General Licence is this the end for roost shooting?

[udderlyoffroad]

11 hours ago, Vince Green said:

DeFRA requirement. See GOV .org General license read down to the bottom.

Sigh.  I know I shouldn't bite, but nevertheless.  Assuming for a minute you're talking about England, GL 42 States:

Quote

Advice: record your actions

Defra recommends that you make a written record of the actions you take under this licence as soon as possible after taking the action. This will help you show that you have complied with the terms and conditions of this licence. In doing so, Defra recommends you record in particular:...

Not a requirement. A recommendation.

Please stop posting untruths on a public forum.  Not only can 'antis' read this, but also beginners.  There's enough FUD out there already.

 

[Vince Green]

26 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Sigh.  I know I shouldn't bite, but nevertheless.  Assuming for a minute you're talking about England, GL 42 States:

Not a requirement. A recommendation.

Please stop posting untruths on a public forum.  Not only can 'antis' read this, but also beginners.  There's enough FUD out there already.

 

I think you are very nieve if you are trying to find much difference between  the two words recommend and require.

The fact that this 'recommendation' has appeared out thin air with no discussion or previous consultation is what we should be talking about.

It's my experience that recommendations and guidelines are immediately adopted as "the law". So many examples in the past.

Why has the General Licence got any conditions at all?. Why are there conditions applied to the shooting of invasive species like parakeets? 

[Scully]

49 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

Not a requirement. A recommendation.

 

 

Thank you, from someone who was pretty sure it wasn’t a requirement, but  couldn’t be bothered to look. 👍

51 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

Please stop posting untruths on a public forum.  

 

And this. ☝️

[udderlyoffroad]

Just now, Vince Green said:

I think you are very nieve if you are trying to find much difference between  the two words recommend and require.

Nieve is the less common/anglicised spelling of the Irish girls name Niamh.  I didn't grow up playing rugby so am not into dressing up in drag 🤣

If you think I'm being naïve, then that's your opinion.

I on the other hand think there is a world of difference between a recommendation and a requirement.

To be quite honest, if you're that worried, why not give up your perms to a younger shooter, who will read and comply with the GLs as he sees fit?  You clearly seem to worry excessively and are, frankly, inventing hurdles where none exist.  This in itself would be fine, if it weren't for the fact you insist on posting them on a public forum and muddying the waters for new shooters.

 

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

It's my experience that recommendations and guidelines are immediately adopted as "the law". So many examples in the past.

Care to cite an example?  I can't think of one.

In fact, most of the complaints on here with respect to, say,  firearms licencing  are precisely the opposite, in that the Home Office security guidance is not law and police forces interpret it as they see fit.

To which my response is 'be careful what you wish for'.

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Why has the General Licence got any conditions at all?. Why are there conditions applied to the shooting of invasive species like parakeets? 

Which particular condition do you find particularly onerous? 

If the GL's didn't state the following, for instance, Wild Justice's lawyers would be all over it like a cheap suit;

Quote

Condition 2. Protecting animal welfare
You must kill any of the permitted target species under this licence in a quick and humane[footnote 14] way.

 

 

[JDog]

Udderly, 

You said you shouldn't have bitten but you did.

I feel there is very little point in engaging with these scaremongers. If they want to talk themselves out of a perfectly legal activity then let them.

To those who believe that roost shooting is outside the Law then just refrain from that activity.

[Fellside]

Every year on PW.........without fail..... the same scaremongering nonsense!

In July we'll have the same again re stubbles.

[udderlyoffroad]

21 minutes ago, JDog said:

You said you shouldn't have bitten but you did.

Fair point 😁

21 minutes ago, JDog said:

To those who believe that roost shooting is outside the Law then just refrain from that activity.

7 minutes ago, Fellside said:

In July we'll have the same again re stubbles.

Only question will be whether I can not take the bait again... 🤣

But to head this off at the pass...I refer you to BASC's FAQ section (again, for England):

Quote

Can I use decoys, shoot on stubbles, roost shoot etc. under general licence?

Yes.

Defra’s general licences allow preventative action to be taken and there is no restriction on using decoys, shooting on stubbles, roost shooting etc.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

[JKD]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Is that you or Gordon having a giggle ? 🤭😂

[TIGHTCHOKE]

26 minutes ago, JKD said:

Is that you or Gordon having a giggle ? 🤭😂

Mr Bennett fell out of his chair due to the very HERE WE GO AGAIN nature of this thread.

[JKD]

18 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Mr Bennett fell out of his chair due to the very HERE WE GO AGAIN nature of this thread.

Mr Bennett must have quite a bruised backside then 🙈😆

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, JKD said:

Mr Bennett must have quite a bruised backside then 🙈😆

Indeed, same time every year................................. 

[JKD]

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Indeed, same time every year................................. 

Better tell him to only look at PW while on the sofa, surrounded by plenty of cushions 😁

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, JKD said:

Better tell him to only look at PW while on the sofa, surrounded by plenty of cushions 😁

If he sits on the floor the computer keyboard is out of reach....................

[JKD]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If he sits on the floor the computer keyboard is out of reach....................

Bit behind the times with technology then, is Mr B,,,, tell him to get a notepad or iPad 🥳🤣

[TIGHTCHOKE]

23 hours ago, JKD said:

Bit behind the times with technology then, is Mr B,,,, tell him to get a notepad or iPad 🥳🤣

No chance.

[enfieldspares]

I have posted this on another forum and perhaps those who are members of such as CA, BASC, SACS, NGO might ask their organisation. I am with the CPSA so I'll only be asking them about clay pigeons.

