Changes To The General Licence

[toontastic]

13 minutes ago, hodge911 said:

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

looks like they may be getting back on track ………………….. I hope 

Looks like licence's to protect wild birds from carrion and magpies are the next 2 to be issued. Thanks for posting the link.

[JJsDad]

1 hour ago, White Rabbit said:

I'm afraid I'm struggling to understand your posts. No offence intended.

BASC have better things to do than defending themselves against people who should be supporting them. Now is not the time. They're busy defending your sport and my livelihood.

You & me both 👍

[twenty]

NE must have read my post on wild birds...

[Shufti]

Thank you for update.

[mossy835]

had a email from BASC,it said fill in the temp form now or stop shooting,or wait for the new genral licence to come in,think i will wait had a good day on the squirrels.

4 hours ago, motty said:

Can't see your problem.

 

is one form going to cover all the ground that is rented as well.theses fields are miles apart.

[Good shot?]

On 26/04/2019 at 08:58, The gouse said:

So I’ve brill my mazie in on Monday and I know when the shoots come through the crows will be all over it.

If I put a couple of scarecrows out and use a gas gun to no avail. Reading below I can still shoot them if I email NE and explain what I’ve done to stop them to no avail I can still shoot them legally till the license comes through.??? Is this correct.

You must first of all have applied for a ‘personal licence’ on line and be awaiting a successful result prior to shooting said pest.

or wait until they finish GL hopefully on Monday.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Good shot?

[Max Hirst]

On 25/04/2019 at 19:37, motty said:

I am cynical. Could Packham have planted these dead animals himself?

You have got a strange imagination.( I don’t think so )

[The gouse]

5 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

You must first of all have applied for a ‘personal licence’ on line and be awaiting a successful result prior to shooting said pest.

or wait until they finish GL hopefully on Monday.

Well I’ve sent email told them what I’m doing I will apply for license when I know more about what licensing I need. In the meantime them crows will get shot.

It’s my land my livelihood and I’ve work hard for it.

[dodgy dave]

good luck 

[Good shot?]

I would do the same in your position, good luck.

[mossy835]

5 minutes ago, dodgy dave said:

good luck 

 

 

+1

[CharlieT]

15 minutes ago, The gouse said:

Well I’ve sent email told them what I’m doing I will apply for license when I know more about what licensing I need. In the meantime themcrows will get shot.

It’s my land my livelihood and I’ve work hard for it.

The new crow GL which is now available will cover you.

As an aside, as a farmer myself, I applied for a personal license yesterday (before the new GL was published) to legally cover myself. After all, it's free and only takes 5 minutes.

[Neverforget]

i must having a blonde moment here i cant find in the links where i apply for the licence

 

[Walker570]

4 hours ago, panoma1 said:

If it's a painting its a dramatised artists impression, so has no factual impact, if it's a photo it could have been photoshopped.......either way I doubt they would print it? 

Yes, but like the thousands of letters they receive it gets read/looked at and sows a seed.

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Max Hirst said:

You have got a strange imagination.( I don’t think so )

Why wouldn't he.. Why wouldn't an anti do it knowing a shooter would get the blame. These people are not stupid, they've got the GL revoked, they got fox hunting banned.. They may not know the cost of doing these things but dont think for one minute they'd not pull a stunt like this to make out we are all murderous scum.. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by ShootingEgg
Fat thumbs on phone

[Walker570]

1 minute ago, ShootingEgg said:

Why wouldn't he.. Why wouldn't an anti do it knowing a shooter would get the blame. These people are not stuoid, they've got the GL revoked, they got fox hunting banned.. They may not know the cost of doingbtheae things but dont think for one minute they'd not pull a stunt like this to make out we are all murderous scum.. 

Certainly would not put it passed them.

[The gouse]

1 hour ago, dodgy dave said:

good luck 

So tell me what they can do??

[old'un]

This article seems on our side…https://inews.co.uk/opinion/general-licence-natural-england-shooting-changes-wild-justice-chris-packham/

This was posted 6 days ago by Mark Avery, looks like an attempt to get people to complain to euro tunnel operators about the import of game birds…https://markavery.info/2019/04/20/pheasant-chick-imports-now-arrive-by-eurotunnel/

[JohnfromUK]

35 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Certainly would not put it passed them.

I don't believe Packham himself would do this - but I believe some of the more extreme elements 'on his side' may well have done.  There are some very unpleasant and extremist people in the ALF, LACS, Hunt Sabs who would do pretty much anything to achieve their aims.

Edited April 27, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Scully]

Can anyone tell me the difference between this and the former GL criteria, with the exception that now we have to physically apply for it? Does this system provide anymore evidence or guarantee that a shooter has employed an inexahaustive period of non lethal methods before resorting to shooting? 

https://ibb.co/QY2skg9

Isn't the decision still down to the license user? 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Scully

[McSpredder]

Should I have much faith in Natural England?   I assume they were defeated because staff (or their legal representatives) were unable to present convincing arguments regarding:

 

(a)  the lack of scientific evidence about effectiveness of acoustic and visual bird deterrents;

(b)  the potential adverse effects on non-pest species;

(c)  the situations in which those deterrents are totally inappropriate (for example, in a lambing field).

