Call for airgun licencing in England

[NTSOG]

G'day all,

As you likely know we in Australia are required to have a full shooter's licence, but the issue of cats, especially feral cats, is a primary issue for Australia as indigenous fauna is defenceless against cats and domestic [pet] cats left to roam at night do massive damage:

"Each feral cat kills between 5-30 animals per day. While they
appear to prefer small mammals, they also eat birds, reptiles
and amphibians. Taking the lower figure in that range (five)
– and multiplying it by a conservative population estimate of
15 million cats – gives
a minimum estimate of 75 million
native animals killed daily by feral cats."

[http://www.australianwildlife.org/me...mer-2012-2013]

If my memory is correct many years ago a company of Australian soldiers on exercise in the outback were directed to clear feral cats out of a particular region in which they were deployed.

Typically the city-living types [often owning cats] express their "humanitarian" concern about the pain and suffering of cats being destroyed, but worry little about the animals they daily kill and these people are also the same types who want to see greater restrictions on private ownership of fire-arms.

Jim

Garibaldi, Victoria, Australia

[secretagentmole]

I propose a licencing of cats. Maybe this will reduce the number of song bird murders per year and maybe even a reduction in the number of unwanted cats using my garden as a toilet.;-)

I second that!

[snock]

I didn't argue that they did - to suggest a cat could use a gun would be absurd, though cats (and dogs) do sometimes kill other pets and wildlife - sometimes even humans. Perhaps they should be licensed.

So should lions be licensed because they kill antelope?

It's the same argument, surely?

[secretagentmole]

Cats can't shoot other peoples' pets therefore the argument is flawed.

No but the psychotic furred baskets can terrorise the hell out of a back yard aviary. They can also attack fish in people's ponds, they also attack people's rabbits and guinea pigs that are enjoying the sun. Cats should be subject to the same control as dogs!

[snock]

I second that!

All you are doing is alluding that licensing is effective at stopping anything.

It doesn't.

[snock]

No but the psychotic furred baskets can terrorise the hell out of a back yard aviary. They can also attack fish in people's ponds, they also attack people's rabbits and guinea pigs that are enjoying the sun. Cats should be subject to the same control as dogs!

Maybe so, but the cats will still kill birds and fish.


The cats don't have any concepts of being licensed.

[TORNADOS7]

Are cats allowed free reign in the UK? The owner has no responsibility for their trespass?

Thinking that the owner fined for the problems associated with their pet may cure this problem faster then new air gun laws.

I can instantly smell when a male cat had urinated in my wife's garden. It's pungent and disgusting. As well as the direct burial of the droppings in her garden.

I've little patience for them, and we are on a farm. No neighbors for quite a distance. Fortunately they are easily captured in a live cage trap and " relocated"

The newly hatched quail pheasant and turkeys appreciate this I'm sure, although they are also clueless about the big picture.

There's a farmer in this country that encourages cats on his farm to the point where he actually feeds and maintains them (vets fees etc.) as it works out cheaper to have them around than it does to pay for pest/disease control etc.

The cats take care of the rats, ferals, mice or any other suitably sized vermin species that may present itself to them thus keeping the spread of disease through defication/urination to a minimum, as you've already pointed out they're very efficient when it comes to killing things !...

[RobF]

No but the psychotic furred baskets can terrorise the hell out of a back yard aviary. They can also attack fish in people's ponds, they also attack people's rabbits and guinea pigs that are enjoying the sun. Cats should be subject to the same control as dogs!

I'll happily support the licensing of cats the moment there's one for posting on the Internet.

[DJP]

"Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property

The protection of property gives every person the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

This imposes an obligation on the State not to:

interfere with peaceful enjoyment of property;
deprive a person of their possessions; or
subject a person’s possession to control.

However, there will be no violation of this right if such interference, deprivation or control is carried out lawfully and in the public interest.

The concept of property and possessions includes tangible things like land and money but also includes contractual rights; shares; leases; claims for compensation; intellectual property rights; statutory rights to benefits etc.

The genuine, effective exercise of this right does not only depend on the State's duty not to interfere, but it may also require positive measures to protect property to be taken. This is particularly the case where there is a direct link between the measures a property owner may legitimately expect from the authorities and the effective enjoyment of his or her possessions. So, for example, a public authority’s negligence that leads to property destruction may breach this right.

This right also imposes an obligation on the government to take necessary and reasonable steps to protect property, for example in the event of natural disasters, but only to the extent that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Any interference with this right must be subject to conditions provided for by law and must achieve a fair balance between the general public interest and the protection of an individual’s property rights.

What is considered to be in the public interest is often left to the Government to decide, but any interference must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the individual’s fundamental rights. A lack of appropriate compensation would be likely to be considered disproportionate."

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...ction-property

In my view licensing, in Scotland or England, is fundamentally disproportionate: In effect the punishment of 100% of airgun shooters for the crimes of perhaps one tenth of one percent.

Secondly, the removal of property without compensation is a total no-no, full stop.

The shooting associations should be all over this.

[StephenJH]

So should lions be licensed because they kill antelope?

They already are... just add cats to the list

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2.../schedule/made

[zanes]

Obvious solution: Declare yourself a Freeman of the Land and claim the courts are illegal and have no jurisdiction.

[Neil.]

The best bit I heard on the end of the BBC item today was the cat protection league speculated that the increase in deaths vs injuries depite overall incidents going down was due to airguns becoming more powerful over the past 20 years???? I must have missed that change in legislation somewhere as the 12 ft/lb limit has been around for ages.

Notice how Auntie Beeb left that announcement till the 2 o'clock news, so that no responses could be made live on the Jeremy "thick as pigshit" Vine show?

[clunge]

Any increase (I doubt the stats) in cat deaths due to aiguns is more likely due to the increase in the cat population and the increase in housing density and the popularity of gardening over the last 20 years. Also, perhaps the increase in accuracy, rather than power of the airguns.

[Drew451]

I have a low opinion of politicians, generally, especially in my own country, but I don't think even the Scottish government think licensing will solve the problem of Airgun crime/misuse. Like all reasonable and responsible shooters, and the overwhelming majority of the public, I consider the licensing heavy handed and draconian. The most reasonable interpretation I can come up with is that it is designed to take a large number of airguns out of circulation. It is working.
Already, people are giving up and handing rifles in during the current amnesty or binning them. I know several folk with FACs who have been approached and offered guns by neighbours. Others are simply offloading them at bargain prices. Meanwhile, those intent on doing harm and committing crime with airguns will continue to do so and ignore the new law and existing laws, which were always robust enough.
It's slightly ironic that the man who drove the legislation through is now in the political wilderness. Pushed over onto the ejector seat and the button pressed. For whatever reason. But what a legacy.

[secretagentmole]

All you are doing is alluding that licensing is effective at stopping anything.

It doesn't.

Maybe so, but the cats will still kill birds and fish.


The cats don't have any concepts of being licensed.

But you can add terms and conditions to the license. Like they are to be kept on your property unless on a leash or in a secure cage being transported to the vets like dogs! I support the reintroduction of the dog license. All of my dogs are chipped and registered as the law requires.

I know people who own cats who are avid bird watchers, but their fur lined psychos have their own exercise pen which is a bolt on to the conservatory, it is basically a cat aviary with climbing poles. It covers most of the back garden, they leave their little piles of defecation in their owner's property. They do not slaughter song birds or voles, they are two happy mogs, who have a safe and secure existence.