2021 England General Licences made public in November

[McSpredder]

1 hour ago, rbrowning2 said:

They are against all we do, killing for sport, fun, or pleasure as they put it, simple as that and will use all the legal opportunities they can to pursue that agenda supported by other people’s money.

They might not want people to enjoy shooting, but Mark Avery supports the killing of animals for pleasure – provided it is for his own personal pleasure.

He freely admits that his excessive consumption of meat and fish is bad for his health and bad for the environment.   Those creatures are not being killed for nutritional reasons, but to satisfy his own gluttony.   You can read all about it on his website:

https://markavery.info/2015/09/29/hate-vegans/

If Avery ever pretended to disapprove of killing for pleasure, or to have overwhelming concern for the environment, it would be blatant hypocrisy.

 

 

[Gas seal]

Hi Defra has published the new licences to allow users to become acquainted with the changes before they are official. They can be used to prevent serious damage to commodities such as livestock and crops. For conserving wild birds plants and animals. For public health and safety reasons. The only change I have noticed is methods you can use, falconry, the existing licence allows falconry the new licence states targeted falconry. Could l ask Connor if he or any of his team know how a bird of prey  could target a jay ,carrion crow , but not a lapwing. I thought Mr Avery would have commented on this as birds of prey are no longer used in airports. The new license covers what action can be taken and when. This is better for users and people who monitor user’s. regarding killing for pleasure doesn’t Mr Avery support hunting with hawks. As Defra says it’s about commodities wildlife plants and public safety. If in doubt how to use the license ask Defra its their licence. They explain it well on the Defra website.

 

[rbrowning2]

16 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Hi Defra has published the new licences to allow users to become acquainted with the changes before they are official. They can be used to prevent serious damage to commodities such as livestock and crops. For conserving wild birds plants and animals. For public health and safety reasons. The only change I have noticed is methods you can use, falconry, the existing licence allows falconry the new licence states targeted falconry. Could l ask Connor if he or any of his team know how a bird of prey  could target a jay ,carrion crow , but not a lapwing. I thought Mr Avery would have commented on this as birds of prey are no longer used in airports. The new license covers what action can be taken and when. This is better for users and people who monitor user’s. regarding killing for pleasure doesn’t Mr Avery support hunting with hawks. As Defra says it’s about commodities wildlife plants and public safety. If in doubt how to use the license ask Defra its their licence. They explain it well on the Defra website.

 

Hopefully BASC will issue guidance, to questions like definition of serious crop damage, does that damage have to be on crowing crops, will stubble shooting, roost shooting be permitted, nothing about eating the birds unless I missed it.
How to proved preventative action if no visible signs of serious crop damage, or does the serious crop damage have to occur whilst the non lethal measures are being tried first and then you can shoot, but that’s like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

[ShootingEgg]

On 09/11/2020 at 12:13, Novice said:

Plenty has changed. 

Rook and jackdaw off the protection of wild birds licence completely. 

The protection of wild birds licence now specifically protection of endangered wild birds. 

From Jan next year, you couldn't kill a carrion crow to protect a red grouse or wild pheasant nest. 

 

And the above are just for starters. I'd say these new licences are worse than the existing licences, which is saying something.

I'm sure plenty of people on here who are mainly interested in shooting wood pigeons or corvids over arable land will think this has all moved on and be happy with their lot. But I'd ask them to look at the bigger picture here and see these new general licenses as a result of the attack against all of us in the fieldsports community by Wild Justice. They'll see this as a win and continue to come after other aspects of our interests and way of life. 

Have to agree with this. A very slippery slope... Jackdaw, rook and Jay now more protected, almost like they only go after nests of thriving populations rather than the first one they come across.. 

[ShootingEgg]

2 hours ago, ShootingEgg said:

Have to agree with this. A very slippery slope... Jackdaw, rook and Jay now more protected, almost like they only go after nests of thriving populations rather than the first one they come across.. 

Also magpie, so endangered birds and livestock. Do they again only pick on lambs and rare birds? We have so many round here yet now looking harder to manage their numbers or am i missing something 

[rbrowning2]

16 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Also magpie, so endangered birds and livestock. Do they again only pick on lambs and rare birds? We have so many round here yet now looking harder to manage their numbers or am i missing something 

Read Avery blogs and apparently science has shown magpies have no impact on songbird numbers and no need to kill them for that purpose.

 

[ShootingEgg]

15 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Read Avery blogs and apparently science has shown magpies have no impact on songbird numbers and no need to kill them for that purpose.

 

Ah okay how silly of me. Forgot he knows best.. Shame tge blackburd and thrush I saw getting mobbed and killed by magpies last year clearly were fancy dress magpies and not actual ones. 