 

RSPB acknowledge that they have no expertise at all in use of bird deterrents.

“..…the RSPB is not generally involved in deterring and scaring birds or other animals…..

…..the RSPB has not evaluated these deterrents, we cannot guarantee their success. Similarly, since we have not tested the products, we cannot recommend or endorse the products…..”

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/bird-scarers-and-deterrents/

 

Did Packham and Avery produce some convincing new body of data of which the RPSB is as yet unaware?   Or did Natural England staff and lawyers submit to pressure from Wild Justice without even bothering to consider the science?

 

RSPB have stated that:

“….. these deterrents are not species specific, but would deter any bird from within the effective range.”

In other words, RSPB acknowledge that attempts to deter pests (for example, enormous flocks of woodpigeons) are very likely to have adverse effects on endangered and beneficial species in the same area.   Did Natural England fail to draw attention to this?

 

Did Natural England point out that people who control pests by shooting will invariably seek to minimise noise and remain invisible as far as possible, whereas the deterrents favoured by Packham and Avery are intended to create maximum noise and visual intrusion in the environment.

 

Anyone demanding that farmers install acoustic and/or visual deterrents in a lambing field is guilty of an appalling disregard for animal welfare.   I do wonder about the mentality of people would try to have such a despicable policy imposed.   There are also other domestic animals to be considered, as well as the human population of rural areas.    Would Natural England be likely to have pressed this strongly during the legal proceedings, or might their staff be somewhat ignorant of rural affairs and animal welfare?

 

Finally, will we ever be able to find out how much taxpayers’ money has been squandered in this ludicrous exercise?

[Dekers]

35 minutes ago, Scully said:

Can anyone tell me the difference between this and the former GL criteria, with the exception that now we have to physically apply for it? Does this system provide anymore evidence or guarantee that a shooter has employed an inexahaustive period of non lethal methods before resorting to shooting? 

https://ibb.co/QY2skg9

Isn't the decision still down to the license user? 

I think the old and almost certainly the New GL will have plenty of question marks, and frankly I can't see a certain element of the shooing community taking any more interest/heed of its conditions than before!

Edited April 27, 2019 by Dekers

[Teal]

1 hour ago, McSpredder said:

Should I have much faith in Natural England?   I assume they were defeated because staff (or their legal representatives) were unable to present convincing arguments regarding:

 

(a)  the lack of scientific evidence about effectiveness of acoustic and visual bird deterrents;

(b)  the potential adverse effects on non-pest species;

(c)  the situations in which those deterrents are totally inappropriate (for example, in a lambing field).

 

RSPB acknowledge that they have no expertise at all in use of bird deterrents.

“..…the RSPB is not generally involved in deterring and scaring birds or other animals…..

…..the RSPB has not evaluated these deterrents, we cannot guarantee their success. Similarly, since we have not tested the products, we cannot recommend or endorse the products…..”

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/bird-scarers-and-deterrents/

 

Did Packham and Avery produce some convincing new body of data of which the RPSB is as yet unaware?   Or did Natural England staff and lawyers submit to pressure from Wild Justice without even bothering to consider the science?

 

RSPB have stated that:

“….. these deterrents are not species specific, but would deter any bird from within the effective range.”

In other words, RSPB acknowledge that attempts to deter pests (for example, enormous flocks of woodpigeons) are very likely to have adverse effects on endangered and beneficial species in the same area.   Did Natural England fail to draw attention to this?

 

Did Natural England point out that people who control pests by shooting will invariably seek to minimise noise and remain invisible as far as possible, whereas the deterrents favoured by Packham and Avery are intended to create maximum noise and visual intrusion in the environment.

 

Anyone demanding that farmers install acoustic and/or visual deterrents in a lambing field is guilty of an appalling disregard for animal welfare.   I do wonder about the mentality of people would try to have such a despicable policy imposed.   There are also other domestic animals to be considered, as well as the human population of rural areas.    Would Natural England be likely to have pressed this strongly during the legal proceedings, or might their staff be somewhat ignorant of rural affairs and animal welfare?

 

Finally, will we ever be able to find out how much taxpayers’ money has been squandered in this ludicrous exercise?

Great post.

[JohnfromUK]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

with the exception that now we have to physically apply for it?

It is only the temporary 'stopgap' individual license for which you have to apply.  As I understand it, you will not have to apply (or register) to use the new replacement licenses which BASC advise are mostly to be issued w/c 29th April.

I agree there doesn't seem to be much change from the old ......... but suspect small changes to the wording have made huge changes to the legal standing.  I am not a lawyer, but legal fortunes are made from small wording changes.

[sam triple]

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 13:36, ShootingEgg said:

Laughable.... 

Ive been stalking and foxing.. 

does anyone know or heard what the RSPB has sad about this sorry episode