Legal Quarry

[wymberley]

Scenario: The recently cut silage is sprouting well with clover in particular showing through and on a recce' you see it's blue with pigeon. Having tried everything you can think of, you finally decide that there's no other option so get the kit. A productive day has kept the field clear and you have a half decent bag into the bargain which includes a crow and a jackdaw which offered the chance of a pot shot.

Or not legal quarry?

[arjimlad]

Consider what will be planted next, what will be planted or is present in the vicinity, and what harm this pigeon population is doing/going to do there. Whilst they may not be a problem on this field, over the hedge may be a very different story and you need to reduce the local numbers to prevent serious harm to crops.  Crow = protecting songbirds. Jackdaw ? no idea !!

[Bobba]

Frankly, you could put this question to 10 lawyers, put them in a room for a day, and you will have 10 answers.

Clover. GL36 - If used for grazing animals it could be regarded as preventing damage to foodstuffs for animals. If harvested it could be regarded as a crop. So possibly use this defence.

GL34 to protect flora and fauna. Not defined in the GL as to what constitutes F&F and can't find a legal definition but the reference is to a Wild birds etc and maybe wild is the operative word and so it's perhaps relevant wild flora not cultivated flora. Maybe not possibly a defence.

just my view.

[walshie]

The GLs aren't any different to what they used to be. Shooting a bird based on what it might have eaten or may intend to eat in the future is not good reason. The pigeons are fine, the crow and the jackdaw not so much. Just my opinion as ever. 

[David BASC]

When you shoot quarry covered under any of the GL's, its up to you to ensure that you are complying with the relevant GL, that's the case now and that has been the case since the early '90's. It is as simple as that.

[wymberley]

54 minutes ago, David BASC said:

When you shoot quarry covered under any of the GL's, its up to you to ensure that you are complying with the relevant GL, that's the case now and that has been the case since the early '90's. It is as simple as that.

 I suppose if you spend a lot of time speaking to politicians, eventually you'll start to talk like them and avoid answering any question. 

[Bobba]

48 minutes ago, David BASC said:

When you shoot quarry covered under any of the GL's, its up to you to ensure that you are complying with the relevant GL, that's the case now and that has been the case since the early '90's. It is as simple as that.

Nobody would dispute this comment but it misses the point of the conundrum posed by the OP which is that in the described scenario were the shot birds legal quarry or not. So, David, as a 10 year paid up member of the BASC clan if I telephoned you for advice what would it be to this member in the circumstances described?

[Longstrider]

Once the jackdaw is on the ground and stationary you can walk over and ask it what it's intentions were ....

[bornfree]

3 hours ago, Longstrider said:

Once the jackdaw is on the ground and stationary you can walk over and ask it what it's intentions were ....

Caw caw caw'n

[barbel]

we all have bad days, but if david represents the basc, it would put me off getting involved with them, saying that we all have bad days.

[PPP]

Can I respectfully suggest that unless you are 100% sure on what grounds you are shooting something, don’t shoot it.

[Old farrier]

Obviously after trying all methods and checking with the farmer that he was familiar with the new revamped general license before I set up and being well aware of the farmers crops in the area along with the rare nesting birds in the vicinity and the problem caused by the jackdaws to the local farmer 

i would feel I could justify shooting them 

 

tin hat on 

 

[JDog]

11 hours ago, wymberley said:

Scenario: The recently cut silage is sprouting well with clover in particular showing through and on a recce' you see it's blue with pigeon. Having tried everything you can think of, you finally decide that there's no other option so get the kit. A productive day has kept the field clear and you have a half decent bag into the bargain which includes a crow and a jackdaw which offered the chance of a pot shot.

Or not legal quarry?

These hypothetical scenarios only serve to sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the decoyer acting under the law and as such are pointless. 

[holloway]

This thread is making me laugh ,basically there is little change in the way the new license works from the old one ,we can all read it ourselves but some here are happy to have ago at David Basc for his accurate answer.

So if a court case comes up they can say "but Basc said it would be ok its all there fault " come on READ the license yourselves dont be so lazy.

If a Jackdaw flies over and you kill it when you didnt have to then the choice is yours surely.

Out Pheasant shooting on a quiet drive when a Pigeon flies over without thinking we kill it and the sad unfortunate bird ends up in the bag, legal or not its your choice you cant expect Basc or anyone else to tell you if its right or wrong, in my opinion it would be killing for fun the same as the Pheasants.Dont get me wrong i have done exactly this but what good has killing that one Pigeon done ? pest control ,?crop protection ?you would be hard pressed to say either in a court .

Basc and the other shooting orgaisations have worked hard and successfully over the last few months they cant send people out to stand with us when we shoot we should all be able to read and understand what is written ourselves as responsible adults with shotguns i would hope so anyway.

[ShootingEgg]

My take on this for what it is worth. 

You describe the clover field being blue with pigeon so you set up to shoot for crop Protection against pigeon, two other species flew over in range but not coming in to the crop. 

The reason for the legal challenge was due to shooting for fun or sport and not within the stated gl. So you could argue that a pot shot is sport and not acting within the gl. Question is, can you defend yourself if asked why, could you prove that it was going to cause, or is causing damage under any one of the GL's at the time you shot it. 

 

[JJsDad]

10 hours ago, holloway said:

This thread is making me laugh ,basically there is little change in the way the new license works from the old one ,we can all read it ourselves but some here are happy to have ago at David Basc for his accurate answer.

So if a court case comes up they can say "but Basc said it would be ok its all there fault " come on READ the license yourselves dont be so lazy.

If a Jackdaw flies over and you kill it when you didnt have to then the choice is yours surely.

Out Pheasant shooting on a quiet drive when a Pigeon flies over without thinking we kill it and the sad unfortunate bird ends up in the bag, legal or not its your choice you cant expect Basc or anyone else to tell you if its right or wrong, in my opinion it would be killing for fun the same as the Pheasants.Dont get me wrong i have done exactly this but what good has killing that one Pigeon done ? pest control ,?crop protection ?you would be hard pressed to say either in a court .

Basc and the other shooting orgaisations have worked hard and successfully over the last few months they cant send people out to stand with us when we shoot we should all be able to read and understand what is written ourselves as responsible adults with shotguns i would hope so anyway.

Exactly. The most wise words I have read this week. I shake my head in amazement at the number of people who have put up queries on this forum over the last few weeks, asking can they do `this` or `that`. They have clearly never read the licence, and actually think if questioned their defence can be a reply that they got from someone on Pigeon Watch. 

[old'un]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

My take on this for what it is worth. 

You describe the clover field being blue with pigeon so you set up to shoot for crop Protection against pigeon, two other species flew over in range but not coming in to the crop. 

The reason for the legal challenge was due to shooting for fun or sport and not within the stated gl. So you could argue that a pot shot is sport and not acting within the gl. Question is, can you defend yourself if asked why, could you prove that it was going to cause, or is causing damage under any one of the GL's at the time you shot it. 

 

I remember a few years back shooting on a field of laid barley, it was getting hammered by blacks, strangely the pigeons were not interested but a lone pigeon flew over about 40 yards up going somewhere else, I mounted the gun and swung through and it folded falling in another field of barley behind me, now, was that a lawful shot?   

[ShootingEgg]

8 minutes ago, old'un said:

I remember a few years back shooting on a field of laid barley, it was getting hammered by blacks, strangely the pigeons were not interested but a lone pigeon flew over about 40 yards up going somewhere else, I mounted the gun and swung through and it folded falling in another field of barley behind me, now, was that a lawful shot?   

And that is where you are in a huge gray area. That pigeon was just flying over. No one knows where it was headed or what it was about to do.. 

[London Best]

But it has stopped eating barley now.

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

My take on this for what it is worth. 

You describe the clover field being blue with pigeon so you set up to shoot for crop Protection against pigeon, two other species flew over in range but not coming in to the crop. 

The reason for the legal challenge was due to shooting for fun or sport and not within the stated gl. So you could argue that a pot shot is sport and not acting within the gl. Question is, can you defend yourself if asked why, could you prove that it was going to cause, or is causing damage under any one of the GL's at the time you shot it. 

 

It really is that simple. By definition, "pot shot" infers that there was no prior consideration given to any particular shot and therefore does not comply with any GL. Apart from which, even if either of those species came into land in that field they were in all probability going to help the farmer by going after leather jackets.

l concede that it isn't great issue, except. We have not had such great GL clarity for many years which means that we can relax more and enjoy our shooting knowing better how we stand. Although initially there was some damage incurred, not to mention inconvenience suffered, you could debate that WJ have actually done us all a favour. They know this and will not be best pleased. There is further debate on this overall topic planned for later this summer. What we really, really don't need is a slack handful of proven activities such as those mentioned being raised at this time. We need to be on our best behaviour because you can be quite sure they'll be looking for trouble.

 

[old'un]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

But it has stopped eating barley now.

It was not eating barley it was heading somewhere else and that’s part of the problem we are trying to anticipate what the birds intentions are in those circumstances.

Last October I was shooting on a field of cut maize, there were a few pigeons but it was mainly blacks, after shooting for about 3 hours I had a pile of blacks next to my hide, now if someone approached me and asked why I was killing them as they were doing no harm, my answer today would have to-be, ‘well the farmer is going to sow some winter barley soon so I have anticipated they will hit the barley when sown’ I could apply the same reasoning for shooting the passing pigeon, or  wymberley shooting the passing blacks.

Whether my judgment of the birds latter intentions would be a good defence in a court, I have no idea, but it’s the only defence I/we have.

I think that if under the new GL you are shooting birds on any crop that is getting attention then you are safe to shoot said birds, the only thing in the licence that is open to interpretation is the words “serious damage”

Edited June 19, 2019 by old'un

[Teal]

FWIW generally there is an assumption of innocence. So the burden or proof would be on the other party to prove the future intentions of the bird. So rather than being a weak line of defence, it's probably a fairly weak line of prosecution. 

As said above if you are satisfied you are shooting under GL conditions, then you probably are. Shooting a jackdaw and crow at this time of year for protection of flora/fauna, would be on safer ground than, say in three months when we are outside of the nesting season. But that is my opinion, and you may be better relying on other GLs if you are shooting/trapping crows/jackdaws/magpies outside of the bird nesting season, or the immediate period prior to it.

[wymberley]

The one big problem we have is mindset. For nigh on 2 generations it has increasingly been considered that pigeon shooting is simply a sport. Some think it's a poor mans' version of driven pheasant shooting. I disagree on this one, as the targets can be so damned unpredictable, I think it's a thinking mans' version. Whole industries have grown and in some cases prospered based on this illusion. Because illusion is what it is. By current definition, it is vermin control operating under strictly controlled conditions. You might just think that the NTS situation is dormant. It is not. WJ are still broadcasting "the fact" that we are flouting the lead shot ban. For the future of my 'sport' I think we should act with a degree of prudence until the forthcoming discussions mainly regarding shooting over sensitive locations are complete. We don't really need Avery up on his hind legs with details of specific occurences explaining that if we can't even control ourselves about what we shoot at, how can we be relied upon not to voluntarily shoot within xxxx metres of yyyy sensitive location.

[ladyjack]

2 hours ago, old'un said:

It was not eating barley it was heading somewhere else and that’s part of the problem we are trying to anticipate what the birds intentions are in those circumstances.

Last October I was shooting on a field of cut maize, there were a few pigeons but it was mainly blacks, after shooting for about 3 hours I had a pile of blacks next to my hide, now if someone approached me and asked why I was killing them as they were doing no harm, my answer today would have to-be, ‘well the farmer is going to sow some winter barley soon so I have anticipated they will hit the barley when sown’ I could apply the same reasoning for shooting the passing pigeon, or  wymberley shooting the passing blacks.

Whether my judgment of the birds latter intentions would be a good defence in a court, I have no idea, but it’s the only defence I/we have.

I think that if under the new GL you are shooting birds on any crop that is getting attention then you are safe to shoot said birds, the only thing in the licence that is open to interpretation is the words “serious damage”

Here here,if I am shooting crop or shooting in a wood, if a pigeon crow magpie or anything else on my licence, comes in  then I am going to shoot,  it, because as Ia concerned I am covered.

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, ladyjack said:

Here here,if I am shooting crop or shooting in a wood, if a pigeon crow magpie or anything else on my licence, comes in  then I am going to shoot,  it, because as Ia concerned I am covered.

Way to go! Good luck on your "shooting wanted" post.