Shot Goshawks found dumped in Suffolk

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, 39TDS said:

Another fine example of how ridiculous this country has become.

Agreed.  But the country is now inundated/infiltrated by the likes of the Wild Justice types - Packham, Avery, Tingay etc. and rather that just letting the whole subject pass un-noticed and letting people get on with their lives (which is basically what DEFRA had been doing for years) - they (Wild Justice, WJ) identified a load of 'rules' which DEFRA weren't properly addressing and took them to court.  They wish to get all live quarry shooting stopped I think.

Now DEFRA know WJ are watching their every move, they are playing licensing as much by the book as they can to avoid ending up in court again.  WJ are taking them to court again re GL43 (Game Bird releasing) https://wildjustice.org.uk/gamebird-releases/wild-justice-starts-new-legal-challenge-of-gamebird-release-regulations/

So far WJ have lost most of their cases.

[old'un]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

 It isn't really difficult if you are doing it to protect crops/animal feed etc., but you might need to show that you have tried other methods (e.g. scarer, scarecrow) without success and to know what feed/crop/fruit etc. is being damaged.

The license doesn't allow for 'sport'. 

so what are we protecting when stubble shooting?

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, old'un said:

so what are we protecting when stubble shooting?

Nearby crops I would imagine - just keep in mind you have to be able to identify what your protecting if question by the police.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, old'un said:

so what are we protecting when stubble shooting?

A good question.  My assumption is that it would need to be in protection of newly planted/germinating crops that are suffering damage nearby? 

It might be a hard one to justify.  I don't believe that 'reducing the pigeon population overall' is an allowable protection measure.

[Gas seal]

Hi if someone could show a copy of footnote number 6 on GL42 it may help explain crop protection. Thanks 

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Hi if someone could show a copy of footnote number 6 on GL42 it may help explain crop protection. Thanks 

Here it is (I assume this is the bit you meant?): 

"Serious damage’ means damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters that exceeds mere nuisance, minor damage or normal business risk."

What is 'normal business risk' in this context?   Wild Justice lawyers could argue that a pigeon landing in a field and eating greenery - is a perfectly 'normal business risk'. 

[old'un]

40 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Nearby crops I would imagine - just keep in mind you have to be able to identify what your protecting if question by the police.

Ok, been shooting pigeons for a few years now and I know that when the first fields of barley and rape are combined the only thing pigeons are interested in are stubble fields, in the past I have had farmers ask me not to shoot stubble fields while there are still standing crops nearby.

I would think it not to difficult in a court case for someone like WJ to bring in an expert on such a matter, there is also the subject of roost shooting, how do we show what we are protecting.

[PeterHenry]

Just now, old'un said:

Ok, been shooting pigeons for a few years now and I know that when the first fields of barley and rape are combined the only thing pigeons are interested in are stubble fields, in the past I have had farmers ask me not to shoot stubble fields while there are still standing crops nearby.

I would think it not to difficult in a court case for someone like WJ to bring in an expert on such a matter, there is also the subject of roost shooting, how do we show what we are protecting.

If that's what your farmers are asking, well, its their crops. The whole thing rather hinges on them.

You have to identify whats under attack and how to protect it - that basically the gist of it. You can take an area wide approach - which is how roost shooting can be defended.

In regard to stubbles, you could argue (for instance) that you are defending other standing cereal crops - it depends on the circumstances. I normally take a blank pistol with me on my walk and fire a few shots off - that tells me where birds are feeding / where needs protecting. Your right that stubble fields don't need protecting themselves, but if there are birds in nearby crops, and the blank postol should ket you know - you justify shooting the stubbles like that.

The GL's aren't there to allow us to do whatever we want - they are there to allow crop protection within the scope of the law. If you don't think you can justify it, it's probably for the best that you don't do it.

That said, I would dearly love to see woodpigeon have a game season as well - like Canada geese.

[PeterHenry]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Here it is (I assume this is the bit you meant?): 

"Serious damage’ means damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, fisheries or inland waters that exceeds mere nuisance, minor damage or normal business risk."

What is 'normal business risk' in this context?   Wild Justice lawyers could argue that a pigeon landing in a field and eating greenery - is a perfectly 'normal business risk'. 

If 'normal business risk' was intended to be defined in that way, it would render the licence unusable. I would suggest that it should be interpreted in the context of the intended use of the licence / previous two terms. I'd justify this under the 'golden rule' of interpretation. In effect, its going to loosely mean something along the lines of not everyday / trifling damage. A bit like how a landlord can't charge a tenant for reasonable wear and tear if that makes sense.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

If 'normal business risk' was intended to be defined in that way, it would render the licence unusable. I would suggest that it should be interpreted in the context of the intended use of the licence / previous two terms. I'd justify this under the 'golden rule' of interpretation. In effect, its going to loosely mean something along the lines of not everyday / trifling damage. A bit like how a landlord can't charge a tenant for reasonable wear and tear if that makes sense.

