ROOST SHOOTING

[Zoli 12 guage]

given that roost shooting month kicks off a week on Saturday how many will be out thinning the numbers.

i am going to be totally honest here,i am always a bit wary doing any pigeon shooting at all because of that 🔔 end Packham his agenda against shooters and his successful court case.

i even broached this subject with my FEO and he said it hasn't stopped him,but he'd have to deal with the consequences if anything happened.

SO,is it worth the risk engaging in this activity which in my mind would be impossible to prove you'd met all the criteria if it went to court?

i used to look forward to February in a past life😭

[jall25]

You are making an issue out of nothing at all 

[aga man]

If you are lucky enough to shoot a few whilst out roosting, open up their crops & there is the proof that the February roost shoot is an essential part of pigeon control.

Enjoy the Roost shooting & remember to shoot grey squirrels whenever you can.

Be safe & leave only feathers & footprints wherever you go👍

Edited January 25 by aga man

[Zoli 12 guage]

9 hours ago, jall25 said:

You are making an issue out of nothing at all 

you might want to read GL42 condition 1 part "a"--alternative lawful methods.

i really don't want to get into an argument regarding this BUT as with the majority of laws that are ill thought out,this can leave the shooter hung out to dry by ANY avaricious parties that want to go after you as the onus of compliance is up to you to prove.

[stockybasher]

16 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

you might want to read GL42 condition 1 part "a"--alternative lawful methods.

i really don't want to get into an argument regarding this BUT as with the majority of laws that are ill thought out,this can leave the shooter hung out to dry by ANY avaricious parties that want to go after you as the onus of compliance is up to you to prove.

If you are so concerned, best you stay at home then. Simples  !

[jall25]

28 minutes ago, stockybasher said:

If you are so concerned, best you stay at home then. Simples  !

 

Indeed - Hhahah

46 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

you might want to read GL42 condition 1 part "a"--alternative lawful methods.

i really don't want to get into an argument regarding this BUT as with the majority of laws that are ill thought out,this can leave the shooter hung out to dry by ANY avaricious parties that want to go after you as the onus of compliance is up to you to prove.

Me neither but scaremongering is not good

We roost shoot to protect crops - Simple really  

[old'un]

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

you might want to read GL42 condition 1 part "a"--alternative lawful methods.

i really don't want to get into an argument regarding this BUT as with the majority of laws that are ill thought out,this can leave the shooter hung out to dry by ANY avaricious parties that want to go after you as the onus of compliance is up to you to prove.

It also says below 1(a) and 1(b)

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.

[Zoli 12 guage]

58 minutes ago, old'un said:

It also says below 1(a) and 1(b)

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.

i understand all that,but it still leaves you as the shooter to "prove" that is indeed the case.

if it was just a "tick box" type check list all would be good but like i said earlier it's not all black and white and is open to somebody's interpretation.

as an aside to this,has anyone been taken to court or tried to challenge/clarify this in court?

it's not going to stop me going out but i will and always do ensure that i am well away from footpaths and roads.

i can go out with any one of my CF rifles and not go through the same amount of **** as this.

it's ridiculous!!!!!

[Mable]

I often wonder if those that constantly need to ask should be actually shooting.

Do your research, form your own opinion and act accordingly, for it is you that is held to account not Internet opinions.

[old'un]

12 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

i understand all that,but it still leaves you as the shooter to "prove" that is indeed the case.

if it was just a "tick box" type check list all would be good but like i said earlier it's not all black and white and is open to somebody's interpretation.

as an aside to this,has anyone been taken to court or tried to challenge/clarify this in court?

it's not going to stop me going out but i will and always do ensure that i am well away from footpaths and roads.

i can go out with any one of my CF rifles and not go through the same amount of $hit as this.

it's ridiculous!!!!!

I would think Packham’s legal team have been all over the GL42, so ask yourself this, why have they not taken anyone to court for say shooting over a stubble field, after all what damage are the pigeons doing? If it was that easy to use the GL42 to prosecute someone I think he would have done it by now.

[udderlyoffroad]

24 minutes ago, Mable said:

I often wonder if those that constantly need to ask should be actually shooting.

