Changes To The General Licence

[old'un]

13 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Exce

Did you apply online for your licence for crop protection from pigeons.

Yes, it’s the Microsoft word version…https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-control-certain-species

Although I have not applied myself as I think it leaves you open to possible prosecution if you do not follow it to the letter, its unworkable, and I am not willing to-be the first test case.

Edited April 30, 2019 by old'un

[Good shot?]

1 hour ago, yickdaz said:

just had notification of this, is this the actual new general licence then ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-control-certain-species

It just details an update to earlier 'personal crow' licence requiring the keeping of records of action taken whilst awaiting issue of personal licence after your application.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Good shot?

[Mice!]

39 minutes ago, HW682 said:

BBC 6pm news now

I've just seen it, is that the first thing that's been on the news? 

Packham was his usual self, they don't want to stop people protecting their lively hoods, seems iffy to me, they know for a fact people shoot for sport, claimed people are vandalising the countryside .

they showed rooks no pigeons and some pics of a pecked lamb.

stopped typing for a phone call, 14 more msgs, apologies if this has already been said.

And nothing from any shooting orgs on the news piece.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Mice!

[yickdaz]

8 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

It just details an update to earlier 'personal crow' licence requiring the keeping of records of action taken whilst awaiting issue of personal licence after your application.

[lancer425]

6 minutes ago, old'un said:

No I was being a little pedantic, as far as I am aware, so long as you have applied for a personal licence to shoot pigeons you do not need to carry it on your person.

Again i did not think you needed to apply for a individual license, for crows Over stock etc, after Friday gone. 

The registration and individual licenses are not working i am still waiting for the confirmation form to arrive at home, i got the individual forms all filled out ready to go. 

I thought the crow on friday was the go on this. well In NEs oppinion anyway.

[old'un]

1 minute ago, lancer425 said:

Again i did not think you needed to apply for a individual license, for crows Over stock etc, after Friday gone. 

The registration and individual licenses are not working i am still waiting for the confirmation form to arrive at home, i got the individual forms all filled out ready to go. 

I thought the crow on friday was the go on this. well In NEs oppinion anyway.

That’s why I have put pigeon in my reply.

[lancer425]

Just now, old'un said:

That’s why I have put pigeon in my reply.

OK sorry i missed that .

[HW682]

10 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I've just seen it, is that the first thing that's been on the news? 

Packham was his usual self, they don't want to stop people protecting their lively hoods, seems iffy to me, they know for a fact people shoot for sport, claimed people are vandalising the countryside .

they showed rooks no pigeons and some pics of a pecked lamb.

stopped typing for a phone call, 14 more msgs, apologies if this has already been said.

They made a point of saying the photos showed a lamb alleged to have been attacked by crows.

Then showed photos of crows hung on a gate and a blurred photo of a parcel sent to Packham and referred to death threats - without feeling the need to say alleged.

(they probably were genuine because it only takes one to spoil it for the rest - but then we all know the lamb picture is highly likely to be genuine as well. So there was an in-balance in using "alleged" to cast doubt on the pro-shooting argument if you want to describe it simplistically as that, but not on anything Packham said.)

Edited April 30, 2019 by HW682

[Mighty Ruler]

There can be no doubt that crows do attack lambs, there’s video of it on YouTube so I can’t see why they felt the need to say alleged.

[Scully]

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

[lancer425]

1 minute ago, HW682 said:

They made a point of saying the photos showed a lamb alleged to have been attacked by crows.

Then showed photos of crows hung on a gate and a blurred photo of a parcel sent to Packham and referred to death threats - without feeling the need to say alleged.

(they probably were genuine because it only takes one to spoil it for the rest - but then we all know the lamb picture is highly likely to be genuine as well. So there was an in balance in using "alleged" to cast doubt on the pro-shooting argument if you want to describe it simplistically as that, but not on anything Packham said.)

But nothing unexpected sadly, the BBC are terrible we all pay a tv license and the £160 or whatever it is now is effectively going towards offering an anti shooting /  hunting bias  to any news  features. I feel the unique way the BBC is funded needs addressing and with public feeling against tv licensing and the fact they pay packham the very person who along with his WJ group, as caused this situation, which needed proper consultation and debate. not just rushing through exactly what Tony Juniper and NE want in place.