[mossy835]

years ago a robin had a nest, in the  tree near my back door robin would hop in and our of the nest feeding the young.next thing in went the magpie took  the the  young,

[ShootingEgg]

11 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

Read Avery blogs and apparently science has shown magpies have no impact on songbird numbers and no need to kill them for that purpose.

 

So last night i thought id take a look at the red and Amber species list. Magpies will still be being controlled by myself next year. 

House sparrow 

Four of the five species of thrushes 

House martin

Mallard

Tawney owl

Thats just five that appear on those list's which will allow me to legally control them. 

[old'un]

Well reading the three general licences over and over, it would seem stubble shooting can not be classed as serious damage to crops, I don't think the argument of protecting future crops will hold water, unless someone sees it differently?

Mind you the lethal and non-lethal methods are a bit confusing, on one hand they are saying we must try non-lethal methods first but on the other hand we don't need to if its impractical.

Also I don't like this “advisable” bit, where it refers to keeping records, why?

[Fellside]

Stubbles are fine. You need to take an area-wide approach. 

[rbrowning2]

13 minutes ago, old'un said:

Well reading the three general licences over and over, it would seem stubble shooting can not be classed as serious damage to crops, I don't think the argument of protecting future crops will hold water, unless someone sees it differently?

Mind you the lethal and non-lethal methods are a bit confusing, on one hand they are saying we must try non-lethal methods first but on the other hand we don't need to if its impractical.

Also I don't like this “advisable” bit, where it refers to keeping records, why?

+1

This could take a court case to make sense of what can and cannot be done and what defines serious crop damage and nobody would want to the one taken to court. 
May be wood pigeon should have had a GL all of their own?

3 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Stubbles are fine. You need to take an area-wide approach. 

Let’s hope that is how DEFRA, police or judge would see it, you are preventing serious crop damage by shooting over a crop that has been harvested? Yes your honour, how?, Because they may eat an adjacent crop, but they are not are they?

come on BASC we need expert legal guidance on the new GLs please.

 

[Fellside]

It’s about context and understanding the meaning of an ‘area wide approach’. 
 

The legal context re shooting over stubbles has not changed since the last version. 
 

I will be shooting over stubbles next year. Having confidence in the relevant legalities - I will let the pigeons do all the ‘flapping’. 

[Farmboy91]

16 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

+1

This could take a court case to make sense of what can and cannot be done and what defines serious crop damage and nobody would want to the one taken to court. 
May be wood pigeon should have had a GL all of their own?

Let’s hope that is how DEFRA, police or judge would see it, you are preventing serious crop damage by shooting over a crop that has been harvested? Yes your honour, how?, Because they may eat an adjacent crop, but they are not are they?

come on BASC we need expert legal guidance on the new GLs please.

 

That's where the lack of understanding of how this actually works shows.

Its common sense that any pigeon you take off a stubble, are less pigeon that will breed and hit future crops, which they will. 

Taken from the RSPB, pigeons tend to  stick to a 10 mile area, so there's a good chance that the same pigeon feeding on your stubble, will be feed off the next crop that goes in? 

The best option for pigeon would be to come off the license all together, the are ever increasing in number and restricting the options to control them benefits no one other than the antis.

[old'un]

35 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Stubbles are fine. You need to take an area-wide approach. 

but it actually says the use of lethal methods can be used if there is “serious damage” and alternatives would not be practical, by serious damage I presume they mean the actual crop you are trying to protect whilst its growing, as rbrowning2 said it maybe difficult justifying in court your actions of shooting birds on a field that has no crops that are suffering “serious damage”.

I guess its ok us reading the new GL’s and putting our own interpretation on them, but as been said we really need some legal advice from BASC.

[Fellside]

I understand your concern - but it would really seem that the actual ‘legal context’ re preventing wood pigeons causing serious damage over a wider area is valid. Perhaps a statement from BASC would be reassuring for some....... in the not too distant future?!

[rbrowning2]

This from current GL31, note words like growing and Feeding on one or more of the following crop, when do pigeons stop being normal business risk? 50 on the field or 500?  

However basc current advice is that shooting over stubble is permitted.

A booklet or card issued, which includes the GL and space to record non-lethal action attempts plus data of birds shot etc, together with examples of why shooting over stubble is permitted, examples of what merits significant damage etc. So it looks professional and could be presented as per condition 8 to an officer of natural england or police.

Sadly in my experience some who shoot for crop protection have no understanding of the GLs.
certainly reading MA blog the impression is we are a bunch of weekend amateurs who go out for some sport, fun  to shoot a few pigeons, we need to get our act together such that we can demonstrate we are fully in compliant with the GLs.

