What’s taking so long

[JJsDad]

2 hours ago, motty said:

Some woman said it, so that must be ok!

Bit more than `some woman` motty. She is a Director at Natural England. While your analogy to the other woman who was sorting out brexit for us is amusing, I dont think you are comparing like with like. Ms Cotterill`s remarks have been recorded and she does not have the Parlimentary Privilege afforded to our late PM when making statements of policy. I suspect any case brought against someone who had followed the advice laid down in GL31 and additional assurances quoted by Ms Cotterill, would see the charge thrown out of court.

Hopefully, when Mr Gove gets over his latest embarassment of shoving coke up his nose before he became an MP, we will see an amended & simplified GL for Pigeon. However, I wont hold my breath !

[wymberley]

36 minutes ago, Harnser said:

That women has put it in writing . See old bogeys post

harnset

Actually, she's on pretty firm ground here, there being a precedent - albeit for deer, but surely, what could apply to them could also apply to the woodpigeon arguably being the greater threat. Section 10A of the Deer Act 1963 refers - regarding the activities of "authorised persons" which we are under the terms of the GL.

[marsh man]

2 hours ago, motty said:

 

Just one more point on this. I shoot on over 20 farms, and many hundreds of fields. Are you suggesting that I have to ask each farmer for a complete map of his rotation each year?

We should think ourselves lucky that the first 8 / 9 page license wasn't set in concrete and we had to give a map reference on each field we went on , it would have been a nightmare for you having over 20 farms and many hundreds of fields to shoot over .

A lot of times I never end up on the field I intended to go , many reasons , such as spraying , hedge cutting , wind direction and so on, what a pain it would have been in filling a form up and then end up somewhere else .

As I said , this latest G L is not perfect but we can now carry on shooting pigeons without to much hassle .

[Old Boggy]

6 minutes ago, marsh man said:

We should think ourselves lucky that the first 8 / 9 page license wasn't set in concrete and we had to give a map reference on each field we went on , it would have been a nightmare for you having over 20 farms and many hundreds of fields to shoot over .

A lot of times I never end up on the field I intended to go , many reasons , such as spraying , hedge cutting , wind direction and so on, what a pain it would have been in filling a form up and then end up somewhere else .

As I said , this latest G L is not perfect but we can now carry on shooting pigeons without to much hassle .

I'm totally with you on this MM. Also with your previous comment that if you or I refrained from shooting, despite being requested to do so by our respective farmers, then someone else would soon take our place in carrying out their crop protection. Providing that both the farmer and I, as MM says, are singing from the same hymn sheet and I satisfy myself that we (after all it is a combined effort) have complied reasonably and practically with the terms of GL31, then I have no qualms in venturing forth to shoot.

With regards to the definition of 'adjacent' when referring to potential or future damage, I would regard this as crops in fields on the same farm. I would clarify this by stating that I could, if called to do so, with my farmer's documentation, prove the historical damage by pigeons and the consequential financial loss due to this damage as good reason to shoot pigeons on stubble, on the basis that those on stubble will shortly be attacking growing crops, be it ripening wheat, flattened barley, standing beans etc.

OB

 

[motty]

18 hours ago, wymberley said:

 

I wasn't aware of this, but could have easily missed it amongst all the hoo haa. Can you possibly give a reference?

No, I can't give any references, but stubble shooting is the area where it is hardest to cite crop protection as your reason for shooting. This, coupled with my firm belief that around 90% of all pigeons killed are shot on stubbles each year, then I think it is reasonable to assume that this is what Mr Packham and the rest considered killing for mere sport.

As a side note, I think that this harvest could see a real abundance of pigeons, given all the confusion we have faced. Pigeons in many areas will have been allowed to breed unmolested.

[ShootingEgg]

1 minute ago, motty said:

No, I can't give any references, but stubble shooting is the area where it is hardest to cite crop protection as your reason for shooting. This, coupled with my firm belief that around 90% of all pigeons killed are shot on stubbles each year, then I think it is reasonable to assume that this is what Mr Packham and the rest considered killing for mere sport.

As a side note, I think that this harvest could see a real abundance of pigeons, given all the confusion we have faced. Pigeons in many areas will have been allowed to breed unmolested.

No one I know locally to me has been actively shooting pigeons, the licences are very vague and worded in a way that will get the shooter in the hot water if challenged. 