 Could be a good time to move on the TV licencing via a poll on the government site, i thought i saw poll on something similar the other day in this very thread but i can not find it. .

[TIGHTCHOKE]

6 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

There can be no doubt that crows do attack lambs, there’s video of it on YouTube so I can’t see why they felt the need to say alleged.

Because they are "running scared" of any possible litigation from Wild Justice!

[Mice!]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

but that would suggest their trying to stop shooting by stealth, can't imagine they would do that🙄🙄

don't think your missing anything, from a shooters point of view your shooting pigeon to keep them moving and reduce numbers, as they keep coming back despite you scaring them off.

from the other side your just enjoying being out shooting??

[Mighty Ruler]

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Because they are "running scared" of any possible litigation from Wild Justice!

Or maybe they are supporters of Wild Justice.

The Midlands news that followed had a piece on culling greys and re-introducing reds in Gloucestershire, I wonder if Packham was watching.

[lancer425]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

No but you could use the fact you are decoying crows pigeons whatever on a field where non lethal means have been explored but found wanting, and as these birds present a problem in that or surounding areas, you need to use lethal force, and as such you need to encourage them to come in range of you to carry out the sad task however upsetting of killing them.

Decoys in this instance are just helping you be more efficient at carrying out an unavoidable task. .

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present.

That's they key issue; scaring works temporarily, but not in a practical way.  It is not practical to have someone there all daylight hours.  The measure that have to be tried before shootjng have to be practical.

[old'un]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

that’s what I have been trying to get across but obviously not making a very good job of it.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

Hi Scully

Reckon we might be over thinking this. Scaring will only work once by walking them off the field, the birds will come back or go to another part of the field so the non lethal action is not effective in stopping them.

[dodgy dave]

53 minutes ago, old man said:

Carry on I''ll hold your coat, be sure to take a change of underwear maybe?

 

well i will say if there are any ilegal coursing reported around here  there soon out helicopter anorl 

[Mighty Ruler]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

Thinking logically about this, I'm starting to wonder how we can ( under the terms of the license ) lawfully decoy again if the same non lethal methods applying to crows apply to pigeons also. Decoying isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'scaring' ( quite the opposite in fact ) and all it takes for someone in a hide to 'scare', is to make their presence known by standing up and waving. There is no lawful right to shoot if 'scaring' works, which it does, albeit only while the person doing the scaring is present. 

Shooting can no longer be a last resort if showing oneself will scare birds away. Am I missing something? 

Well if we can’t decoy them in to shotgun range we may as well bin the shotguns and apply for a fac and shoot them with a rifle. I’m sure loads of fac applications will go down well with the media.

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That's they key issue; scaring works temporarily, but not in a practical way.  It is not practical to have someone there all daylight hours.  The measure that have to be tried before shootjng have to be practical.

I know what you’re saying, but shooting also only works while the shooter is there. 🤔

[Ultrastu]

Well i dont know about you guys but my hushpowers dont scare pigeons properly at 100 yds .i have to decoy them into 35 yds to really scare the budders .

Just now, Scully said:

I know what you’re saying, but shooting also only works while the shooter is there. 🤔

Yeah but those dead pigeons dont keep eating crops so its permenent for those birds. 

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, Hammeronhammeroff said:

Hi Scully

Reckon we might be over thinking this. Scaring will only work once by walking them off the field, the birds will come back or go to another part of the field so the non lethal action is not effective in stopping them.

I hope you’re right, but I refer you to the answer I gave to Johnfromuk. 

1 minute ago, Ultrastu said:

Well i dont know about you guys but my hushpowers dont scare pigeons properly at 100 yds .i have to decoy them into 35 yds to really scare the budders .

Yeah but those dead pigeons dont keep eating crops so its permenent for those birds. 

Well I can’t dispute that last paragraph, which is why I think we should be pushing for an ‘open’ license for crows and pigeons.  

[Timerider]

Apologies if someone has already put this link on

https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2019/04/30/general-licences-tuesday-30-april-update/

[old man]

10 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

Well if we can’t decoy them in to shotgun range we may as well bin the shotguns and apply for a fac and shoot them with a rifle. I’m sure loads of fac applications will go down well with the media.

Probably not a good call as "all birds are protected" by law.