kkal5000 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Can u use electronic callers to shoot crows or it is against the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_R Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 It is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter_zero Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 It is illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981. I have copied the relevant section below. 5 Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person— (a)sets in position any of the following articles, being an article which is of such a nature and is so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild bird coming into contact therewith, that is to say, any springe, trap, gin, snare, hook and line, any electrical device for killing, stunning or frightening or any poisonous, poisoned or stupefying substance; (b)uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird any such article as aforesaid, whether or not of such a nature and so placed as aforesaid, or any net, baited board, bird-lime or substance of a like nature to bird-lime; ©uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird— (i)any bow or crossbow; (ii)any explosive other than ammunition for a firearm; (iii)any automatic or semi-automatic weapon; (iv)any shot-gun of which the barrel has an internal diameter at the mule of more than one and three-quarter inches; (v)any device for illuminating a target or any sighting device for night shooting; (vi)any form of artificial lighting or any mirror or other dazzling device; (vii)any gas or smoke not falling within paragraphs (a) and (; or (viii)any chemical wetting agent; (d)uses as a decoy, for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird, any sound recording or any live bird or other animal whatever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is blind, maimed or injured; F1 . . . (e)uses any mechanically propelled vehicle in immediate pursuit of a wild bird for the purpose of killing or taking that bird, [F2 ; or (f)knowingly causes or permits to be done an act which is mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this subsection and which is not lawful under subsection (5),] he shall be guilty of an offence [F3and be liable to a special penalty]. (2)Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may by order, either generally or in relation to any kind of wild bird specified in the order, amend subsection (1) by adding any method of killing or taking wild birds or by omitting any such method which is mentioned in that subsection. (3)The power conferred by subsection (2) shall not be exerciseable, except for the purpose of complying with an international obligation, in relation to any method of killing or taking wild birds which involves the use of a firearm. (4)In any proceedings under subsection (1)(a) it shall be a defence to show that the article was set in position for the purpose of killing or taking, in the interests of public health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries or nature conservation, any wild animals which could be lawfully killed or taken by those means and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to wild birds. [ F4(4A)In any proceedings under subsection (1)(f) relating to an act which is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) it shall be a defence to show that the article was set in position for the purpose of killing or taking, in the interests of public health, agriculture, forestry, fisheries or nature conservation, any wild animals which could be lawfully killed or taken by those means and that he took or caused to be taken all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to wild birds.] (5)Nothing in subsection (1) shall make unlawful— (a)the use of a cage-trap or net by an authorised person for the purpose of taking a bird included in Part II of Schedule 2; (b)the use of nets for the purpose of taking wild duck in a duck decoy which is shown to have been in use immediately before the passing of the M1Protection of Birds Act 1954; or ©the use of a cage-trap or net for the purpose of taking any game bird if it is shown that the taking of the bird is solely for the purpose of breeding; but nothing in this subsection shall make lawful the use of any net for taking birds in flight or the use for taking birds on the ground of any net which is projected or propelled otherwise than by hand. HTH John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy11 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 b-iii..... The use of semi - automatic weapon...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 read it, they term semi auto as a gun being capable of holding more than 2 rounds in the mag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusk2dawn Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 read it, they term semi auto as a gun being capable of holding more than 2 rounds in the mag Reading "legalise" is not my strongpoint, my sect1 semi conditions are for the destruction of vermin etc etc, I presume that protecting a crop of maize against rooks is within that condition, but what is the view when the crop is harvested and the gamefood strip thats left in a strategic position has to still be protected, its no longer a crop is it? The general licence, which many shooters still dont fully understand, indicates that pigeon may be shot when all other crop protection methods have failed, when is a crop a crop, do we break the law shooting pigeon feeding on spilt grain when the crop is planted? Or again when the crop has been harvested and only the stubble remaining? Sorry if i have gone off at a tangent. Rgds D2D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobbit Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 read it, they term semi auto as a gun being capable of holding more than 2 rounds in the mag So 22rf ruger 10/22 and an fac shotgun capable of holding more than 2 cartridges in the mag are both illegal for taking birds? e)uses any mechanically propelled vehicle in immediate pursuit of a wild bird for the purpose of killing or taking that bird, So driving into a field and shooting a crow off the bonnet of the landrover would be illegal too then would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 STREWTH??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 ######################### Then your breaking the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 So driving into a field and shooting a crow off the bonnet of the landrover would be illegal too then would it? No because it is not in "immediate pursuit" ie. whilst the vehicle is in motion. 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.