Ask yourself if challenged how confident are you could convince the officer you are fully in compliance with the GL?

Annex 2: ‘serious damage’3 for the purpose of this licence
“Serious damage” is damage to an economic or financial interest that exceeds mere nuisance, minor damage or normal business risk4.
There is clear evidence that woodpigeons cause serious damage to a range of vulnerable growing crops. For the purpose of this licence, there is considered to be potential for “serious damage” in the absence of licensed action where pigeons are feeding on one or more of the following crops:
 Oilseed rape
 Cabbages, Brussels sprouts and other brassicas
 Beans/Peas
 Cereals
 Linseed
 Newly sown grass/clover
 Sugar beet
 Salad crops
 Any other vegetables
 Any fruit
Evidence
As explained in condition 8 of the licence, any person using this licence must be able to show, if asked by an officer of Natural England or the Police, what type of crop licensed action is protecting and why the threat of damage is sufficiently serious to merit action under the licence, notwithstanding the use of appropriate lawful methods to contain the threat. Relevant evidence will include examples of actual losses during the present year or in recent years.
 3 For further guidance on defining ‘serious damage’ see ‘Guide to sustainable hunting under the Birds Directive’. 2008 edition (paragraphs 3.5.7 to 3.5.11), available at:

Edited November 13, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Fellside]

Thanks for that. However we have raked over this a lot in the past. It’s been well established that the current GLs allow shooting over stubbles. No body has been dragged off the stubble, and in to court, by an angry GL wielding bureaucrat. The fundamentals appear unchanged re new GLs. Let’s look forward to next year’s harvest! Good luck to you all. 

P.S if anybody wants to chew the fat some more, please excuse my absence - I have just taken on board a new spaniel pup’ and will be a little preoccupied for a while...!!
 

 

[Gas seal]

Hi the only reason you need to use the general licences is that you are an authorised person and you need to use it. How many people would use it if they had to apply for a license for each bird they need to kill and why. The license has been used for 25 years the same  condition on each one is ,it can be withdrawn at any time. All birds on the licence are protected, if in doubt about using the license ask your shooting organisations. I’m sure wild justice understands it perhaps they are the people to ask. The license is there to use when necessary it’s to prevent businesses loosing money. Wild justice do criticise weekend shooters and show advertising for pigeon shooting, as (the ultimate sporting bird ). Perhaps the licence should include the types and height of stubble to be shot over. The license should be used when it is needed not when it’s wanted to be used then it will be around for longer.

[rbrowning2]

7 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Hi the only reason you need to use the general licences is that you are an authorised person and you need to use it.

Indeed, but you also need to comply with it’s use and be able to show you are compliant if challenged, which is potentially where we need to get our act together, just saying oh it’s ok I am shooting under GL is possibly not sufficient justification unless can show compliance.  Not difficult to achieve, just need to be smarter at it perhaps. 

 

[Fellside]

It is ‘the ultimate sporting bird’. It just happens to cause massive ag’ crop losses too. There’s no law which precludes enjoying the challenge (weekdays or weekends). I don’t think any of us need advice from ‘Wild Injustice’. Their credibility tank is just about empty now. 

[Gas seal]

Yes the license is for authorised persons . It permits activities that would otherwise be a criminal offence. It has conditions that must be followed. If not authorised or conditions not followed it a crime. It’s always been the same on licences for 25 years. The license has been misused or misunderstood for years. The user should understand or ask advice before they use it. Try explaining to the magistrates, who can’t understand someone would kill protected birds, your mates or shooting organisations said you’ll be ok. Then convince them it was a last resort. Wild justice aren’t against using the licence they are against misuse of the licence and so should the users of the licence. When starling and sparrow came off the licence and Canada geese went on not many shooters realised it took years for some of them. If you have authority just comply with the conditions. Wild justice had the adverts for shooting the ultimate sporting sporting birds when the game season has ended on one of their websites. Maybe BASC could explain more on shooting over stubble fields as this is a BASC topic.

[Fellside]

The GLs, and the need for them, have been much more misunderstood by antis over the years (especially in recent times) than by those who shoot.
 

Of course we all need to comply re conditions - but don’t forget to enjoy the ‘sporting birds’. There’s nothing mentioned in the licence about smiling after a good shot. 
 

[Teal]

Looks a complete mess. 

[Gas seal]

It can’t be a complete mess a firm is charging a thousand pounds a day to shoot pigeons. They may have the same lawyers as Wild Justice. We have our shooting organisations.We should just read the licence and get on with it. After all we volunteer our services to farmers, we don’t pay for entertainment.