Ah well I'd say that according how the GL is worded it is NOT legal if the stubbles (or roost) are on land owned by a party different from the party that owns the land that has the crop on it that is suffering damage. Unless the person who owns the land on which the crops being damaged asks you to protect them by shooting those birds "at distance" from their land where the damage they are suffering is taking place?

So my reading the s27 is that if they are owned by two different parties that you need the authorisation of BOTH the owner of the land where you are shooting the birds and the owner of the land where the birds are causing the damage.

So it might be argued that as the "action authorised" is to protect land that the authorisation must also be given by the person on which those crops are situated? As if the person owning that land (the on which those crops are situated) does not agree to you protecting them on their behalf then you have no permission, surely, to claim that you have the lawful right conferred by the GL?

Authorised Person has this meaning: ‘Authorised person’ has the same meaning given in section 27(1) of the 1981 Act. It includes the owner or occupier of the land on which action authorised by this licence is to be taken, or any person authorised by the owner or occupier.

The scenario I have in mind is this. I am in the woods that form Smith's Covert. Roost shooting pigeons. Smith, after who the covert is named, is a dairy farmer. The police attend and ask what I am doing. I claim the "rights" under GL42. So they asks which crops? I tell them the field of sown or emerging X, Y, Z crop just there adjacent to Smith's Covert.

The field is on Jones's land. So the police contact Jones. Jones says first that he has never heard of me, that he doesn't need his crops protecting as he has daylight firing gas guns for that and, finally, that in any case he wouldn't given permission to anyone to shoot on his land on a Saturday afternoon as he objects to the noise disturbing him listening to "Final Score" on the BBC television. So now what happens?

It is no different from my (I live in a rural village) shooting pigeons in my back garden and claiming that I am preventing damage to the crops in the field literally just across the road.

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

I have posted this on another forum and perhaps those who are members of such as CA, BASC, SACS, NGO might ask their organisation. I am with the CPSA so I'll only be asking them about clay pigeons.

Ah well I'd say that according how the GL is worded it is NOT legal if the stubbles (or roost) are on land owned by a party different from the party that owns the land that has the crop on it that is suffering damage. Unless the person who owns the land on which the crops being damaged asks you to protect them by shooting those birds "at distance" from their land where the damage they are suffering is taking place?

So my reading the s27 is that if they are owned by two different parties that you need the authorisation of BOTH the owner of the land where you are shooting the birds and the owner of the land where the birds are causing the damage.

So it might be argued that as the "action authorised" is to protect land that the authorisation must also be given by the person on which those crops are situated? As if the person owning that land (the on which those crops are situated) does not agree to you protecting them on their behalf then you have no permission, surely, to claim that you have the lawful right conferred by the GL?

Authorised Person has this meaning: ‘Authorised person’ has the same meaning given in section 27(1) of the 1981 Act. It includes the owner or occupier of the land on which action authorised by this licence is to be taken, or any person authorised by the owner or occupier.

The scenario I have in mind is this. I am in the woods that form Smith's Covert. Roost shooting pigeons. Smith, after who the covert is named, is a dairy farmer. The police attend and ask what I am doing. I claim the "rights" under GL42. So they asks which crops? I tell them the field of sown or emerging X, Y, Z crop just there adjacent to Smith's Covert.

The field is on Jones's land. So the police contact Jones. Jones says first that he has never heard of me, that he doesn't need his crops protecting as he has daylight firing gas guns for that and, finally, that in any case he wouldn't given permission to anyone to shoot on his land on a Saturday afternoon as he objects to the noise disturbing him listening to "Final Score" on the BBC television. So now what happens?

It is no different from my (I live in a rural village) shooting pigeons in my back garden and claiming that I am preventing damage to the crops in the field literally just across the road.

i'm out shooting now and it's a minefield as the laws relating to GL 42 are that ambiguous and unclear, whether that's for a specific reason or not i don't know,but YOU can make them mean/read whatever you want but when push comes to shove,if the guano hits the fan,it will be up to a judge to decide.

Just now, Zoli 12 guage said:

i'm out shooting now and it's a minefield as the laws relating to GL 42 are that ambiguous and unclear, whether that's for a specific reason or not i don't know,but YOU can make them mean/read whatever you want but when push comes to shove,if the guano hits the fan,it will be up to a judge to decide.

i'm in the NGO btw

[enfieldspares]

2 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

i'm out shooting now and it's a minefield as the laws relating to GL 42 are that ambiguous and unclear..

Yes absolutely a minefield. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

But a minefield you will either accept or choose not to go out shooting.

 

The rest of us are just getting on with it.

[Scully]

This was posted by @Conor O'Gorman just a few days ago. Dont click on the link; it won’t work because this is a screen shot I took at the time, but you can find this post with a live link in another very recent thread. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

25 minutes ago, Scully said:

This was posted by @Conor O'Gorman just a few days ago. Dont click on the link; it won’t work because this is a screen shot I took at the time, but you can find this post with a live link in another very recent thread. 

The link is here:

https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/woodpigeon-pest-or-a-quarry-species.278288/page-9

 

[Zoli 12 guage]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

But a minefield you will either accept or choose not to go out shooting.

 

The rest of us are just getting on with it.

like i said,i was actually out shooting when i commented on this but imho this will only get worse when the anti gun leftists get in power and the first case goes to court.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 hours ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

like i said,i was actually out shooting when i commented on this but imho this will only get worse when the anti gun leftists get in power and the first case goes to court.

And until that happens, those of us who can assimilate the information will be out shooting.

 

Those that can't will NOT be out shooting.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And until that happens, those of us who can assimilate the information will be out shooting.

 

Those that can't will NOT be out shooting.

Thumbs up 👍 

Edited February 18 by oowee