Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 39474849
Results 721 to 729 of 729

Thread: Packham gets General License revoked!!!!

  1. #721
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,108
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    No one is "defending" it, we are simply pointing out the legalities of what it actually says or has said in the past.
    and that while you are blinkered to the FACT in front of your eyes, you have been misusing one or more of GL 04/05/06 as cover to kill certain birds, purely because you appear to have a pathological hatred of them.

    Methods that could be used over large fields might include the bird scaring bangers (hateful things), mobile things that move & flash in the wind, not sure what they're called but the inflating scarecrow things that pop up on a timer, even an old fashioned static scare crow.
    All the licence says is such things must be tried & shown to fail before shooting is used.

    As for all the boll*x about the ambiguity of what it means, anyone with half a brain will use that same ambiguity in their favour .
    Thats the trouble they are.

    I was following DEFRA and expected good practices, as was nearly everybody. We are now told all of a sudden that what we understood is wrong and has been for the last 6 years. I have stopped, because I understand that.

    I have no pathological hatred of anything. I'm an animal lover, hold great respect for all life.

    No the emphasis is "prove" all alternative forms been tried have failed before shooting methods are use. The exact clarification can come once its actually sorted. Its all in a legal morass, and even the individual license might not be correct. If they lied about the GM, what else? Its for them to sort out.

    I suggest no one does avian pest control until a sensible legal means is provided.

  2. #722
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,108
    Quote Originally Posted by RobF View Post
    Go and read the articles on the current situation. The answer for your question is written clearly in there. I am not going to spoon feed you the information you actually need to know to shoot. That is part of the very problem that WJ point out. If you cannot answer your own questions then it suggests you didn't understand the situation before and you don't now. You going around in circles on an internet forum isn't going to change that, you need to break the cycle if you want to progress in what you want to do.
    So you haven't any real answers?
    I'm aware of what is written down. The best these suggestions do is add to the whole package. Non work on their own. And the muppets want it proved every time.

    Yes, the laws must be corrected so the job is possible. The more open and left to individual discretion the better.

  3. #723
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskett View Post
    So you haven't any real answers?
    I'm aware of what is written down.
    In which case you don't need to keep asking hypothetical questions.

    I don't need to answer your questions as you are aware what's written down. Glad we got there.

  4. #724
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    East Sussex, Nr Rye
    Posts
    17,108
    The difference is you argue what is present is groovy. Plus you can't even argue why it has merit.
    I think its ridiculous.

  5. #725
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    aberdeenshire
    Posts
    25,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskett View Post
    The difference is you argue what is present is groovy. Plus you can't even argue why it has merit.
    I think its ridiculous.
    No one is saying its groovy . They are pointing out how it is at present , how unlawful it was and misused .

    Your questions would be better put to Defra as its them that are looking into it , Not the people on the Airgunbbs.
    Last edited by bighit; 17-05-2019 at 07:49 PM.

  6. #726
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Higham
    Posts
    8,323
    Quote Originally Posted by angrybear View Post
    No one is "defending" it, we are simply pointing out the legalities of what it actually says or has said in the past.
    and that while you are blinkered to the FACT in front of your eyes, you have been misusing one or more of GL 04/05/06 as cover to kill certain birds, purely because you appear to have a pathological hatred of them.

    Methods that could be used over large fields might include the bird scaring bangers (hateful things), mobile things that move & flash in the wind, not sure what they're called but the inflating scarecrow things that pop up on a timer, even an old fashioned static scare crow.
    All the licence says is such things must be tried & shown to fail before shooting is used.

    As for all the boll*x about the ambiguity of what it means, anyone with half a brain will use that same ambiguity in their favour .
    Anyone with half a brain will know that ambiguity works both ways leaving everything down to a judge or jury's personal feelings and leaning towards shooting.

    I have been shooting many years and there are no none lethal methods that deter Crows or Pigeons to any effect, so why all the crap about proving you have tried them all and are continuing to do so whlist shooting them. Because the licences were written by people with an anti shooting agenda, Pigeon distress call FFS!!
    Last edited by Spanner.; 17-05-2019 at 07:40 PM.

  7. #727
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    aberdeenshire
    Posts
    25,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Spanner. View Post
    Anyone with half a brain will know that ambiguity works both ways leaving everything down to a judge or jury's personal choice and leaning towards shooting.
    Which is why I have suggested that all of the parties that have an interest in solving the issue should be at the draft stages to confront the issue that the other sides will have .

    As I have said numerous times , SAC's say they help the Scottish natural Heritage to draft theirs and so far Wild Justice have not challenged them and they have not challenged the welsh one either .

    To not include all the parties with an interest will look one sided

  8. #728
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New Milton, Hampshire
    Posts
    14,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskett View Post
    The difference is you argue what is present is groovy. Plus you can't even argue why it has merit.
    I think its ridiculous.
    No, I argue what is present is indeed what is present and that alone. Your inability not to attach anything to that is the problem.

    I have said countless times it doesn't matter if I think it's 'groovy' or you think I think it's groovy or you don't, or I don't, because it is the law which was passed a considerable amount of time ago and has not changed.

    The merit of it is very simple, it's the law which was passed.

    You either choose to respect the law or you don't. What you think, unfortunately, isn't relevant. How you behave as a shooter is. It's that simple.

  9. #729
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Quigley Hollow, Nuneaton
    Posts
    17,111
    And rather than carrying on going round in circles, I think we'll close on that note

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •