for.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Redgum

[bluesj]

Thanks for the answer Redgum.

17hmr is legal for fox as is 22lr, both are good tools for the job in the right circumstances

[Redgum]

Thanks for the answer Redgum.

17hmr is legal for fox as is 22lr, both are good tools for the job in the right circumstances

 

Now this is were it all gets interesting, ,my original .17hmr conditioning was for fox/vermin and then on a renewal it came back just with vermin, thinking maybe my dept had now classed fox as vermin I gave them a call to check, no, wouldn't entertain fox as vermin and didn't think 17hmr was suitable for fox. I had shot a few fox's with the hmr, head shots fine but I shot one in the boiler room at around 60yds and it ran off, half an hour later I came across a fox on the edge of a field walking around in circles, when it stopped for long enough I head shot the poor thing. I inspected the carcass thinking it was probably the one I had shot earlier and I was right, the shot was in the right place but could not see which was entry or exit as both small holes, the bullet had never expanded and the hydrostatic damage had not been enough to give a satisfactory kill. I just used my 243 after that as that just flattens em, I never found the hmr to be predictable enough in field conditons to always head shoot, that along with ammo supply problems I got rid of the blessed thing and have a Hornet now.

I'm guessing this is why my force don't give AOLQ, it takes away their right to judge, rightly or wrongly, I'm sure if I had a situation were a centrefire was not suitable and only a rimfire could be used for a certain situation for fox, with a letter stating the situation and a few lengthy phone calls I would get the .22lr conditioned, but probably with some extra words of police wisdom . Also we have one of the biggest populations of boar in my county and there is no legal calibre condition for them so AOLQ on smaller rifles could mean a lot of suffering for those smelly beasts.( we have had several cases of arrows sticking out of them so they will most definitely have been shot with rimmies etc as some have no self restraint).

I don't have a problem with all these conditions as the force is a fair one, you just have to expain the situation in a bit more depth with a letter and a few phone calls.The only real problem is every time you send your license in for something the wording may come back incorrect and back goes the license.

[bluesj]

I see you (and maybe their) point. Its easy to forget some people don't have the same level of respect for our quarry be it a rabbit, or a deer.

my local fire arms department don't as a rule condition a .22lr for fox mainly due to the rspca saying it cant do the job,

When i was after a 22 pistol for humane dispatch the feo was sat on my sofa and said i couldn't have one and should use the .32, I just pointed out that shooting a fox at point blank range was dangerous as the bullet could pass straight through and bounce of of any thing, that was all he needed to hear and i got my variation.

[LeadWasp]

I see you (and maybe their) point. Its easy to forget some people don't have the same level of respect for our quarry be it a rabbit, or a deer.

my local fire arms department don't as a rule condition a .22lr for fox mainly due to the rspca saying it cant do the job,

When i was after a 22 pistol for humane dispatch the feo was sat on my sofa and said i couldn't have one and should use the .32, I just pointed out that shooting a fox at point blank range was dangerous as the bullet could pass straight through and bounce of of any thing, that was all he needed to hear and i got my variation.

I'll double check my certificate when I get home but are you sure about .22 and fox in Sussex? RSPCA rant follows....the RSPCA are a flipping charity/political lobby group NOT firearms experts or advisers to Sussex Police.

 

Anyway - back to the OP's question - I'm with Charlie T on AOLQ with the correct calibre threshold.

Edited January 6, 2016 by LeadWasp

[Harry136]

I think its about time the police got hold of some fox carcasses and actually experimented with different ammunition to get definitive answers for the book as a UK standard. All it would take is to shoot the euthanised fox with a different bullet each time, 1 in the head, 1 in the chest at 100m and perform a necropsy to find out the damage. Just need to sort out the logistics for it!

[Scully]

I think its about time the police got hold of some fox carcasses and actually experimented with different ammunition to get definitive answers for the book as a UK standard. All it would take is to shoot the euthanised fox with a different bullet each time, 1 in the head, 1 in the chest at 100m and perform a necropsy to find out the damage. Just need to sort out the logistics for it!

I can't see any reason why the police would have any inclination to do such a thing. It's not their problem.