Packham gets General License revoked!!!!

[Muskett]

The base line is that human's have hunted and taken a bounty since the beginning. Anything other is weird.
The UK land mass has been under intensive human management since the last Ice Age, probably before, and no where doesn't reflect human involvement. Its a managed land and landscape is moulded by that fact.

The high population in the UK has eaten most species to extinction or near extinction several times. Deer at least twice so had to be reintroduced. Laws of the land came into force to protect what little wildlife was too easily eaten. Its been long understood that biodiversity is important and that wildlife reflects the health of the land. Wildlife take their survival from agricultural practices and the more remote areas where human activity is low. In recent times insect and bird life has crashed by at least 60%. Human population nearly trebles since the 1900's, up by a third in the last 25 years. Land mass covered by concrete and tarmac has increased exponentially. Industrial pollution has been devastating. Agricultural practices made many areas a desert for wildlife, leaving no food stuffs on the ground.
It wasn't hunting. If anything hunting has protected wildlife by giving wildlife some worth.

So sure their is an argument for control. There is no argument that hunting and taking a bounty is wrong. Its true there is a need for restraint if only to maintain sustainable levels. Hunters have managed areas so their "sport" and bounty has been sustainable. In doing so many other species have benefitted.
No non hunting organisation has come close to providing protection and conservation on the same level. Non have shown sustainability either.

This present home government own goal is an issue with the legal structure, and has nothing to do with the activity.
Whenever humans find no interest in something it soon gets pushed aside. Again and again wildlife gets pushed aside. The "anti's" so called good doers have done nothing meaningful to help wildlife as in truth they invariably miss the point. They attack hunting and not the root causes of wildlife decline: urbanisation, industry, and agriculture to feed the growing human masses.

Hunting is normal, and hunters understand restraint and some legislation. They have educated themselves. They give wildlife real value and invest in it.
The real killer is human population growth. The "anti's" are more political than real care for wildlife, if it wasn't then they would focus their energy where it would have meaning.

[Rocket launcher]

The new licence does not say what you can't do anymore does that mean electronic calls can be used to call in crows ..anyone know

[ZAKDINGEL]

Completely wrong my friend. I am 58 years of age and started shooting airguns at the age of about 16 In the fields of kent. My first decent rifle was a .22 HW35 purchased brand new by my late father back In 1977. This rifle I still have. I then moved on to shotguns and then to rimfire about 15 years ago and still do a bit of pest control today

Ok my apologies to you my friend

[robby]

Does this mean the royals also banned from blasting pheasants with their shotguns too?

[RobF]

Does this mean the royals also banned from blasting pheasants with their shotguns too?

Were peasants on the GL?

[rifleman56]

they can get away with any thing,no seat belts.

[bighit]

Does this mean the royals also banned from blasting pheasants with their shotguns too?

Even if they were on the general license which they are not ,They could still shoot them at Balmoral

[angrybear]

Pheasants are Game birds with a shooting season are they not

[bighit]

Pheasants are Game birds with a shooting season are they not

They sure are https://basc.org.uk/game-and-gamekee...oting-seasons/

[angrybear]

this is all confusing to me -- so can I still hunt pigeon for food --

Not unless you have the relevant license .

As far as I can see neither the 81 Wildlife & Countryside act, or the "general licence" consider shooting pigeon for food alone to be an acceptable reason to take them .

So NO you could shoot them under the licence terms & take them for food but not just shoot them as a food source.

If anyone can show otherwise I'd like to know where they found the rule

[bighit]

some information on the licensing for Natural England

https://assets.publishing.service.go...-statement.pdf

[angrybear]

The new licence does not say what you can't do anymore does that mean electronic calls can be used to call in crows ..anyone know

No it is illegal to use any sound recording, it's towards the bottom "all wild birds"

https://basc.org.uk/game-and-gamekee...oting-seasons/

[Portzy]

some information on the licensing for Natural England

https://assets.publishing.service.go...-statement.pdf

Thank you, that's a very handy document and much appreciated.

[Muskett]

they can get away with any thing,no seat belts.

Funny how a shooting issue reverts to class warfare so fast. What the blink has the Royals got to do with this administrative blunder?
(I have never met anyone who has seriously thought about it who would want to be a Royal. The lack of personal freedom just doesn't make it attractive. More the case of born unlucky than lucky.)
This issue is about bird pest control, and how to administer it whilst protecting the birds that are not pest and some that aren't found in great numbers. Pests in numbers do great damage and require controlling/managing.
Once Starlings were shot, but no longer. When they were controlled it was because they were at pest levels of population. The reason for their decline has nothing to do with shooting. Shooters don't shoot them any more in the UK, and numbers are still in decline. What does that say? All in the last 30 years.

Controlling vermin can be fun, sporting. If it was ever to be stopped as a sport then it would become a job. Once a job the most cost effective, efficient, means would be found as they still need controlling. It wouldn't do the vermin any favours.

[garysharples]

Is shooting pigeons a no no from now on with air rifle