Back To Basics

[wymberley]

As rumour control has got hold of this whole situation and is running amok with it, would it not pay to pause for a rethink? What was deemed to be the problem of the existing GL04? I do not know whether or not this is right, but I understood - in simple terms to suit my needs -  it was the fact that the "implementation ground rules" we're missing from those licences issued by NE, whereas they were in place for those previously issued by Defra. As the 2019 issue is still on view albeit marked as withdrawn, somewhere the pre NE version from Defra will still be available. As I'm in doubt as to the correct reason, can anyone kindly put me straight if I'm wrong? And then follow that up with the correct version if possible.

[ShootingEgg]

I think WJ didn't like that it was not policed or checked by NE meaning any one could go out and shoot a corvid a pigeon, parakeet etc if they felt like it, rather than it being for crop protection or flora/fauna. Also they are protectionists and are aiming at eradicating shooting live quarry, the GL was just an easy target. The RSPB are now targeting grouse shooting and trying to remove estates in Scotland even though they have themselves proven non managed moors don't work, they are ignoring their own findings 

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

I think WJ didn't like that it was not policed or checked by NE meaning any one could go out and shoot a corvid a pigeon, parakeet etc if they felt like it, rather than it being for crop protection or flora/fauna. Also they are protectionists and are aiming at eradicating shooting live quarry, the GL was just an easy target. The RSPB are now targeting grouse shooting and trying to remove estates in Scotland even though they have themselves proven non managed moors don't work, they are ignoring their own findings 

Legally speaking, not strictly true as there's just the matter of "authorised persons" and for the "purpose of crop protection". Either one or both inapplicable and you're breaking the law.

[ShootingEgg]

4 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Legally speaking, not strictly true as there's just the matter of "authorised persons" and for the "purpose of crop protection". Either one or both inapplicable and you're breaking the law.

But what I say is what WJ said it was... They kicked off saying it wasn't being monitored... And people Coul md just had fun.. 

[wymberley]

4 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

But what I say is what WJ said it was... They kicked off saying it wasn't being monitored... And people Coul md just had fun.. 

Exactly!

This is precisely why I asked motty for some info and also started this thread. For my money, here lies the confusion The question is is which end of the licence is not being monitored. On one hand it could be the actual activities of the supposedly "authorised persons" - which, although I'm guessing, is possibly what you're referring to. On the other, is it the lack of detailing of the pre shooting (lethal) checks and detailing of the necessary non lethal actions to be taken before shooting can commence. Certainly in this respect there is a distinct difference between GL 04 and GL 31.. I have to confess to not being totally with it back along because of some disasterous medication but I thought WJ's point was the discrepency between the pre shooting checks as detailed on the original Defra GL issues and the NE version. Unfortunately, although they most certainly exist, I have been unable to find any of the Defra 'in house' versions.

My gut feeling is that it has to be the pre shooting criteria that annoyed WJ. Simply because, yep, you can take a government department to task for their own failings, but you can't make them responsible for the actions of the individual shooter which with a fair few 1,000s of us, good luck with the crowd-funding collection to pay for those private prosecutions.