Jump to content

Changes To The General Licence


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Saying that, I can't recall ever being challenged by a copper as to what I'm doing, let alone a NE representative.

The police have better things to do, and NE are quite few and far between, and again the vast majority would have better things to do.  The NE people I know wouldn't be worried (there is an NE site adjacent to some of my land).

But if they are continually harried by Wild Justice LACS etc. for 'doing nothing' whilst people abuse the system, the story may be different.  Like (legal) hunting - the police don't want to get involved, but the LACS etc. cause public order issues so that they have to get involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

there is a flow chart  which can be seen here that should help you determine IF you need the licence

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/797975/natural-england-general-licence-position-statement.pdf


The first of the new General licences has been issued

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carrion-crows-licence-to-kill-or-take-them-gl26

This only covers the shooting of carrion crows for protection of livestock if no alternative means of control exists.
 

Edited by psycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, old'un said:

One of the biggest stumbling blocks I can see is stubble shooting, we can perhaps justify shooting birds during the winter on rape and during the summer on seed crops, but the time of year when most shooters kill some of the biggest numbers are on the stubbles, I cannot see how they will write this into the new licences, if they do manage to include stubble shooting in the new licence I think WJ will be on it like a shot, asking, how do we justify killing birds when they are doing no damage.

I am hoping they will justify it like before. BASC's stance was that shooting birds on stubble in summer will prevent the land being predated by those birds when it is replanted in the autumn. In essence, preemptive control.

Everyone in the shooting world knows that we should take the opportunity to control pests when they are presented. Dead pigeons/crows can't breed or cause damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, gotgcoalman said:

So can we assume the farmer that calls to "sort" his problem has dressed as a scarecrow and fired non leathal shots first.

Or

Is the onus on us to borrow clothes and sit on the chair first.

I'll have to re read this first installment.

 

I don't understand the scaring "thing".

All that is doing is pushing the problem elsewhere.

For example, what is the point of scaring carrions away from one field of lambs, only for them to peck the eyes out of some others down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, motty said:

I don't understand the scaring "thing".

All that is doing is pushing the problem elsewhere.

For example, what is the point of scaring carrions away from one field of lambs, only for them to peck the eyes out of some others down the road?

Exactly that, it's a never ending circles of dome to some lambs, shoot a crow save song birds and lambs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, motty said:

I am hoping they will justify it like before. BASC's stance was that shooting birds on stubble in summer will prevent the land being predated by those birds when it is replanted in the autumn. In essence, preemptive control.

Everyone in the shooting world knows that we should take the opportunity to control pests when they are presented. Dead pigeons/crows can't breed or cause damage.

Exactly. As I understand it the court action started by WJ related simply to NE's failure to ensure that any necessary checks to confirm that all other non lethal controls had been tried and had failed prior to shooting taking place. If that is right, then once this is corrected, then any other amendment to the licences that WJ would like will require further court action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, motty said:

I don't understand the scaring "thing".

All that is doing is pushing the problem elsewhere.

For example, what is the point of scaring carrions away from one field of lambs, only for them to peck the eyes out of some others down the road?

And section 8 and table 1, before with the old licence we did not keep records/proof but I think will have to play by the book on this one, which will not be easy for some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have gas guns out and scarers out and we shoot pigeons on that field it shows that you are trting to scare them. 

18 minutes ago, motty said:

I don't understand the scaring "thing".

All that is doing is pushing the problem elsewhere.

For example, what is the point of scaring carrions away from one field of lambs, only for them to peck the eyes out of some others down the road?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

The sad thing nowadays is that operating within the ‘spirit of the law’ cannot be used because of the legal eagles on the lookout for loopholes.

This applies to all areas of law and should be regretted.

dead right no one wants upset the apple cart.. i think thats why ne held back as long as they did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Davetyler said:

If we have gas guns out and scarers out and we shoot pigeons on that field it shows that you are trting to scare them. 

 

Yes, but to what end? Scaring does not work! I used to shoot pigeons on a 6000 acre farm with a full time pest controller. He would drive around all day scaring away thousands of pigeons - firing shots, putting out multiple gas guns etc etc. He would push the birds all around, but they were still there. When he finished his day's work, the pigeons settled en masse to feed. What did he achieve?

As a side note, the decoying on that farm was mostly a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather hope a single instance of deterent that has shown itself to not work is acceptable for all time - rather than having to satisfy that criteria every time one goes out to cull.

I can't imaging why crop protection is only being sorted out after fauna? This rather sounds like someone who doesn't know what is needed being in charge of procedures

 

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...