ELVISTHEHOPICKER Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 On 04/08/2019 at 10:07, CharlieT said: What I find sad is why some, rather than simply giving the answer to a valid question, feel they need to vilify the poster in some warped belief that they are demonstrating their own intellectual superiority. Very sad. yes, you are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 4, 2020 Report Share Posted August 4, 2020 On 06/08/2019 at 07:27, Hamster said: There are several reasons why someone on a shooting forum may either not be fully aware of the latest changes or need reassurance from their community. Pigeon or decoying in general may simply not be their usual field sport, they may have done a little in the past and decided to have a fresh go or perhaps a farmer has asked them to, such a person wouldn't necessarily have clicked on every topic of discussion on the subject. In short the events would have been of varying degrees of importance to different people. I vaguely know tail docking is illegal but until the day I need to chop one off there's little point memorising the fine detail or learn the loopholes. They may have read the new licence but felt they couldn't fully comprehend certain points, they may have even heard contradictory advice from different shooters (when has that ever happened !). Worst case scenario is they're just too lazy to do the research themselves so they ask a straightforward question, even then it's not right to mock, if you know the answer then give it, I bet plenty reading this particular thread would have been interested in the answer . On 06/08/2019 at 21:37, Lloyd90 said: I’m still hungry 😭 The anti’s are on the offensive mate and out to cause trouble. If they call the Police and they turn up the OP and anyone else needs to know what they’re doing and have read the licence to ensure they’re following the terms of it. As said, it’s no good telling the copper “pigeon watch said it’s ok”. Two valid posts, let's join them together out of interest. All wild birds are protected. The GLs provide an exception for vermin control. Zeroing in on Lloyd 90, you are shooting squirrel/rabbit - whichever takes your fancy - having nothing else but your shotgun and a pigeon/crow - whichever takes your fancy - flies over and you takle a pot shot and down it comes. A rabid anti has seen you and calls Plod who duly arrives. Question which does need definition is are you and by association all shooters, guilty of an offence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 4, 2020 Report Share Posted August 4, 2020 Well, Charlie T, let me jump in feet first.....(someone has to!!).. One of the Conditions of those GL's which refer to pigeons and crows is "When this licence can be used". Here, as I read it, the requirement is saying that before relying on the protection of a GL when shooting birds listed in th GLs, one would (if called upon to do so - my additional words) have to demonstrate that reasonable endeavours had been made to achieve the purpose in question by legal methods not covered by the licence unless their use would be impractical or disproportionate. And so, someone merely taking a potshot at a passing bird while rabbiting / squirrelling may have great difficulty in demonstrating that they were complying with the terms of "When this licence can be used". In the event that they cannot do so then there is the risk of being found guilty of an offence. Just my reading of it. Happy to be proved wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 19 hours ago, Bobba said: Well, Charlie T, let me jump in feet first.....(someone has to!!).. One of the Conditions of those GL's which refer to pigeons and crows is "When this licence can be used". Here, as I read it, the requirement is saying that before relying on the protection of a GL when shooting birds listed in th GLs, one would (if called upon to do so - my additional words) have to demonstrate that reasonable endeavours had been made to achieve the purpose in question by legal methods not covered by the licence unless their use would be impractical or disproportionate. And so, someone merely taking a potshot at a passing bird while rabbiting / squirrelling may have great difficulty in demonstrating that they were complying with the terms of "When this licence can be used". In the event that they cannot do so then there is the risk of being found guilty of an offence. Just my reading of it. Happy to be proved wrong. Possibly it's just as well that you didn't dive in. 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, wymberley said: Possibly it's just as well that you didn't dive in. 😄 Hi, not sure what to make of your cryptic comment. Are you able to enlighten me further? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bobba said: Hi, not sure what to make of your cryptic comment. Are you able to enlighten me further? Thanks. Most importantly, please note the smiley. In reply could I just ask which post you were responding to this might help me with my answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, wymberley said: Most importantly, please note the smiley. In reply could I just ask which post you were responding to this might help me with my answer. Hi. Many thanks. Your post I was responding to was the one I copied, which was a response to my post. I did indeed note the Smiley. But I couldn't fathom out from that whether you were in agreement or otherwise with my interpretation. Hence my request for enlightenment. So, what is your view on my interpretation? Incidentally, having raised the Q Charlie T is rather quiet. Perhaps he's waiting quietly in the wings to see how people respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 I'm really confused now. In responding to my post you were greeting Charlie T. I know how it happened - our Devon Colours are designed to confuse the grockle and the foggy dews. As far as I'm aware Charlie raised no question - just made a