Do your research, form your own opinion and act accordingly, for it is you that is held to account not Internet opinions.

A lot of people want some sort of permission, and like following rules.  The COVID pandemic proved this, people seriously asking for government approval to do this, do that...

20 minutes ago, old'un said:

If it was that easy to use the GL42 to prosecute someone I think he would have done it by now.

That would of course involve a 'private prosecution', which is not easy to get to court in the first place. 

If you tried to involve the police/CPS, after the 'guns in a field' panic/firearms-all-over-bar-the-shouting incident, I doubt  any sensible officer would want to get himself into the quagmire of trying to prove someone was not following the GL. Especially in the case of pigeons, where as has been pointed out, It's very easy to demonstrate the effect of agricultural damage by checking their crop.

 

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

i understand all that,but it still leaves you as the shooter to "prove" that is indeed the case.

Nope, it would be up to the CPS to prove you did not follow the conditions of the GL, and thus were in violation of the Wildlife and countryside act.

 

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

if it was just a "tick box" type check list all would be good but like i said earlier it's not all black and white and is open to somebody's interpretation.

Eh?  No it wouldn't.  It involves the use of good judgement (or common sense if you must employ that over-worked term). 

Check lists are there to prompt you, not be blindly followed.  Obedience of fules, and guidance of wyse men and all that.

Incidentally, nothing stopping you from turning the stipulations of the GL into a check list for you to follow - or more likely, a flow chart.  This is actually how police legal guides are written, in flow chart form, to the hope being to enable complex legislation to be followed on the ground in a hurry.

[Zoli 12 guage]

2 hours ago, Mable said:

I often wonder if those that constantly need to ask should be actually shooting.

Do your research, form your own opinion and act accordingly, for it is you that is held to account not Internet opinions.

and the reason i asked in the first place,if my FEO,who is an ex police police firearms officer and a sporting shooter himself doesn't know/isn't sure then obviously it's a valid question/concern.

AND, I'll ask this question again.

does anyone know if anyone has actually been taken to court, whether found guilty or not for being in contravention of a general licence?

[Zoli 12 guage]

3 hours ago, old'un said:

It also says below 1(a) and 1(b)

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.

and like i said earlier,who decides what is and what isn't?

it's open to interpretation and therefore not clear cut.

[old'un]

42 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

and the reason i asked in the first place,if my FEO,who is an ex police police firearms officer and a sporting shooter himself doesn't know/isn't sure then obviously it's a valid question/concern.

AND, I'll ask this question again.

does anyone know if anyone has actually been taken to court, whether found guilty or not for being in contravention of a general licence?

I think that if someone had been taken to court for not complying with the GL it would be all over the sporting press and internet, we would know about it.

 

34 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

and like i said earlier,who decides what is and what isn't?....You do, by complying with the GL

it's open to interpretation and therefore not clear cut....can you give me an example?

 

[marsh man]

We allow various people to roost shooting on the estate by permit only , they have got quite a good legal team and if any concerns have been put forward about should we be doing roost shooting or not then I am sure this would have been investigated before a single permit would have been issued , so I will be going and wouldn't give it a thought weather I am allowed to do it not , just get on and enjoy it while you can as one day you might well not be able to .   MM

[Zoli 12 guage]

16 minutes ago, old'un said:

I think that if someone had been taken to court for not complying with the GL it would be all over the sporting press and internet, we would know about it.

 

 

this is the general licence currently in play untill 31st December 2025

 the bits that interest me are "Enforcement and penalties for misuse of this licence" and "condition 1.alternative lawful methods"

on the BASC website it advises that you to record the alternative methods used and the dates you used them.

why would they advise this if it was all cut and dried?

answer is because it's open to someone's opinion to what is and what isn't "impractical,without effect and disproportionate" and that opinion may be different to yours!

the problem being is,that opinion might be a judge's!

 

2025https://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.

