LAZ(er)Y WAY TO SHOOT MAGPIES

[Raygun]

Magpies are not birds as in the sense of a blackbird, thrush etc.

They are vermin, with no natural predator and are taking over our towns and cities, destroying the nests of our garden birds (which have enough trouble with cats etc), and the magpie population is ever expanding.

Forget waking up to the dawn chorus - its the dawn cackle these days

And the RSPB do nothing but sit back in a smug way, and go and visit some bird sanctuary hundreds of miles away rather than sorting out thier own back yard.

So well done Matou and good tip.

Rant over

ALL birds are protected.

ATB
Ray.

[Matou]

ALL birds are protected.

ATB
Ray.

=================

I respect your view Ray, and did expect you to cite GLO6, as you have in previous articles debating the shooting of other species of bird in garden areas.

in response (and I am not offering this as defence) may I state that I have witnessed repeated attacks by maggies on the young of songbirds in my garden - predominantly blue tits, long tailed tits and one goldfinch (I have about 20 nesting boxes situated on my property), and in the past week I have had to put down three baby bunnies that have either been blinded or severely injure by packs of 2 to 4 magpies attacking them on the lawn.

The magpie is an opportunistic killer, IMHO, and I feel that my actions to reduce the numbers so as to protect the songbirds, especially, would stand as equally justified as the use of larsen traps to reduce corvid numbers on the two shooting estates bordering my village.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Mr. Gen]

Magpies and woodies gather in the one of the yards where I shoot at the weekend, it would be illegal for me to deliberatley scatter grain but as luck would have it a bag very often gets dropped as the Friday shift are finishing........

Plastic decoys are of course just purchased because there aren't enough real woodies and magpies around

I think that the use of a green laser for luring birds would probably be almost impossible to prove....after all the laser was only being used for range-finding wasn't it

[Raygun]

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

Hi Gary,
Sorry but I can't agree.

You are not growing crops to entice birds in, it's just a by product of growing the crop.

It's nonsense to say you are just feeding song birds, it may be your intention, but it's a practical impossibility. It's the feeder that is attracting the birds in and you won't even get the RSPB to back you on the saving songbirds plea.

It would be an extremely tenuous argument in Court and a defence that I certainly wouldn't attempt to rely on, especially as the offence carries a maximum of £5000 fine and/or 6 months inside for each bird.
I don't dispute that anyone has the right to feed birds. They just can't comply to the Licence if they do. Feeding is hardly demonstrating that you are trying to deter the birds.

The last problem of this sort was extensively discussed on here and the subject was a person who was successfully prosecuted for baiting Starlings into his garden and shooting them. Starling were on the list at the time but baiting them in wasn't allowable.

I will however contact BASC to see what their take on this is.

ATB
Ray.