couple of good and valid points. However, enough. To answer your question, I agree with you entirely. We do need to be careful on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, wymberley said: However, enough. To answer your question, I agree with you entirely. We do need to be careful on this one. Many thanks. Yes, as you say, we do need to be careful on this one. I do hope the new GLs will not be too prescriptive, probably wishful thinking. Grockle !!!! I lived in a Cornish village for three years and when I left they said "for an emmet you're not bad" An honour. It didn't spoil me. I still have my cream on first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 (edited) i have noticed that the professional guides, who in previous years post lots of pictures of big bags of stubble shot woodpigeons at this time of year, have gone very quiet with their social media output. Yet they have on other topics (ie deer stalking), mentioned that they are busy with the 'Danes on the pigeons' etc, yet are choosing not to self publicise, as they normally would. Makes me think they have doubts themselves about where their activities fall within the GL's. Edited August 6, 2020 by scolopax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipdog Posted August 5, 2020 Report Share Posted August 5, 2020 (edited) Shooting pigeons full stop falls within the scope of the general licence. If you are concerned about the pigeons in your area and their response to any deterrent you should undertake trails to satisfy yourself before shooting. Note the general licence only requires you to satisfy yourself, not an official in a white coat. Every year, gas bangers, reflective spinners and kites are deployed by farmers and I take photos of pigeons continuing to feed in their presence. Job done! GL satisfied. Edited August 5, 2020 by zipdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry2016 Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) On 03/08/2019 at 17:25, tigger got stichs said: can we or can we not shoot over stubbles under the new CL36 yes you can."preventative action" however you do need to read it an understand it so you can explain if approached On 04/08/2020 at 19:05, Bobba said: Well, Charlie T, let me jump in feet first.....(someone has to!!).. One of the Conditions of those GL's which refer to pigeons and crows is "When this licence can be used". Here, as I read it, the requirement is saying that before relying on the protection of a GL when shooting birds listed in th GLs, one would (if called upon to do so - my additional words) have to demonstrate that reasonable endeavours had been made to achieve the purpose in question by legal methods not covered by the licence unless their use would be impractical or disproportionate. And so, someone merely taking a potshot at a passing bird while rabbiting / squirrelling may have great difficulty in demonstrating that they were complying with the terms of "When this licence can be used". In the event that they cannot do so then there is the risk of being found guilty of an offence. Just my reading of it. Happy to be proved wrong. i would evidence by stating pigeons eat crops. turn out the crop, note the crops in and on adjacent fields. Safe as houses. you would in this case be undertaking pest control. That means rabbits squirrels and wood pigeon (under the GL) are fine. just because you do not have decoys for instance does not mean they are not eating crops Edited August 6, 2020 by Terry2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 17 minutes ago, Terry2016 said: yes you can."preventative action" however you do need to read it an understand it so you can explain if approached i would evidence by stating pigeons eat crops. turn out the crop, note the crops in and on adjacent fields. safe as houses. With respect Terry I think you've applied my response to the wrong Question. I was not responding to the opening Q raised by "Tigger got stitches" in 2019 which you have quoted. I was responding to the Q posed by Wymberley last Tues(who I mistakenly confused with Charlie T) where Wymberley posed the Q that if you're out shooting squirrels / rabbits and a pigeon / crow flies by and you take a pot shot at it and drop it are you committing an offence?. For the reasons I have stated we share the view that there is the risk of being charged with an offence. I would be interested in your view on Wymberley's Question. As to the original 2019 Q " can we or can we not shoot over stubble under GL36" I am of the same view as most on here that the answer is yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry2016 Posted August 6, 2020 Report Share Posted August 6, 2020 Hi Bobba, Maybe i did apologies, however if the question is "if you're out shooting squirrels / rabbits and a pigeon / crow flies by and you take a pot shot at it and drop it are you committing an offence?." No you are not committing an offence. You would be shooting that pigeon under GL36 for the protection of crops. You do not need to do anything to state you are going out to shoot pigeons. You do not need to take pr measures if you feel they would not work or are unrealistic. i would assume that tyou knew the ground you was shooting on and therefore shooting pigeons would be reducing cop damage. Its not really any different from shooting over stubble fields. Bw Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 10 hours ago, Terry2016 said: Its not really any different from shooting over stubble fields. Hi Terry, to my mind these words are the crux of the matter because, in my view, the example proposed by Wymberley is different, I guesse we'll agree to disagree. Good shooting. V quiet my way. Too much being cut all at once. Too much choice. ATB Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