I am convinced the laws made in recent times are not designed to define what 'members of society' can/can't do, but to provide a steady income for the legal profession.

[PeterHenry]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

I am convinced the laws made in recent times are not designed to define what 'members of society' can/can't do, but to provide a steady income for the legal profession.

As a member of the legal profession, I couldn't possibly say

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, PeterHenry said:

As a member of the legal profession, I couldn't possibly say

Plead the right to remain silent!

[wymberley]

Am I dreaming or was there not something like, "any birds of the same species that have caused damage in the past and will do so again may continue to be controlled"? Although despite a good shufti I can no longer find it.

[PeterHenry]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Plead the right to remain silent!

Ha, perhaps.

I often end up thinking the reason we have so many is because parliament needs to be seen to be busy. I'm not a great believer in overarching conspiracy's - which I accept wasn't the point of your comment - I think the reality is often very boring.

We elect our MP's to make laws - and they just keep on makeing them.

Edited June 30, 2023 by PeterHenry

[old'un]

28 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

If that's what your farmers are asking, well, its their crops. The whole thing rather hinges on them.

You have to identify whats under attack and how to protect it - that basically the gist of it. You can take an area wide approach - which is how roost shooting can be defended.

In regard to stubbles, you could argue (for instance) that you are defending other standing cereal crops - it depends on the circumstances. I normally take a blank pistol with me on my walk and fire a few shots off - that tells me where birds are feeding / where needs protecting. Your right that stubble fields don't need protecting themselves, but if there are birds in nearby crops, and the blank postol should ket you know - you justify shooting the stubbles like that.

The GL's aren't there to allow us to do whatever we want - they are there to allow crop protection within the scope of the law. If you don't think you can justify it, it's probably for the best that you don't do it.

That said, I would dearly love to see woodpigeon have a game season as well - like Canada geese.

unless you can point me in the right direction I can see nowhere in the GL42 that would allow future preventative shooting of pigeons (roost shooting)

Also how many shooters follow this part?

Condition 1. Alternative lawful methods

For action taken under this licence for carrion crow, feral pigeon, jackdaw, magpie, rook or wood pigeon (species native to the United Kingdom), you must:

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

b) continue to use reasonable endeavours, or be satisfied that reasonable endeavours continue to be made, to achieve the purpose in question using alternative, lawful methods not covered by this 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.

 

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I'm not a great believer in overarching conspiracy's - which I accept wasn't the point of your comment

I think that much of the 'greyness' of the definitions is kicking the interpretation 'down the road' for someone else to worry about.

1 minute ago, old'un said:

using alternative, lawful methods not covered by this licence

Which was what my comments about scarers (bangers) and scarecrows was about.

[PeterHenry]

20 minutes ago, old'un said:

unless you can point me in the right direction I can see nowhere in the GL42 that would allow future preventative shooting of pigeons (roost shooting)

Also how many shooters follow this part?

Condition 1. Alternative lawful methods

For action taken under this licence for carrion crow, feral pigeon, jackdaw, magpie, rook or wood pigeon (species native to the United Kingdom), you must:

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

b) continue to use reasonable endeavours, or be satisfied that reasonable endeavours continue to be made, to achieve the purpose in question using alternative, lawful methods not covered by this 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.

 

You can justify it in the same way as decoying them away from a standing crop.

If you have identified a field that is being devoured by pigeons, and lots of those pigeons are roosting in a nearby wood, it perfectly permissable to shoot them as they flight in / out of the wood. The really important thing is you have to identify what you are protecting. I would say that during the winter, when the birds flock up, this is a very practical way of doing things.

Re the bit about alternative lawful methods - I can certainly say I follow it. Hence the blank pistol. I ask farmers about gas guns, scarecrows, etc - and in conversation why (if) they haven't been using them, etc. Batteries from gas guns going missing. Birds not scared by them any more.

To be honest, i've found it's all stuff that falls under reconnaissance for pigeon shooting - or neatly segues with it.

 

19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think that much of the 'greyness' of the definitions is kicking the interpretation 'down the road' for someone else to worry about.

There may well be some of that - it's also often to make laws quite wide and not overly prescriptive. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Gas seal]

Thanks John. It seems that the game keeper couldn’t use that part of the licence in court. A game keeper should know it’s that condition he would have to explain in court to rely on the licence. He now understands that all birds are protected by law . Whoever uses GL42 to kill woodpigeon will have to explain footnote 6 it’s up to the user how they kill  the woodpigeon the question is why are you killing them. 