11 minutes ago, marsh man said:

We allow various people to roost shooting on the estate by permit only , they have got quite a good legal team and if any concerns have been put forward about should we be doing roost shooting or not then I am sure this would have been investigated before a single permit would have been issued , so I will be going and wouldn't give it a thought weather I am allowed to do it not , just get on and enjoy it while you can as one day you might well not be able to .   MM

👍👍👍 hopefully not for a long time

[mossy835]

we have been out in woods for the last month shooting them just go and do it,

[old'un]

1 hour ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

this is the general licence currently in play untill 31st December 2025

 the bits that interest me are "Enforcement and penalties for misuse of this licence" and "condition 1.alternative lawful methods"

on the BASC website it advises that you to record the alternative methods used and the dates you used them.

why would they advise this if it was all cut and dried?

answer is because it's open to someone's opinion to what is and what isn't "impractical,without effect and disproportionate" and that opinion may be different to yours!

the problem being is,that opinion might be a judge's!

 

You are seeing problems where there are none, if you take your logic and use the “prevent serious damage” then who is the judge of serious damage before you can shoot pigeons? You, the farmer, the CPS?

You are correct in saying it is open to someones interpretation/opinion to what is and what isn't and for that very reason makes it difficult for the CPS to pursue a prosecution and get a conviction, I think the GL has been written in such a way that it meets certain legal obligations to stop it being challenged again but as left plenty of loopholes that make it difficult to prove you have not complied with the GL, as for keeping records, should you be challenged, that would be easy to comply with as you do not need to do them on the day you shoot.

Lets put it like this, if you or anyone else were unlucky enough to be prosecuted and were found guilty and your guns removed, that would be the end of this type of shooting and possibly the end of shooting full stop, but I don’t think it will happen.

 

 

[Manymissedpigeon]

Just a idea, but, when asked by any countryside police officer when pigeon shooting in the field ,if you have ‘read the general licence’ then I think the obvious answer is “ yes I have officer” . ( even if you haven’t which seems to be the attitude of most of my pigeon decoying mates) as I doubt said officer has read the GL 42 anyway. Also if it’s the firearms department who have either been called or, as in my case more than once, just heard the call about someone in a field so thought they’d just ‘pop over for a look’, then they haven’t the faintest idea ( well up North they haven’t anyway) about the GL 42.

But if you state, when asked, that you haven’t read the licence throughout then that’s the simple answer that the attending officer needs to investigate further. I also would like to hear of any pigeon shooter who is going about his ‘job’ with permission from the farmer/ landowner, having been taken to court, let alone found guilty of any offence.

Incidentally, all, I mean all police officers who have been called to my location over the last thirty years  ( including armed response) have all chatted in an amicable manner and at the worst have asked me to “ do us a favour and move another hundred yards down the field,”  then there’s no chance of the wind taking your, say vertical shots over a footpath ( which is usually at least two hundred yards away anyway) so I find North and East Yorkshire police biased TOWARDS the shooter with little time for the moaning ‘offcumbdens’ who’ve made the complaint.

[marsh man]

I did read a little bit from this weeks Shooting Times in Tesco's this afternoon where it stated a police helicopter was brought in after the public complained about some Pigeon shooters , maybe someone can confirm and update it if you buy the S Ts .     MM

[Zoli 12 guage]

3 hours ago, marsh man said:

We allow various people to roost shooting on the estate by permit only , they have got quite a good legal team and if any concerns have been put forward about should we be doing roost shooting or not then I am sure this would have been investigated before a single permit would have been issued , so I will be going and wouldn't give it a thought weather I am allowed to do it not , just get on and enjoy it while you can as one day you might well not be able to .   MM

👍👍👍 hopefully not for a long time

[Zoli 12 guage]

i only started this thread as a "what if" scenario really and to just put the ill thought out wording of this so called legislation into a debate,so I'd like to thank you all for your input as i still really think it's a minefield.

it won't stop me being out next Saturday though and i'll be doing some pre shooting scouting this weekend.

[mellors]

On 26/01/2024 at 17:42, marsh man said:

I did read a little bit from this weeks Shooting Times in Tesco's this afternoon where it stated a police helicopter was brought in after the public complained about some Pigeon shooters , maybe someone can confirm and update it if you buy the S Ts .     MM

This one??