243deer Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 I am with Terry on this one. Over the years on pretty much all farms, farmers have tried different ways of preventing crop damage. Anything new on the market gets tried and some even work locally for a short while such as the firework type rocket bangers with whizzy stars. However, so far, all such efforts have either proven to be ineffectual or non-economic in the long term hence the recognition with the General Licences that preventing damage is impossible but the amount of damage can be mitigated by a general reduction in numbers of specified pest species which are currently increasing in numbers and under no threat. Obviously prevention of the damage is what is required and so reducing numbers prior to drilling and in the case of OSR and many other brassicas, prior to emergence is allowed under the general licence. There is no close season stipulated hence control can take place all year round. That would be my defence for shooting a pigeon or corvid flying over the farm - nothing to do with a pot shot at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 Interesting. Thank you. In cases of differing points of view I am always reminded of a meeting I once attended armed with an opinion paper prepared by an eminent QC. I drew this to the attention of the Chairman. The wise old goat said Mr B, we could put one question to ten lawyers and lock them in a room for an hour after which they would come out with ten different answers! It about sums it up really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry2016 Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 9 hours ago, Bobba said: Interesting. Thank you. In cases of differing points of view I am always reminded of a meeting I once attended armed with an opinion paper prepared by an eminent QC. I drew this to the attention of the Chairman. The wise old goat said Mr B, we could put one question to ten lawyers and lock them in a room for an hour after which they would come out with ten different answers! It about sums it up really. What matters really is that you are confident in any shooting you do, and you understand under which legislation you are shooting. If you feel unsure in anyway...... don't take the shot.. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatureBoy Posted August 7, 2020 Report Share Posted August 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Terry2016 said: What matters really is that you are confident in any shooting you do, and you understand under which legislation you are shooting. If you feel unsure in anyway...... don't take the shot.. 🙂 This! Good post Terry! NB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 13 hours ago, Terry2016 said: What matters really is that you are confident in any shooting you do, and you understand under which legislation you are shooting. If you feel unsure in anyway...... don't take the shot.. 🙂 Hi Terry. I agree absolutely with what you say. However, in the hypothetical example quoted by Wymberley I was giving an opinion on my reading of the GLs. Neither of us is unsure. We are both confident in our respective opinions. So, you will take the shot. I will not. Good luck ATB. Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 Being a dim layman, I believe it all revolves around the word 'intent'. In my example it was the intention to control mammal vermin. Would you intend to control avian vermin while stood in the middle of a wide open field? Or is your intention when shooting a solitary corvid/pigeon purely a sporting or casual action? I have a sneaky suspicion that a half decent barrister could convince a jury that that was the case and I for one would prefer not to be the fellow in the dock while the beagles fought it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry2016 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, wymberley said: Being a dim layman, I believe it all revolves around the word 'intent'. In my example it was the intention to control mammal vermin. Would you intend to control avian vermin while stood in the middle of a wide open field? Or is your intention when shooting a solitary corvid/pigeon purely a sporting or casual action? I have a sneaky suspicion that a half decent barrister could convince a jury that that was the case and I for one would prefer not to be the fellow in the dock while the beagles fought it out. You do not need to intend to do anything . Out for a walk with your 243.... intent on shooting a fox... a muntjac comes along... same principle. Both completely legal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 22 minutes ago, Terry2016 said: You do not need to intend to do anything . Out for a walk with your 243.... intent on shooting a fox... a muntjac comes along... same principle. Both completely legal But nothing to do with general licences. Different laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry2016 Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, London Best said: But nothing to do with general licences. Different laws. Agreed. mamals covered by the countryside and wildlife act Birds by the Gl unless the above and in season the principle is the same. you do not have to intend to shoot one or the other. The GLs are written so that you as the user are have to understand them if you are shooting under them there is nothing to say that when you are out shooting rabbits you cannot also shoot pigeons under the GL. Edited August 8, 2020 by Terry2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 8, 2020 Report Share Posted August 8, 2020 32 minutes ago, Terry2016 said: Agreed. mamals covered by the countryside and wildlife act Birds by the Gl unless the above and in season the principle is the same. you do not have to intend to shoot one or the other. The GLs are written so that you as the user are have to understand them if you are shooting under them there is nothing to say that when you are out shooting rabbits you cannot also shoot pigeons under the GL. So why do we have the GLs if we're going to carry on as previously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.