LAZ(er)Y WAY TO SHOOT MAGPIES

[ARWP]

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.

Minuteman, I agree with your logic, FWIW, but I think Raygun's view is what the legal process would follow (yes, I think it is absurd as well.)

I have spent the last two springs watching the Thrushes diligently building nests in my garden, only to have Magpies attack and destroy the clutch. The only reason I haven't opened up is this doubt about interpretation of wildbird protection.

A

[Raygun]

It's not "Rocket Science".

The Wildlife & Countryside Act" protects all wild birds. That's your start point.

The "General Licences" allow you to shoot certain listed species of birds providing you comply with the requirements of the Licences.

One of the listed requirements is that methods of dissuading the birds have to be tried (you don't have to try them yourself but can presume they have been tried somewhere).

You can hardly claim that you have tried to dissuade them (or presume it's been tried) if you are feeding them.

It's you that attracting them so it's you who's causing the problem.

It matters not what logic is involved. It matters more what the Acts say.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

It's not "Rocket Science".

The Wildlife & Countryside Act" protects all wild birds. That's your start point.

The "General Licences" allow you to shoot certain listed species of birds providing you comply with the requirements of the Licences.

One of the listed requirements is that methods of dissuading the birds have to be tried (you don't have to try them yourself but can presume they have been tried somewhere).

You can hardly claim that you have tried to dissuade them (or presume it's been tried) if you are feeding them.

It's you that attracting them so it's you who's causing the problem.

It matters not what logic is involved. It matters more what the Acts say.

ATB
Ray.

You don't have to dissuade if you can prove it is impracticable - that is specified in the licence.

Logic and reason should be the bedrock of our laws, and where it isn't, it should be highlighted, challenged and changed - except of course, where it is not in our benefit (there's hypocrisy here but I am good with it!)

I agree with both you Ray, and AWRP, as to an outcome for a suburban conservationist though - unnecessary grief, possible prosecution and possible damage to the credibility of the sport.
Which is sad. If the public were more aware of the issues they might be more sympathetic but I await that along the same time scale as the return of Lord Lucan.

Must go - time to feed the cat.