bushtrekker Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I've just spent half an hour trawling through the net to see if I can find documentary evidence that tha ACPO have stated that they will not prosecute anyone shooting munjac without deer on their FAC until next renewal. The closest I've found is this The Deer (Regulatory Reform) ( England and Wales) Order 2007 has been with us since October 2007. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the extension to the female deer season has been widely utilised and has been particularly useful in the case of fallow deer. With regard to shooting muntjac and chinese water deer with .22 centrefire rifles ACPO have made it clear that they will make variations on certificates only when the certificate is due for renewal, there is no requirement to make a variation to shoot deer with these smaller calibres until then. “Following a period of discussion through ACPO FELWG Regional representatives, I have determined that the Working Groups’ policy recommendation to relevant Chief Officers and their FLMs is that for a period of no more than 5 years, we accept that it will not be in the public interest to seek to prosecute a person in circumstances where they have existing lawful possession of a firearm that would meet the above requirements, but currently have a condition on their firearms certificate to take only foxes/vermin.†The full text can be found here http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/html/news_cen_dec08.htm in a document dated December 2008, but I would still prefer to see a statement from the ACPO or Home Office. Cheers, John http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/html/news_cen_dec08.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I would get a categoric answer from your FEO before even thinking about taking deer with a .22CF, if it's not on your ticket. Essex Police did a variation to allow me to use my .22CFs for muntjac, as soon as the legislation was passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushtrekker Posted January 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Cheers Baldrick, That was my thinking on the subject. At the moment I haven't got a .223, but I have got a lot for one on me FAC, as well as .22,.17 HMr and FAC air. I've got a .22 which I use for rabbits, mainly at dusk from my land rover. My original intention in applying for these calibres was as follows. .22 Ground game. .17 HMR Ground Game and close range fox. FAC air, in case any idiot in the government decides to put all air weapons on FAC .223 to get a centre fire slot with the intention of doing DSC1 and possibly changing to .243 I haven't bought a .17 HMR, mainly bacause I shoot to fill the freezer and have seen videos of the damage they can do, although I've never fired one, but also because of the noise. I shoot on three linked areas of land, in total about 1,000 acres, but only one is cleared for centre fire and there is a problem with noise complaints on another area. I can only use FAC air or shotgun on about half of this, but can't persuade myself to buy one, because I think they are overpriced. All of which brings me back to .223 and muntjac. I still intend to do DSC1 when I get time to get round to it, as Staffordshire won't grant deer without DSC1 or experience with a stalker who is prepared to sign off to say that I'm safe and accurate. This does seem slightly strange when I can use the same rifle for fox without any restriction, as surely there is far more danger from shooting foxes at long range than deer at close ranges. I'm just wondering about trying to get around places which are suffering muntjac damage and seeing whether I can get in to get some experience for the benefit of the police, but can't decide whether to just buy a .223, or wait and go for a .243. The sticking point is that despite what has been said in the shooting press, my FAC was issued after the law was changed and I suspect they might prosecute, irrespective of the ACPO' statement. Cheers, John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieT Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 I agree with Baldrick, sound advice. I can't remember the wording but I am sure that the ACPO directive was that if a fac was already conditioned for deer with a standard deer caliber then the fac holder could use their .22cf to shoot small deer without a deer condition (for the .22cf) until renewal when a deer condition would have to be applied for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I agree with Baldrick, sound advice.I can't remember the wording but I am sure that the ACPO directive was that if a fac was already conditioned for deer with a standard deer caliber then the fac holder could use their .22cf to shoot small deer without a deer condition (for the .22cf) until renewal when a deer condition would have to be applied for. CharlieT has it spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawkeye Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 (edited) Well they are all different my ticket was up for renewal last Nov so i asked for ...FOX ...VERMIN...and small deer when applicable for my 223 it came back fox only..my FEO said vermin was overkill and they would not put deer on... I am not to bothered i am not into stalking just thought i would ask and see what they say.. Next step i am going to get an invite from a mate in scotland where the 223 is legal for some deer then i am going to ask again to see what happens... I dont have any plans to shoot deer in the near future... :good: Edited January 15, 2009 by hawkeye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.