Packham gets General License revoked!!!!

[223AI]

“Because it’s what magpies do” wouldn’t be a suitable reason under the general licence.

Magpies visit my garden because I put food out for birds. What you’re saying is I can now shoot magpies under the GL in my garden?

If I want magpies to stop visiting I can try non lethal methods first. Remove the food for one, or scaring.

I don’t shoot anything in my garden as I don’t believe I am legally entitled to do so.

Yes this is a shooting (airgun?) forum, but let’s not forget that many of the members shoot targets or plink.

My garden backs on to farmland

600,000 magpies in the uk, how many eggs do a pair have say 6?

12,000,000+ pigeons in the uk, the major agricultural pest, every pair that is shot is preventing 2 or 4 young being hatched the following, those each have 2 the following year and so on. Even with pressure populations are still growing.

What does it matter if shot by a farmer in the field or person in the garden, provided thy are allowed to do it legally, every little helps.

This thread seems to show the difference between those that properly shoot and those that play around with air guns!

[Mole trapper]

To be honest peeps I don't think this is the correct thread for the moralities and peramaters of what's exceptable in shooting live quarry, there are a multitude of threads running with this solely already.

[Steve Valentine]

My garden backs on to farmland

600,000 magpies in the uk, how many eggs do a pair have say 6?

12,000,000+ pigeons in the uk, the major agricultural pest, every pair that is shot is preventing 2 or 4 young being hatched the following, those each have 2 the following year and so on. Even with pressure populations are still growing.

What does it matter if shot by a farmer in the field or person in the garden, provided thy are allowed to do it legally, every little helps.

This thread seems to show the difference between those that properly shoot and those that play around with air guns!

Or does it show those that follow the GL as it’s intended?

[bighit]

This was on the page of the revoked licenses

You cannot use this licence to kill birds because they are damaging your property, such as your car or house, or if they’re a nuisance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...afety-purposes

[223AI]

This was on the page of the revoked licenses

You cannot use this licence to kill birds because they are damaging your property, such as your car or house, or if they’re a nuisance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...afety-purposes

We all know this already surely?

[RobF]

This thread seems to show the difference between those that properly shoot and those that play around with air guns!

Properly shoot Let your inner superiority complex with what you hold in your hands run riot mate. Don't hold back.

Cheers for that, it's going to keep me going for a while.

[223AI]

Or does it show those that follow the GL as it’s intended?

No, it’s definitely not showing that......

It is showing who all the arm chair lawyers are though

[223AI]

Properly shoot Let your inner superiority complex with what you hold in your hands run riot mate. Don't hold back.

Cheers for that, it's going to keep me going for a while.

I knew you’d like it, though I held back from calling them pop guns as I didn’t want to get you too excited

[Steve Valentine]

No, it’s definitely not showing that......

It is showing who all the arm chair lawyers are though

It certainly does

[bighit]

We all know this already surely?

It seems some don't though . Plenty of posts on youtube and facebook of people shooting them as they have pooped on their cars or eaten their fruit off trees or raided their bird feeders .


Even back in 2016 Defra thought that people were not using the General license as it was designed to be used for .
From defra

The High Court Ruling
In 2001, a High Court case highlighted potential shortcomings in the general
licences; the case in question (RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001) involved a
prosecution in relation to the shooting of starlings in a residential garden. In the
Magistrates Court, the holding of general licences by the accused was relied
upon as permitting the control of certain birds to preserve public health and
safety, prevent damage to crops etc.

The Magistrates determined that the
accused was not required to demonstrate that the reason for killing the birds
complied with purposes described in Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 as reflected in the licences, and therefore found him not guilty.

The
RSPCA appealed by way of stated case. The questions for the opinion of the
High Court were:
1. Whether the Magistrates had been correct in their interpretation of the
licence issued by the DETR and MAFF (i.e. that a person is not required to
produce evidence that he is undertaking pest control for the purposes stated on
the licences) and;
2. Whether, on the facts found, the Magistrates had been correct to acquit the
accused.


The High Court concluded that a person could not rely on a licence issued
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 16 as a defence to a
charge under the Act, in circumstances where the killing of the birds (or the
attempt to do so) was not for the purposes laid down in the licence.
Our conclusions from this ruling is that persons using the general licences must
be able to show that they are using the general licences in accordance with the
terms and conditions and for the purposes stated on the licence. It is also
raised the possibility that our licences may be used in inappropriate situations
for which the general licences were not designed to cover, such as the shooting
of birds within a back garden.




https://webarchive.nationalarchives....nsultation.pdf



(RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...trol-case.html


A LANDOWNER accused of shooting starlings he attracted to his garden with bird feeders was acting unlawfully, a judge ruled yesterday.

Craig Cundey, 37, who claimed Government-granted licences entitled him to kill the birds, was cleared by magistrates earlier this year.

But the RSPCA challenged the ruling and its appeal was upheld in the High Court. It is believed to be the first case of its kind.

