henry c Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I wondered if anyone has read the latest sporting gun, it contains many articles regarding the update of the general lisense. in particular it mensions how a man was prosecuted for shooting pigeons on a field of barley, due to the fact it was not going to be harvested, taking the case to court would have led to confescation of his dog and guns untill the case, so he paid the fine. my point is that if someone wants to be awkward it will be risky shooting pigeons without exelent reason, for me living in the Peak District where there are no crops such a reason is non existant even though all i shoot is for the pot. why cant pigeons have an open season, and can be shot during breeding season under the conditions of the general liscence? is it worth planting some peas to give reason for my shooting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I haven't read the magazine so don't know the full story - sounds a bit worrying though. However, we must be careful when reading and relating these sorts of articles. I'm not disagreeing with you henry c - I'm just saying it's easy to read things into statements that aren't necessarily true. I haven't read SG for a few years now so don't know if they are into publishing scare stories to get a reaction or not, but I've just subscribed so I'll know soon. taking the case to court would have led to confescation of his dog and guns untill the case, so he paid the fine. Did it say "would" or "might" - big difference? Did he contact the BASC or similar for legal representation? Was he actually prosecuted or was he simply arrested by plod who didn't know the law - often the case? why cant pigeons have an open season, and can be shot during breeding season under the conditions of the general liscence? They do and can. Piebob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry c Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 The guy was caught by a RSPCA officer, who procescuted him. And BASC seem to show no interest in such cases, they are supposed to be on our side yet they let law after law pass without resistance such as; lead free shot on waterfowl changes to the general liscence why dont they stand up for shooters who join them with this hope. I think John Swift has no interest in shooters of pigeons, providing pheasants are flying by season, bet restrictions on pheasant shooting would meet more opposition by BASC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 I agree with what you say re the BASC and will be reviewing my membership renewal when it is due next, along with many others on the forum by the looks of it. The general license was changed without consultation of any sorts but reworded after intevention. But you are correct, it was the NGO rather than the BASC who shouted loudest if I recall correctly. I'm in Scotland so still have the lead-free stuff to look forward to.. Piebob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry c Posted May 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 i say if you want your shooting insaurance but dont want to support a hopless organisation, join the CPSA at least they dont comment on the matter or backstab shooters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flightline Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Before we get too excited about the case...there was no case. At least in the sense that it was not defended. The guy was shooting next to a bird sanctuary. Although the chap wished to defend himself (I believe he was in the right as the open general licence makes no reference to actual or imminent damage, just to the prevention of serious damage I believe) the police advised if the case went to court he`d have his licence withdrawn and his shotgun confiscated whilst it was being considered. We know these things can drag on and this frightened our friend off. The BASC will have to back a test case sooner or later though on this. And you know what? On their latest council there is not one single member who has expressed interest in pigeon (as opposed to rough) shooting. So how about a member of this Forum putting up or nominating someone next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry c Posted May 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 i think we should start our own organisation, one that doesnt support toffs who couldnt give a **** for anyone but themselfs. one that supports the true countryman, who actually eats what he shoots, and takes no more than he can eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 i think we should start our own organisation, one that doesnt support toffs who couldnt give a **** for anyone but themselfs. one that supports the true countryman, who actually eats what he shoots, and takes no more than he can eat. Unfortunately there are already too many organisations trying to battle what is happening to ALL fieldsports not just pigeon shooting. IBUT if we keep infighting instead of joining together we'll end up like the pistol shooters and the fox hunters; with nothing! Fishermen too 'cause if we go they're next. Take a leaf out of the unions book (never thought I ever say something like this being a died in the wool right winger but) 'TUC' together, united, conquer my version of divided we fall, united we stand. Don't know about the case being debated but usually there's more to it than you read in the papers/magazines. In my opinion BASC are too cautious. CPSA is for clay shooters which is all very well but it might be all we'll be able to shoot in the future. NGO probably great if you're a gamekeeper and so on. Very difficult options and probably no easy solution but whatever we do; fighting, backbiting and self seeking arguement isn't gonna help our sport/s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Country Boy Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Flightline - "there was no case" When pigeon shooting each person must be sure he is not in breach of his statutory duty ( get permission, know your quary and where your shot will fall etc etc) clearly something which the guy recently fined did not. I am pretty sure that any current RSPCA officer? would not be able to differentiate between the various crops still standing at Autumn time! In the unlikely event of some do-good ******* reporting me to that much maligned Royal organisation whilst I am pigeon shooting under the guise of the open general licence, I know 100percent that I would be vindicated. Further more, the loudest voice at the ministry concerning the recent hiccup in the re-wording of the open general licence was not that of the NGO it was in fact the National Pigeon and Pest Control who did a tremendous job there, incidentally they also have a blanket insurance cover for all their members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernyha Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 :< Reading this thread, I am getting a bit confused. I was under the impression that our open licence to shoot pigeons allowed us to shoot them on the way to the field,on their way from it,flying over it or actually dropping in to feed on it. Just because the pigeon isn't actually doing damage at the time we shoot it, doesn't mean that it won't be doing so in ten minutes time or tomorrow even. In France as I understand it, they have a closed season on wood pigeons but the farmer is allowed to shoot them if they actually land on his crops and start eating at any time of the year. Is this what they are trying to introduce into this country via the back door? :< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 40 years ago, before global warming was thought about, it was stated that shooting was an affective way of protecting a particular field or crop, but was not a significant way of reducing pigeon numbers because the cold winters did that anyway. Using this as a starting point, it could be argued that roost shooting would not be legal under the General License on the grounds that it reduces the overall pigeon population. Tin of worms or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Clarke Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 (edited) And BASC seem to show no interest in such cases, they are supposed to be on our side yet they let law after law pass without resistance such as; lead free shot on waterfowl changes to the general liscence why dont they stand up for shooters who join them with this hope. I think John Swift has no interest in shooters of pigeons, providing pheasants are flying by season, bet restrictions on pheasant shooting would meet more opposition by BASC. We were not, to the best of my knowledge, approached about this case. We can and do represent members where they have a good case, and where they request such help. It is wrong to assume we have no interest in such cases, as it is to compare it to restrictions on lead shot - which are the result of an international treaty agreement. The recent changes to the general licence have been favourable to shooting; removing starlings and house sparrows and adding canada geese. The RSPB was lobbying very hard for a range of restrictions, which were rejected. The manufactured row about the wording on the licence has been settled. We were instrumental in changing the wording on non lethal alternatives from "demonstrate" to "be satisfied", with Defra calling us before the change was made by a minister. We remain convinced that the orginal form of wording did not, in reality, pose a great threat and simply accords with the wording contained the EC Wild Birds directive. (79/409/EEC) Article 8 of this states that "member states may derogate from the provisions of articles 5,6, and 7 (which grant protection to all wild birds), where there is no other satisfactory solution, in the interests of public health and safety; in the interests if air safety, to porevent serious damage to crops, livestocks, forests, fisheries and water; for the protection of flaura and fauna. This has been the law since 1979. The general licences are the UK's way of conforming with this directive, and the wording and reasons for pest control must comply with the directive. To suggest we care more about pheasant shooting than pigeon shooting is nonsense. Edited May 25, 2005 by Simon Clarke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 National Pigeon and Pest Control Who are these people, they are a new Organisation to me ? A Google search found nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Cranners, They have their own forum topic on Pigeonwatch - tut, tut, shows how well you know the website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) Thanks Double H, as I am not a Member of NPPC, I never read that section. :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 one that supports the true countryman, who actually eats what he shoots, and takes no more than he can eat. I sympathise with you Henry.... But that would proclude about 95 % of the people who use this Forum :thumbs: FM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry c Posted May 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 no bodys perfect :thumbs: 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.