G.L records of damage and measures taken

[Tikkat3x]

Hi all, 

does anyone have a template that they use to keep records in line with the General licenses? For example the damage being done, non lethal preventative measures used etc?

 

many thanks

[captainhastings]

Are there any farmers out there that actually run around wasting there time trying non lethal preventative measures when shooters will happily do it for free. Yes I am sure there are a few but it really is a joke 

[Tikkat3x]

14 minutes ago, captainhastings said:

Are there any farmers out there that actually run around wasting there time trying non lethal preventative measures when shooters will happily do it for free. Yes I am sure there are a few but it really is a joke 

I agree entirely, it is simply a box ticking exercise in the event that a members of the public does report anything as I’ll be near a fairly active road with a lot of walkers.

[captainhastings]

57 minutes ago, Tikkat3x said:

I agree entirely, it is simply a box ticking exercise in the event that a members of the public does report anything as I’ll be near a fairly active road with a lot of walkers.

Yes I know what you mean and a good idea too

[old'un]

Few thing to think about with regards the GL records and non lethal preventative measures, lets take the most common crops you are likely to be shooting pigeons or blacks over, sown barley/wheat/beans/peas, first pigeons do very little damage to these fields but we still shoot them, can we justify shooting over these fields according to the GL, probably not, we could argue we are taking preventative measures, it would be an interesting argument in law but according to BASC we are okay to-do so and I will carry on shooting over such fields until I am informed that my actions are illegal.

shooting blacks on the sprouting seeds is justifiable, there will be evidence of damage which can be seen by the amount of seedlings pulled up, take a picture if it makes you feel better (I never have) taking non lethal preventative methods, it does say “if impractical to do so” in most cases the shooter will find it impractical to go driving around his permissions putting out kite hawks, string bangers or bagging a field off, so we are reasonably safe on the “if impractical to do so” and will have no need to keep records of what non lethal methods you have tried.

Other crops such as winter/spring rape, laid corn etc. will show obvious damage done by pigeons and blacks and the same criteria can applied.

I have never kept any records of “non lethal preventative measures” or what crop I am shooting over and have never been challenged, just remember to have in your head what you will say should you be challenged whilst out shooting.

How near is near to the fairly active road?

[Tikkat3x]

Many thanks for the reply, it’ll be a lot of blacks over sheep/lambs on grass fields and silage/maize clamps and bales, essentially I drive the fields daily checking stock so that covers human presence and everything else is impractical with sheep in the fields. 
we are talking about 100m from the road but it looks right down over the field

[old'un]

Well by what you have just said I would say you are safe to shoot the blacks if they are causing the problems you say, also you have been driving the fields to try and discourage them but they keep returning.

 

Even if you can be seen shooting you are not braking any laws, so if you can show you have permission and the farmers backing any challenge should be meet with the facts whether that be in your head or from written records if you prefer.

 

Just get on with it.

[Tikkat3x]

Thanks Old’un! 

[Vince Green]

Surely its the owner of the land's responsibility if you are shooting on a permission, not yours?

Edited April 5, 2021 by Vince Green

[old'un]

3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Surely its the owner of the land's responsibility if you are shooting on a permission, not yours?

Good luck with that one, try telling a farmer its his responsibility and he must comply with the GL before you can shoot some pigeons for him, I know what he is likely to say.

[Centrepin]

47 minutes ago, old'un said:

Good luck with that one, try telling a farmer its his responsibility and he must comply with the GL before you can shoot some pigeons for him, I know what he is likely to say.

🤣🤣🤣

The second word being off.

[captainhastings]

This is the thing farmers don't want hassle most of them can hardly spare the time to say yes crack on let alone any thing else 

[MWildfowler]

If the farmer says to you they have tried other means and it’s just not practical as they have a large piece of land to cover sure that is enough for the shooter to go out and without trying any other means. The license states ‘before using this licence, be satisfied that you, or the person authorising you to act under this licence, have made reasonable endeavours to achieve the purpose in question using alternative’. 
 

Have I understood this correctly or must the shooter ‘if practical’ try non lethal methods as well? Also, is 500+ acres big enough of a land for other measures to be non practical 

[Blueflame]

You could create a template to record the farm/ field/ date etc without much trouble; but would you want to ?

