Stubble shooting gone ?

[30-6]

I always thought a pest bird could be shot even if it was not doing damage at the time of being shot.

I have just had ( for Wales anyway ),  from a well known organisation, conformation that shooting on stubble is NOT permitted unless there is a standing crop within a couple of hundred yards.

I have looked for any information to state what is said in my first paragraph but cannot find anything, anybody recently read anything to that effect ?

[30-6]

Well to add, I just spoke with someone from the organization and unless the pest bird ( in this case pigeon ), is in your thinking going to or from a standing crop or are likely to go to standing crop, the pigeon cannot be shot.

We are going to be over run with birds and I know many shooters who have sold their gear with all this red tape rubbish.

[Fellside]

2 hours ago, 30-6 said:

Well to add, I just spoke with someone from the organization and unless the pest bird ( in this case pigeon ), is in your thinking going to or from a standing crop or are likely to go to standing crop, the pigeon cannot be shot.

We are going to be over run with birds and I know many shooters who have sold their gear with all this red tape rubbish.

Please tell us which  ‘organisation’ is advising this. 

[Stonepark]

The sooner pigeon etc is added to the game list of with an official season and general licences only covering out of season the better for our "sport".....

Edited August 1, 2022 by Stonepark

[Poor Shot]

The general license 001 is a preventative measure as per the title of the license.

While this could be open to an individuals interpretation of the wording most would deem the shooting of pigeon over stubble a preventative measure. Wood pigeons don't really migrate so you could assume that the very bird you see feeding over stubble will be feeding over the next batch of crops. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by Poor Shot

[landowner]

If somebody complains, I think anybody relying on the General Licence for shooting on stubble could find that they have a difficult case to defend. The legal situation for the shooter is precarious, until interpretations are established in more detail by case law.

Also, the onus would be on the accused to produce evidence that the criteria are met:

Did you try alternative methods?
"a) 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, lawful methods not covered by this licence"

I view the recent changes to the General Licences, along with other upcoming changes, as part of a much wider attack on shooting. There are some very influential people trying to end hunting and shooting in general. They're deadly serious about ending the livestock industry, too. Their stated goals, like climate, the environment, etc, seem a dubious sugar-coating for something else.

General Licence: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-kill-or-take-to-prevent-serious-damage-gl42/gl42-general-licence-to-kill-or-take-certain-species-of-wild-birds-to-prevent-serious-damage

Edited August 1, 2022 by landowner

[rbrowning2]

this is under england from BASC website frequently asked questions, so best check for wales.

 

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.

 

https://basc.org.uk/gl/england/

 

 

[Fellside]

5 hours ago, landowner said:

If somebody complains, I think anybody relying on the General Licence for shooting on stubble could find that they have a difficult case to defend. The legal situation for the shooter is precarious, until interpretations are established in more detail by case law.

Also, the onus would be on the accused to produce evidence that the criteria are met:

Did you try alternative methods?
"a) 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, lawful methods not covered by this licence"

I view the recent changes to the General Licences, along with other upcoming changes, as part of a much wider attack on shooting. There are some very influential people trying to end hunting and shooting in general. They're deadly serious about ending the livestock industry, too. Their stated goals, like climate, the environment, etc, seem a dubious sugar-coating for something else.

General Licence: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wild-birds-licence-to-kill-or-take-to-prevent-serious-damage-gl42/gl42-general-licence-to-kill-or-take-certain-species-of-wild-birds-to-prevent-serious-damage

Are you quoting the English GL there? If so, this has been thrashed to death on PW. There are so many contradictions and ‘get out clauses’ it would be impossible to challenge. For example, the quote you give is later contradicted by “this is not necessary if it is impractical to do so”. It is really OK within the spirit and context of the English GL to shoot on stubble. It is also recognised that control is not just farm wide but area wide etc. 

I am not familiar with the Welsh situation - and must leave others to advise. 

One caveat though. It is common for panic and misunderstanding to arise from the various paragraphs in the English GLs - as people often (understandably) don’t pick up on the contradictions and get-outs in other parts. It’s such a large document these days. I wonder if this could be possible with the Welsh version too. Incidentally we get these panickers every harvest time……?!

[30-6]

Fellside, I contacted BASC.

In Wales it is different to England. In Wales you can shoot crows to protect livestock foodstuffs but you cannot to protect human eg wheat.

How ludicrous is that ?

[Fellside]

9 hours ago, 30-6 said:

Fellside, I contacted BASC.

In Wales it is different to England. In Wales you can shoot crows to protect livestock foodstuffs but you cannot to protect human eg wheat.

How ludicrous is that ?

Yes quite ludicrous..!!

You need to get rid of that bunch of loonies who are presuming to run your countryside. 

Think a few people (above) are confusing the Welsh and English GLs - which doesn’t help. 

