LAZ(er)Y WAY TO SHOOT MAGPIES

[tonyn]

Last year whilst working in a customers house , the lady of the house came in really upset(crying) She had been hanging out her washing and spotted a half dead woodpigeon chick in the garden with its eyes pecked out and compleatley bald on its head and bleeding.She asked if i could put it out of its misery, which i did. 30 minutes later her husband came home and she told him what had happened. He proceded to tell me how the last few days before he had been throwing stones/sticks ect at a group of magpies trying to raid the nest (which was in a tree in his garden)

Magpies imo are vermin to be classified in the same bracket as rats .
I wouldnt hesitate to shoot a few given a chance

[Raygun]

Doesn't matter what you think.

The law is quite specific, whether you agree with it or not.
All birds are protected but you may shoot some listed species PROVIDED you comply with the requirements of the General Licence that is applicable.

Having feeders means that you cannot comply with any of the Licences. You could say that you are enticing the Magpies in so you are responsible for the deaths of the songbirds.

Get rid of the feeders and you can shoot as many as you can and at the same time comply with the General Licences.

ATB
Ray.

[John_R]

You could be skating on thin ice from another legal point of view, in so far as you are not to use " artificial light, mirror or dazzling device" to help shoot birds (yes I know lamping feral pigeon is OK).

[Minuteman]

A method to dissuade or prevent magpies from your garden would also dissuade or prevent song birds

"Condition 3 of this licence – which requires users to satisfy themselves that other appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem are either ineffective or impracticable"

Wouldn't that therefore mean, that as those methods were impracticable (you still want the song birds), you would have sufficient grounds to pop a lead pill in their (the magpies) lug hole?

[Raygun]

A method to dissuade or prevent magpies from your garden would also dissuade or prevent song birds

"Condition 3 of this licence – which requires users to satisfy themselves that other appropriate legal methods of resolving the problem are either ineffective or impracticable"

Wouldn't that therefore mean, that as those methods were impracticable (you still want the song birds), you would have sufficient grounds to pop a lead pill in their (the magpies) lug hole?

Not really as you have "baited" the birds in. This hardly complies with the requirement of dissuasion. Either you have tried to dissuade them or you have enticed them in, it can't be both.

I have no problem with people shooting birds that are on the Licences as long as the Licences are complied with.
When you deviate from that and it's found out, you are just another hooligan with an airgun, shooting birds. That does none of us any good at all.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

Not really as you have "baited" the birds in. This hardly complies with the requirement of dissuasion. Either you have tried to dissuade them or you have enticed them in, it can't be both.

I have no problem with people shooting birds that are on the Licences as long as the Licences are complied with.
When you deviate from that and it's found out, you are just another hooligan with an airgun, shooting birds. That does none of us any good at all.

ATB
Ray.

But to follow that logic to it's ultimate conclusion would be to say anything that a magpie finds attractive would have to be removed to remain within the law? That would surely be the very definition of impracticable!

I can see however, how the OP falls foul of the use of artificial light, and the following (unless there is a veg patch/fruit tree);

The general licences authorise shooting for specific purposes such as: preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit and foodstuffs for livestock, and for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety. It is important that any shooting complies fully with the terms and conditions of each general licence.

EDIT: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Ima...tcm6-24151.pdf

Don't need a veg patch/fruit tree

[Raygun]

The only fact that makes it illegal is that the birds (doesn't matter what kind) are being attracted in by offering them food.

You are in effect cancelling out any reason to shoot to protect other birds as it's you that is causing the problem.

It matters not to me if someone wants to take the chance and shoot Magpies under the circumstances described. It will be them that faces any prosecution and also risks their rifles being taken for test.

Sure it may not happen but if it does you are in deep trouble. Just like the bloke who was shooting ferals (in compliance to the General Licence). Pellet left his boundary (new law), rifles taken for test and one with AT fitted was over. Criminal record, loss of rifle and costs.