[Fellside]

21 minutes ago, old'un said:

unless you can point me in the right direction I can see nowhere in the GL42 that would allow future preventative shooting of pigeons (roost shooting)

Also how many shooters follow this part?

Condition 1. Alternative lawful methods

For action taken under this licence for carrion crow, feral pigeon, jackdaw, magpie, rook or wood pigeon (species native to the United Kingdom), you must:

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

b) continue to use reasonable endeavours, or be satisfied that reasonable endeavours continue to be made, to achieve the purpose in question using alternative, lawful methods not covered by this 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.

 

‘Unless it’s impractical to do so’ (may not be the precise wording). The GLs are riddled with contradictions and get out clauses. They have been written that way to avoid challenge. We’ve been here before on PW. I would ask the question: how can it be proven that a pigeon has not recently caused damage or is not about to (?) as that’s what they do for a living in farmland Britain after all. 

If you see the whole GL context in the round - especially GL42 -  it’s about area wide protection and not necessarily the field (or even the single farm) in which they are shot. This was made clear by the House of Commons Committee following the last Natural England GL debacle. 

Are the GLs confusing…? Yes potentially in parts, but quite legally robust and tricky to challenge. 

[Gas seal]

All the reasons to kill a woodpigeon  and a man was prosecuted for killing one. It wasn’t one of our local air gun lads sneaking along the hedges after rabbits and shot a pigeon  it was a game keeper and his lawyer who couldn’t give any of the reasons that have ever been talked about on this website. 

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, Gas seal said:

All the reasons to kill a woodpigeon  and a man was prosecuted for killing one. It wasn’t one of our local air gun lads sneaking along the hedges after rabbits and shot a pigeon  it was a game keeper and his lawyer who couldn’t give any of the reasons that have ever been talked about on this website. 

I’m not familiar with the case or the circumstances in which the pigeon met it’s demise. However, as he shot BOP, I think they threw anything at him that they could remotely make stick…..stepping on the cracks of a pavement etc…?!

[Dougy]

A question if i may ask to those who actually know. 

This shooting of any bird of prey to so called protect their game birds save approximately how many game birds

My little knowledge is that BOP only kill what they need to eat, unlike fox;s that kill for what we know as fun. If they kill more then how many more  

This reminds me very much of years ago pre hunting ban, it was all kicking off and the hunts all thought they were teflon coated, heads so far up their own orifice nothing else was going on in the world apart from what went on in their little world. 

I see the same thing happening with this ongoing issue with gamekeepers, whats the cost of shooting any BOP  what amount of birds are they saving from BOP for a days shoot, more birds are missed from poor shots. 

Makes my blood boil, as if we haven't got enough going against us we have our own knocking in the coffin nails. 

[London Best]

39 minutes ago, Dougy said:

A question if i may ask to those who actually know. 

This shooting of any bird of prey to so called protect their game birds save approximately how many game birds

My little knowledge is that BOP only kill what they need to eat, unlike fox;s that kill for what we know as fun. If they kill more then how many more  

This reminds me very much of years ago pre hunting ban, it was all kicking off and the hunts all thought they were teflon coated, heads so far up their own orifice nothing else was going on in the world apart from what went on in their little world. 

I see the same thing happening with this ongoing issue with gamekeepers, whats the cost of shooting any BOP  what amount of birds are they saving from BOP for a days shoot, more birds are missed from poor shots. 

Makes my blood boil, as if we haven't got enough going against us we have our own knocking in the coffin nails. 

Whilst I do not condone any law breaking in retaliation, I have to comment that you have obviously never seen the scale of devastation amongst poults which can be caused by a Goshawk, or even a Tawny Owl. 
I knew one man, now deceased, who put 100 pheasant poults into a release pen.  Visiting the next morning, he found 98 dead, killed by a Goshawk.

[Gas seal]

Hi he wasn’t prosecuted for killing the birds of prey, for possession of them. He was prosecuted for killing the woodpigeon. He pleaded guilty to 19 (counts) including firearms offences. He didn’t have the book thrown at him he hit himself with it. Last year another game keeper was convicted from the same area for killing birds of prey and firearms offences. These people aren’t made of Teflon and anything wasn’t thrown at them to  see if it would stick.  Well done  to the people who brought them to justice. I bet no shooting folks were involved in catching them.

[Dougy]

24 minutes ago, London Best said:

Whilst I do not condone any law breaking in retaliation, I have to comment that you have obviously never seen the scale of devastation amongst poults which can be caused by a Goshawk, or even a Tawny Owl. 
I knew one man, now deceased, who put 100 pheasant poults into a release pen.  Visiting the next morning, he found 98 dead, killed by a Goshawk.

No i have not seen it, but had been told about tawny's taking heads off poult's. 

Isn't prevention better than the cure  wouldn't netting over a smaller area to prevent young poults becoming the prey until they are bigger be beneficial