[motty]

1 minute ago, ShootingEgg said:

No one I know locally to me has been actively shooting pigeons, the licences are very vague and worded in a way that will get the shooter in the hot water if challenged. 

As previously mentioned, I have been shooting a few times, but it has certainly made me think about what I'm doing.

[wymberley]

33 minutes ago, motty said:

No, I can't give any references, but stubble shooting is the area where it is hardest to cite crop protection as your reason for shooting. This, coupled with my firm belief that around 90% of all pigeons killed are shot on stubbles each year, then I think it is reasonable to assume that this is what Mr Packham and the rest considered killing for mere sport.

As a side note, I think that this harvest could see a real abundance of pigeons, given all the confusion we have faced. Pigeons in many areas will have been allowed to breed unmolested.

Thanks for taking the time, motty. I, personally, think that all might just be well - well, almost.I believe that there's a general consensus that the stubbles are getting shorter and shorter with regards to the period before they're ploughed. If we're limited by this time constraint, then we need to keep an eye on the roost shooting. Also, if you're right and WJ is going after the "sporting/pleasure" aspect, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'ere long they're going to twig that they may well have shot themselves in the foot on this occasion. If that turns out to be correct, then they're not going to be well pleased and could well decide to go again. This time it won't be the vermin control aspect -  the too late realisation that the essential need for this is what upset their applecart - it'll be directed at the only possible other target. The understanding of the reason that we do what we do has started to erode over the decades, so perhaps a timely reminder is no bad thing as you rightly hint at above. Unfortunately, in this day and age, knowing why it is you're doing something is not always deemed sufficient.

[panoma1]

It's  taking so long because Gove has more important things to do at the moment....like looking after his own future ambitions/interests!

[old'un]

On 07/06/2019 at 07:08, Old Boggy said:

Hi Motty,

As I posted the other day, Caroline Cotterell a director of Natural England, confirmed that it is OK to shoot pigeons on stubbles if you are protecting an adjacent or future crop. That's good enough for me and I will continue to do so at harvest and like Marshman, have the backing of my farmer friends. This could also be extrapolated to shooting a flightline.

OB

Do you have a link to the wording?...

[Old Boggy]

5 hours ago, old'un said:

Do you have a link to the wording?...

Hi Old'un,

If you look at my topic in this General Licence Discussion section entitled 'Natural England - Caroline Cotterell', I've posted (my third post down) a copy of a discussion between Shooting Times and Natural England's director Caroline Cotterell.

OB

[old'un]

9 hours ago, Old Boggy said:

Hi Old'un,

If you look at my topic in this General Licence Discussion section entitled 'Natural England - Caroline Cotterell', I've posted (my third post down) a copy of a discussion between Shooting Times and Natural England's director Caroline Cotterell.

OB

Yes, I do remember your post, I commented at the time that I would like to see it in writing from her (NE) how many times have we seen in the tabloids someone denying what was allegedly said by them, I think my original reply to your post still stands.

Don’t think I would like to base my defence on, well…the shooting times said that she said.

[motty]

2 hours ago, old'un said:

Yes, I do remember your post, I commented at the time that I would like to see it in writing from her (NE) how many times have we seen in the tabloids someone denying what was allegedly said by them, I think my original reply to your post still stands.

Don’t think I would like to base my defence on, well…the shooting times said that she said.

Exactly!

[JJsDad]

 

18 hours ago, panoma1 said:

like looking after his own future ambitions/interests!

Apparently he is rather tied up at present doing trade deals with South American countries !

 

 

[old'un]

2 hours ago, JJsDad said:

 

Apparently he is rather tied up at present doing trade deals with South American countries !

 

 

Brilliant..

[Browning1]

Is shooting on stubbles classes as crop protection?

[panoma1]

More delays I understand? At the behest of the DEFRA minister (Gove)......as I said in a previous post  he has more important things to do!

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

More delays I understand? At the behest of the DEFRA minister (Gove)......as I said in a previous post  he has more important things to do!

Perhaps he will wake up and smell the coffee - on no, wait, his nose is shot with sniffing coke.

[JJsDad]

2 hours ago, Browning1 said:

Is shooting on stubbles classes as crop protection?

Welcome to Pigeon Watch !  Have you read General Licence (GL) 31 ?

Your question seems to suggest you havent, which could inadvertantly lead you into all sorts of trouble.