[Ultrastu]

I wonder how many people on here have been keeping a diary all year on the non leathal measures they have been taking on crop protection  and logging the reasoning  behind there decision to shoot the pest species where and when ? 

Highly recommended practice IF you want a  defence in a court of law .

 

[Fellside]

33 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

I wonder how many people on here have been keeping a diary all year on the non leathal measures they have been taking on crop protection  and logging the reasoning  behind there decision to shoot the pest species where and when ? 

Highly recommended practice IF you want a  defence in a court of law .

 

Do you mean in Wales?

You are not required to do this in England - so you will definitely not need defence in court. Your defence is already written in to the licence:

“You’re not required to use alternative, lawful methods under condition 1(a) and 1(b) where the use of such methods would be impractical, without effect or disproportionate in the circumstances.”

Sorry if you did mean Wales. Just want to save folks from panicking re English GLs. 

 

[Ultrastu]

No I mean England. 

It states that it would help your defence if required to do so to have a record of your none leathal methods tried before leathal ones and why you feel they are ineffective /impractical  etc .

I have gone to this effort throughout  the last year ,and am happier  for it .

If you have not been on the land all year and just rock up for a stubble day , I think your defence would fail  spectacularly. 

Imo.

[Fellside]

14 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

No I mean England. 

It states that it would help your defence if required to do so to have a record of your none leathal methods tried before leathal ones and why you feel they are ineffective /impractical  etc .

I have gone to this effort throughout  the last year ,and am happier  for it .

If you have not been on the land all year and just rock up for a stubble day , I think your defence would fail  spectacularly. 

Imo.

With respect, I think you may have misinterpreted GL42. It is full of contradictions and ‘get out’ clauses - precisely to avoid challenge. My quote above is all the example you need. I copied it straight from GL42, word for word. Also, context and ‘the spirit of the law’ is on your side - quotes from the House of Commons Committee, documented DEFRA discussions, Ministerial meetings and the whole shabang surrounding the latest GL formation etc. As I said, your ‘defence’ is written in to the licence

I think we need to avoid the annual harvest GL panic and scare mongering. 

Besides, wasn’t the OP asking about the Welsh GLs?

[Ultrastu]

There is no misinterpretation of gl42 on my part .it's very clear just read from - 

ADVICE: record your actions .

down wards ,it's a good /highly recommended  thing to do .

It's your choice to ignore  it but I feel it irresponsible to encourage others to take a similar  blas'e attitude  to it as wrong .

 

[Fellside]

38 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

There is no misinterpretation of gl42 on my part .it's very clear just read from - 

ADVICE: record your actions .

down wards ,it's a good /highly recommended  thing to do .

It's your choice to ignore  it but I feel it irresponsible to encourage others to take a similar  blas'e attitude  to it as wrong .

 

Only ‘advice and recommendations’ - not conditions of use. Even so, most of the advisory actions have a ‘get out’ in other parts of the doc. As I say, and others have observed, It is written to avoid challenge. 

BTW it’s hardly irresponsible or blasé to point out the obvious - in a way which hopefully helps others. No need for the hissy fit. If you’re happy documenting everything, why not? While it’s not strictly a legal necessity, it’s perfectly harmless. Happy hunting. 

[landowner]

18 hours ago, Fellside said:

Are you quoting the English GL there? If so, this has been thrashed to death on PW. There are so many contradictions and ‘get out clauses’ it would be impossible to challenge. For example, the quote you give is later contradicted by “this is not necessary if it is impractical to do so”. It is really OK within the spirit and context of the English GL to shoot on stubble. It is also recognised that control is not just farm wide but area wide etc. 

I am not familiar with the Welsh situation - and must leave others to advise. 

One caveat though. It is common for panic and misunderstanding to arise from the various paragraphs in the English GLs - as people often (understandably) don’t pick up on the contradictions and get-outs in other parts. It’s such a large document these days. I wonder if this could be possible with the Welsh version too. Incidentally we get these panickers every harvest time……?!

The problem with the contradictions and get-out clauses is we don't know how they will be interpreted until it goes before a judge.

E.g. I can't predict the court's interpretation of "impractical" until it is established by case law.

2 hours ago, Ultrastu said:

If you have not been on the land all year and just rock up for a stubble day , I think your defence would fail  spectacularly. 

I concur, the risk and onus fall upon the shooter, and we do not yet know where case law will set the bar for valid defences, these are vague definitions that have yet to be interpreted at law. 

[Fellside]

26 minutes ago, landowner said:

The problem with the contradictions and get-out clauses is we don't know how they will be interpreted until it goes before a judge.

E.g. I can't predict the court's interpretation of "impractical" until it is established by case law.

I concur, the risk and onus fall upon the shooter, and we do not yet know where case law will set the bar for valid defences, these are vague definitions that have yet to be interpreted at law. 

