LAZ(er)Y WAY TO SHOOT MAGPIES

[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.

[Raygun]

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.

The only way you could successfully defend your actions and comply with the General Licence would be to stop feeding the birds.

It's quite simple. Feed the birds and it's you that's the problem.

Don't feed the birds and you can shoot those listed for the reasons outlined on the Licence.

It's quite clear in the Wildlife & Countryside Act that all birds are protected and it's an offence to kill them.

If you wish to kill them then you have to comply to the requirements of the General Licence.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

The only way you could successfully defend your actions and comply with the General Licence would be to stop feeding the birds.

It's quite simple. Feed the birds and it's you that's the problem.

Don't feed the birds and you can shoot those listed for the reasons outlined on the Licence.

It's quite clear in the Wildlife & Countryside Act that all birds are protected and it's an offence to kill them.

If you wish to kill them then you have to comply to the requirements of the General Licence.

ATB
Ray.

The licence specificity states;

This licence permits landowners, occupiers and other authorised persons to carry out a range of otherwise prohibited activities against the species of wild birds listed on the licence. This licence may only be relied upon where the activities are carried out for the purposes specified, and users must comply with licence terms and conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the user must be satisfied that legal (including non-lethal) methods of resolving the problem are ineffective or impracticable.

THE PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH THIS LICENCE APPLIES
1. Subject to paragraph 2 and the licence conditions, this licence is granted to:
(i) Conserve wild birds, and
(ii) Conserve flora and fauna.

To argue for the removal of bird feeders for other species would be to argue against that which is logical never mind practicable.

It is not logical or practicable to remove a source of food for other wild birds when all you wish to do is aid those wild birds conservation.

It is for the purpose of the wild birds conservation that shooting magpies is permitted under the terms of the licence.

Feeding other birds cannot be the problem (IMHO) as attracting other species to the safe harbour of your garden to propagate and flourish is their purpose - feeders are not there as a bait for magpies, but as a conservation means for other species.

I have had a good read of the "Act" though I will freely admit I might have missed the glaringly obvious but I can't find anything that says otherwise.

[albrown]

Yes it all abit crazy now. I remember not too long ago a man being charged and convicted, because he shot a pigeon in his garden. I think he had put bread down to lure it in and also could not show that he had tryied other forms of non lethal pest control before shooting it...

What a joke... How did we let ourselves get into such a position?

ALex

[Raygun]

The licence specificity states;

This licence permits landowners, occupiers and other authorised persons to carry out a range of otherwise prohibited activities against the species of wild birds listed on the licence. This licence may only be relied upon where the activities are carried out for the purposes specified, and users must comply with licence terms and conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the user must be satisfied that legal (including non-lethal) methods of resolving the problem are ineffective or impracticable.

THE PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH THIS LICENCE APPLIES
1. Subject to paragraph 2 and the licence conditions, this licence is granted to:
(i) Conserve wild birds, and
(ii) Conserve flora and fauna.

To argue for the removal of bird feeders for other species would be to argue against that which is logical never mind practicable.

It is not logical or practicable to remove a source of food for other wild birds when all you wish to do is aid those wild birds conservation.

It is for the purpose of the wild birds conservation that shooting magpies is permitted under the terms of the licence.

Feeding other birds cannot be the problem (IMHO) as attracting other species to the safe harbour of your garden to propagate and flourish is their purpose - feeders are not there as a bait for magpies, but as a conservation means for other species.

I have had a good read of the "Act" though I will freely admit I might have missed the glaringly obvious but I can't find anything that says otherwise.

I would suggest you make your own decision.

I've made mine.
I know what the RSPCA and the RSPB's attitude is and they will prosecute and win.

ATB
Ray.

[prosport.177]

Pulls up a chair