Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thunderbird

"Other Lawful Quarry" - is it still a thing?

Recommended Posts

A friend has heard in writing from an FEO that this 'other lawful quarry' phrase is no longer issued on licenses and that any that still have it are just older ones pending renewal.

 

Is this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently got mine back and it doesn't specify species. It just says the so-and-so guns shall be used for any lawful quarry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory at least, there shouldn't be any leeway. They should all be following the HO guidelines. As we all know though, that's in an ideal world. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand in these parts it has been removed on renewal, mine isn't due for years so I can't confirm that first hand.

When you see some of the discussion regarding peoples interpretation of what it means on forums it is hardly surprising though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not under Merseyside, recently got my fac renewal back and still states as did my previous "and any other legal quarry" additional to the specific condition for my different calibres and species.

 

atb 7diaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently got mine and for all calibers listed it states for vermin and all other legal quarry, and I specifically asked for muntjac and cwd on the .223.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend has heard in writing from an FEO that this 'other lawful quarry' phrase is no longer issued on licenses and that any that still have it are just older ones pending renewal.

 

Is this right?

 

Gloucestershire police I should think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let you know, I should have mine back in the next few day's.

That's if they can figure out why I asked for .224 bullets and not 22.250 lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sad enough to read the minutes from the meetings the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) publish where this sort of thing is discussed by the Police and haven't read anything about this being rescinded. If anything some forces are only just coming onboard with the AOLQ condition after years of being told thats what they should've been doing from the start!

Edited by Breastman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is Glos. So, is the law open to interpretation to the degree that they can enforce this?

 

As mentioned on another post,Gloucestershire seem to have told several different versions of why they will not give AOLQ. I was told by a member of the firearms team is was due to the fact that they would rather give more specific conditions in relation to calibre and humane dispatch of quarry. They generally won't condition hmr for fox and the other problem is that there isn't a legal calibre for boar of which we have the biggest population in the UK so AOLQ on a hmr or .22lr would make it legal for boar. Also Gloucester FA like to see a qualification for deer or at least mentoring, right or wrong its what they insist, so if you requested a .223 (or 243 but they also don't like giving that just for fox without a struggle) and want to shoot deer with it then it would have to be conditioned for such, AOLQ would take away that decision from them. Until we have a new chief I can't see this changing and I agree with the thinking behind it, I've never had a problem getting the right calibre for species granted, you just have to show em you have good reason and experience.

 

So the answer to your question about the degree in which they can enforce their interpretation, well you have to ask yourself who makes the final decision on granting you a license or the conditions you wish to be on it, is it the law, no its the police but you will always have the right to appeal against their decision if you feel they are not following your legal rights.

Edited by Redgum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received my variation back from Herts and apart from the reduced quantity of ammunition (a new directive I gather), my previous conditions for fox and unaccompanied deer stalking have been removed and replaced with AOLQ where appropriate.

 

When I questioned this I was told that you should know what calibre is suitable for which species, and so specific conditions are no longer added.

 

The death of DSC1 then? Just get some land, get a 243 and you're deer legal!

Edited by mick miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about time they made it simpler than it used to be. Don't get much simpler than this.

 

post-50882-0-62670700-1454326736_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been told that AOLQ is more appropriate for centre-fire rifles where licence holders can make that judgement. However, licence holders are not at liberty to decide on what constitutes legal quarry for rimfire rifles so they have specified uses/species such as fox etc.

 

They insist in the "no badger" sentence like we don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how my force words it.

 

Glos. seem still to be micromanaging then, which is somewhat dissapointing. About time these people all started singing from the same hymn sheet and following HO guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...