Baiting birds in and shooting them has been successfully prosecuted before and will be again.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

The only fact that makes it illegal is that the birds (doesn't matter what kind) are being attracted in by offering them food.

You are in effect cancelling out any reason to shoot to protect other birds as it's you that is causing the problem.

It matters not to me if someone wants to take the chance and shoot Magpies under the circumstances described. It will be them that faces any prosecution and also risks their rifles being taken for test.

Sure it may not happen but if it does you are in deep trouble. Just like the bloke who was shooting ferals (in compliance to the General Licence). Pellet left his boundary (new law), rifles taken for test and one with AT fitted was over. Criminal record, loss of rifle and costs.

Baiting birds in and shooting them has been successfully prosecuted before and will be again.

ATB
Ray.

I'm sure there have been successful prosecutions, in my heart of hearts I just wish court time were spent on more worthy subjects.

How would sticking a decoy down there opposite the bird feeders figure in to it?

Were they baited or decoyed?



I've not heard about the feral pigeon shooter who was without a safe back stop but would not think it the same thing at all really but understand your meaning - why attract unnecessary scrutiny and potential bother if it can be avoided - couldn't agree more.

[prosport.177]

Pulls up a chair

[missed it]

green lazer added to my hunting kit.
thanks for the tip

[Gary C]

Doesn't matter what you think.

The law is quite specific, whether you agree with it or not.
All birds are protected but you may shoot some listed species PROVIDED you comply with the requirements of the General Licence that is applicable.

Having feeders means that you cannot comply with any of the Licences. You could say that you are enticing the Magpies in so you are responsible for the deaths of the songbirds.

Get rid of the feeders and you can shoot as many as you can and at the same time comply with the General Licences.

ATB
Ray.

He's fine Ray. Your argument is incorrect, by the same token you could be enticing the pigeons if you have corn fields.

He is feeding the song birds, which are scarce and therefore is within his rights to do so. Because he has created an envirnonmentally friendly garden he has songbirds nesting (some I believe quite rare and threatened) which are being predated on my the magpies.
For this reason he is (with regret) shooting the magpies to protect these songbirds.
That, my friend, is a watertight defense, as long as he kills them clean and no pellet leaves his boundary

[sharpshooter44]

In a previous post it was stated that if you attract the birds in then it is you that is the problem.
How does this stand if the birds are already there causing problems and non-lethal methods have failed but it is also unsafe to shoot at that same place.
Can you then try and attract the birds to a different part of the same property to then shoot them or does this then conflict with what was previously said about baiting/attracting them in?
Sorry if I have missed the obvious here.

[Gambo]

Hmmm, I have read this thread with interest.

As someone else asked, what about Decoying Pigeons....isn't that a form of 'enticement'??

As is so often the case with the wording of the law, it is open to interpretation, so it can be manipulated by the powers that be, for however they see fit.

[Jamie]

Provided that the feeders weren't placed for the magpies for the purpose of shooting them, then I suspect that the OP is OK.

Otherwise, to take the counterargument to it's logical conclusion, we're in the organic HLS on the shoot to help the grey partridges, which have increased in number, as have the carrion crows. Does this mean we need to rip up the beetle banks before we can run larsens?

Jamie

[Minuteman]

He's fine Ray. Your argument is incorrect, by the same token you could be enticing the pigeons if you have corn fields.

He is feeding the song birds, which are scarce and therefore is within his rights to do so. Because he has created an envirnonmentally friendly garden he has songbirds nesting (some I believe quite rare and threatened) which are being predated on my the magpies.
For this reason he is (with regret) shooting the magpies to protect these songbirds.
That, my friend, is a watertight defense, as long as he kills them clean and no pellet leaves his boundary

I only wish I could have said that as succinctly
Thank you Mr C.
Still the fact remains that in a suburban garden Mrs shockedandappalled may still report you to the authorities - and that even with a water tight defence would be a right pain in the proverbial.