Edited June 10, 2019 by JJsDad

[Browning1]

13 hours ago, JJsDad said:

Welcome to Pigeon Watch !  Have you read General Licence (GL) 31 ?

Your question seems to suggest you havent, which could inadvertantly lead you into all sorts of trouble.

Yes i have read GL31. However the phrase crop protection is open for interpretation. By shooting over stubbles it could be interpreted that you are protecting future crop growth?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

The whole shebang is open to interpretation!

[mossy835]

i dont know how thy will get around this.with out it all being open to interpretion.

 

[Old Boggy]

1 hour ago, Browning1 said:

Yes i have read GL31. However the phrase crop protection is open for interpretation. By shooting over stubbles it could be interpreted that you are protecting future crop growth?

That is my interpretation.

The wording of GL31 section 2 states inter alia -:

'where serious damage is occurring or is reasonably expected to occur'

If there are many pigeons feeding on stubbles and there is an adjacent crop, which historically i.e in previous years, has suffered serious damage, (NE's terminology, not mine) then it is reasonable to assume that once the food on the stubbles has been gleaned off, or more likely ploughed in, that pigeons will then cause serious damage to that crop.

However, I do not believe that when (or if) a revised version of GL31 is issued, it will ever be concise and precise as to cover all eventualities.

OB

[Bobba]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The whole shebang is open to interpretation!

Couldn't agree more.

A particular wording which I find interesting is Section 8 (b) ......and reasonable endeavours must be made...." (Unless their use would be impracticable, without effect or disproportionate in the circumstances)"  

What "circumstances"? there is no definition in Section 12. Can there be different circumstances from farm to farm? In my case, for example, my farming friend is a tenant farmer (Exclusively crops) who lives on one farm and farms four other areas within a 5 mile radius, the total comprising 50 fields. He employs a contract worker during harvest, hedging and planting time and the rest of the year he's a one man band. When pigeons, crows etc become a problem and 'where serious damage is occurring or is reasonably expected to occur', the question is, is it reasonable and or practical for him to be expected to drive around all these areas on a regular basis, continually changing the humane methods of deterrent when he has real work to do? Or could it be argued in his circumstances that having put out one set of deterrent on each farm to continue to do so would be "impractical......... and disproportionate in the circumstances."?

Now gentlemen, I do not wish to start a massive debate on this particular aspect but use it to illustrate the problems we face and how GL31 is, as BASC has stated, not fit for purpose. (Actually, I may just pose this to BASC and seek an opinion. If I get one I'll let you know)

[wymberley]

30 minutes ago, Bobba said:

Couldn't agree more.

A particular wording which I find interesting is Section 8 (b) ......and reasonable endeavours must be made...." (Unless their use would be impracticable, without effect or disproportionate in the circumstances)"  

What "circumstances"? there is no definition in Section 12. Can there be different circumstances from farm to farm? In my case, for example, my farming friend is a tenant farmer (Exclusively crops) who lives on one farm and farms four other areas within a 5 mile radius, the total comprising 50 fields. He employs a contract worker during harvest, hedging and planting time and the rest of the year he's a one man band. When pigeons, crows etc become a problem and 'where serious damage is occurring or is reasonably expected to occur', the question is, is it reasonable and or practical for him to be expected to drive around all these areas on a regular basis, continually changing the humane methods of deterrent when he has real work to do? Or could it be argued in his circumstances that having put out one set of deterrent on each farm to continue to do so would be "impractical......... and disproportionate in the circumstances."?

Now gentlemen, I do not wish to start a massive debate on this particular aspect but use it to illustrate the problems we face and how GL31 is, as BASC has stated, not fit for purpose. (Actually, I may just pose this to BASC and seek an opinion. If I get one I'll let you know)

Quite, as your (as opposed to mine) highlighted phrase renders debate impossible. It calls for an opinion. But whose? If it refers to that of the potential shooter, then that is his opinion, made at a given point in time and as such remains his opinion and cannot be questioned. We're talking about sub-para b. here, but then up pops e. which suggests that that opinion could be wrong. How can this be as there was no one else there at that time to offer up an alternative viewpoint? Consequently, it would be necessary for one of the officers detailed at e, to be available to make that decision to ensure that it was the correct one and could not therefore be over-ridden. How often does one find such a person lurking around Farmer Giles' 9 acre barley field just when you want him? On this occasion BASC et al are spot on. A truly pathetic situation.