I respectfully disagree. The whole purpose and intent of the English GLs is to withstand legal challenge. They are pretty water tight.

“Don’t panic Mr Manwearing”

Just get out there and enjoy yourself. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, Fellside said:

I respectfully disagree. The whole purpose and intent of the English GLs is to withstand legal challenge. They are pretty water tight.

“Don’t panic Mr Manwearing”

Just get out there and enjoy yourself. 

Oh exactly!

[Ultrastu]

I also wonder how many pigeon / crow shooters have tried non leathal methods of crop protection and what devices and equipment  they deploy and carry on and before a day's shooting .??

I personally have tried and recorded 4 different methods this year months before a pigeon was even killed  .

I find it prudent to carry this non leathal equipment  with me on all forays  to the field .

Again this helps my defence if required , to show I've tried and have fulfilled this requirement -the best I can- of gl 42 .

[Ultrastu]

The way I see it is -

Some one has to try non leathal methods at some point before a pigeon is shot that year , to prove /demonstrate  that they either work or do not or are impractical  etc .Now that's either the farmer /land owner ,or the person who wants to shoot it .

Pretty sure most farmers are too busy to scare pigeons all spring and summer  so the onus will fall on the shooter and he must be prepared to show he has done his legwork first .

Again if a guy rocks up at a farm on the first day of stubble  Hoping to shoot, expecting that the farmer will cover his back  " saying yeah I've been scaring all year and it don't work ,crack on"  - maybe in for a big surprise . That farmer could throw the shooter under the legal bus . When it comes to a legal case against him .

Just saying .

[Fellside]

3 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

The way I see it is -

Some one has to try non leathal methods at some point before a pigeon is shot that year , to prove /demonstrate  that they either work or do not or are impractical  etc .Now that's either the farmer /land owner ,or the person who wants to shoot it .

Pretty sure most farmers are too busy to scare pigeons all spring and summer  so the onus will fall on the shooter and he must be prepared to show he has done his legwork first .

Again if a guy rocks up at a farm on the first day of stubble  Hoping to shoot, expecting that the farmer will cover his back  " saying yeah I've been scaring all year and it don't work ,crack on"  - maybe in for a big surprise . That farmer could throw the shooter under the legal bus . When it comes to a legal case against him .

Just saying .

This is getting a little circular…!

Have you ever wondered why so many pigeon shooters don’t use non lethals as you do?

Sometimes, the path less travelled by, is less travelled for a reason……!

Just for complete clarity, currently non lethals aren’t legally conditional, only advisory. Even then with several ‘get outs’ as icing on the cake. There isn’t a legal bus to be thrown under. 

No harm in what your doing I suppose - if you’re happy with it. To imply however, that we should all be doing the same will of course meet with some resistance. 

 

 

 

[Ultrastu]

44 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Have you ever wondered why so many pigeon shooters don’t use non lethals as you do

Not really .I understand that  it takes a lot of time .money ,hard work and effort for no reward or thanks  other than the chance of shooting a few later in the year. 

But times are changing ,the current gls. And antis (and they are about - coming to a field near you ) will see to that  adapt or die  as the saying goes .

We can bury our heads in the sand  as much as we want but they will take it all away from us if we do .

I dont do all the non leathal and recording it all for the fun of it .(obviously) but that's the way its going /has already gone .

A pigeon shooter would be a FOOL to think other wise .I enjoy my sport and want to see my kids grow to enjoy it also .

Back to the op question .

I think / know , I can justify stubble shooting on my permission currently .and have the documents and proven history  to back that up .(if /when questioned ) 

[manthing]

@Ultrastu what about,

"The landowners and many people have tried various methods years ago to scare the crows away but the only thing that works is shooting"

Do you try non lethal methods evey year bud, or is it a case of tried once and it didn't work so now I'm shooting?

[Fellside]

17 minutes ago, Ultrastu said:

Not really .I understand that  it takes a lot of time .money ,hard work and effort for no reward or thanks  other than the chance of shooting a few later in the year. 

But times are changing ,the current gls. And antis (and they are about - coming to a field near you ) will see to that  adapt or die  as the saying goes .

We can bury our heads in the sand  as much as we want but they will take it all away from us if we do .

I dont do all the non leathal and recording it all for the fun of it .(obviously) but that's the way its going /has already gone .

A pigeon shooter would be a FOOL to think other wise .I enjoy my sport and want to see my kids grow to enjoy it also .

Back to the op question .

I think / know , I can justify stubble shooting on my permission currently .and have the documents and proven history  to back that up .(if /when questioned ) 

It’s pointless discussing this any further with you Ultrastu. I have tried to offer a realistic legal rationale - but you refuse to see the facts as they stand. 

Good luck with your scaring if that’s what you enjoy. I think the only creature you’re really scaring however is yourself.