Keeping records is only a recommendation  ( not mandatory) as stated in the GL licence guidance and conditions. It’s a box ticking exercise BUT opens Pandora’s Box if you do keep records! The actions anyone takes under the new GL’s are driven by the circumstances at the time . If you decide to shoot / kill birds as the practical solution then  that is what the licences are created for , quote “To prevent serious damage to crops” It’s not open to discussion with the general public or police. 

One permission that I shoot has over 2,500 acres, with a single 150acre block of peas. The farmer has had serious crop damage for years and puts out gas guns as and when, but no gas gun ever killed a pigeon. The only way to effectively limit  damage Is to hit the pigeons whenever possible. After extensive research undertaken for more than 50 years by the Ministry of Agriculture and then DEFRA, they concluded that a dead pigeon doesn’t feed or breed.......

 

 

 

 

[MWildfowler]

@Blueflamei agree with you have posted above. The one concern I have regarding the GL is that if and this is a big IF one has to prove serious crop damage how do they do this? 

I’ve read somewhere that it has to be a significant financial impact to the farm and not just a nuisance but how do shooters gauges this. Especially those that are doing it as a part of a syndicate?

[Blueflame]

That requirement was on the initial  GL issued by NE following the  challenge by Wild Justice. That has been replaced by the current GL’s issued this year, none of which have that requirement. The new GL’s are issued to , quote. “ Prevent serious damage to crops” so the purpose of the licence is prevention, there is no requirement in the licences to prove that any damage has occurred. 

I have downloaded and printed a copy of GL 42 for reference , it’s 17 pages long... but most of them refer to specific SSSI’s. In the remote event that anyone seeks to question my activities  when shooting pigeons for crop protection, then I will explain that I am operating under licence GL 42. And leave it at that. 

[MWildfowler]

@Blueflamei think I need to print a copy as well. Recently been to the farm and seen plenty of pigeons feeding on the Lucerne there 

[Fellside]

17 hours ago, Blueflame said:

That requirement was on the initial  GL issued by NE following the  challenge by Wild Justice. That has been replaced by the current GL’s issued this year, none of which have that requirement. The new GL’s are issued to , quote. “ Prevent serious damage to crops” so the purpose of the licence is prevention, there is no requirement in the licences to prove that any damage has occurred. 

I have downloaded and printed a copy of GL 42 for reference , it’s 17 pages long... but most of them refer to specific SSSI’s. In the remote event that anyone seeks to question my activities  when shooting pigeons for crop protection, then I will explain that I am operating under licence GL 42. And leave it at that. 

Spot on. There are also get out clauses re taking initial non lethal measures: “if it is impractical to do so” etc. Understandably, as there have been several GL versions lately, some are getting a little mixed up with what they can and can’t do. Essentially ‘Wild Injustice’ have failed and we can crack on as normal. 

[Kev1gun]

The only one concerns me, is shooting over stubble. Because it can't be for crop protection because it's already gone, unless of course you have a crop of something else in nearby field.

[JDog]

9 minutes ago, Kev1gun said:

The only one concerns me, is shooting over stubble. Because it can't be for crop protection because it's already gone, unless of course you have a crop of something else in nearby field.

Your last thirteen words hit the nail on the head.

On one side of this village is a rape field which has been hammered by pigeons all winter. They vacated it for a week to feed on barley drillings. They are now back on the rape. 

All those afraid of the terms of the GL should reason that a pigeon has either just caused crop damage, is causing crop damage or is about to cause crop damage. 

 

[243deer]

On 05/04/2021 at 08:06, Vince Green said:

Surely its the owner of the land's responsibility if you are shooting on a permission, not yours?

One thing is absolutely certain in law, if you pull the trigger you are wholely responsible for any consequence. It is the same as a lorry driver having an unsecure load, even if he/she did not load and 'secure' it.

 

[clangerman]

jdog is spot on with the feeding habits of pigeons any claim you failed to comply would be impossible to prove its clearly in place just to keep the anti nuts happy 

[Fellside]

One of the overarching principles of the GLs is that crop damage is not about protecting a field or even a farm - it can be ‘area wide’. I think this was one of the actual benefits of the whole GL fiasco.   This principle was acknowledged repeatedly by Natural England when interviewed (interrogated) by the Commons Committee.