Cundey, from Alconbury, Cambridgeshire, said licences issued by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and its predecessor, MAFF, authorised the killing of "pest species".

Mr Justice Silber, ruled however that people who shot wild birds were acting unlawfully, even if they held a licence, if they could not prove the birds were a public health risk or potentially spreading disease to livestock or crops.

He allowed the RSPCA to appeal against a decision by Huntingdon magistrates in February to acquit Cundey of breaching the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Cundey will not face the charges again. The case was brought only for legal clarification.

Dr William Peach, a research biologist, said at the magistrates' hearing that it was "almost unheard of for starlings to pose a risk to public health in the summer."

A spokesman for the RSPCA welcomed the ruling. "This means that people with licences who shoot birds in their back garden or on their land can only do so for authorised purposes," he said.

"Those who have legitimate reasons for controlling birds under certain circumstances do not have to worry about this judgment," he added. "It will be relatively easy for farmers and landowners to demonstrate if birds are being a nuisance."

[RobF]

I knew you’d like it, though I held back from calling them pop guns as I didn’t want to get you too excited

I'm afraid you've done it already, I'm in awe of your proper shooting.

I suggest we change the name of the board pronto.

Have you been knighted yet for services to proper shooting? Is there a club where all those who consider themselves proper shooters can go? Something in Knightbridge or is that too proper?

Does the Wilts Gazette know about this or are you trying to keep a low profile?

[223AI]

I'm afraid you've done it already, I'm in awe of your proper shooting.

I suggest we change the name of the board pronto.

Have you been knighted yet for services to proper shooting? Is there a club where all those who consider themselves proper shooters can go? Something in Knightbridge or is that too proper?

Does the Wilts Gazette know about this or are you trying to keep a low profile?

You really are excited by this aren’t you?

What really does the name of the forum have to do with it really?

I am glad you are in Awe of proper shooters though, as a pop gunner you probably should be.

[short-carabine]

I'm afraid you've done it already, I'm in awe of your proper shooting.

I suggest we change the name of the board pronto.

Have you been knighted yet for services to proper shooting? Is there a club where all those who consider themselves proper shooters can go? Something in Knightbridge or is that too proper?

Does the Wilts Gazette know about this or are you trying to keep a low profile?

He’s a bleddy hero, dontcha know? Even the SAS defer to his skills

[223AI]

It seems some don't though . Plenty of posts on youtube and facebook of people shooting them as they have pooped on their cars or eaten their fruit off trees or raided their bird feeders .


Even back in 2016 Defra thought that people were not using the General license as it was designed to be used for .
From defra

The High Court Ruling
In 2001, a High Court case highlighted potential shortcomings in the general
licences; the case in question (RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001) involved a
prosecution in relation to the shooting of starlings in a residential garden. In the
Magistrates Court, the holding of general licences by the accused was relied
upon as permitting the control of certain birds to preserve public health and
safety, prevent damage to crops etc.

The Magistrates determined that the
accused was not required to demonstrate that the reason for killing the birds
complied with purposes described in Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 as reflected in the licences, and therefore found him not guilty.

The
RSPCA appealed by way of stated case. The questions for the opinion of the
High Court were:
1. Whether the Magistrates had been correct in their interpretation of the
licence issued by the DETR and MAFF (i.e. that a person is not required to
produce evidence that he is undertaking pest control for the purposes stated on
the licences) and;
2. Whether, on the facts found, the Magistrates had been correct to acquit the
accused.


The High Court concluded that a person could not rely on a licence issued
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 16 as a defence to a
charge under the Act, in circumstances where the killing of the birds (or the
attempt to do so) was not for the purposes laid down in the licence.
Our conclusions from this ruling is that persons using the general licences must
be able to show that they are using the general licences in accordance with the
terms and conditions and for the purposes stated on the licence. It is also
raised the possibility that our licences may be used in inappropriate situations
for which the general licences were not designed to cover, such as the shooting
of birds within a back garden.




https://webarchive.nationalarchives....nsultation.pdf



(RSPCA v Craig Cundey 2001)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...trol-case.html


A LANDOWNER accused of shooting starlings he attracted to his garden with bird feeders was acting unlawfully, a judge ruled yesterday.

Craig Cundey, 37, who claimed Government-granted licences entitled him to kill the birds, was cleared by magistrates earlier this year.

But the RSPCA challenged the ruling and its appeal was upheld in the High Court. It is believed to be the first case of its kind.

Cundey, from Alconbury, Cambridgeshire, said licences issued by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and its predecessor, MAFF, authorised the killing of "pest species".

Mr Justice Silber, ruled however that people who shot wild birds were acting unlawfully, even if they held a licence, if they could not prove the birds were a public health risk or potentially spreading disease to livestock or crops.

He allowed the RSPCA to appeal against a decision by Huntingdon magistrates in February to acquit Cundey of breaching the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

Cundey will not face the charges again. The case was brought only for legal clarification.

Dr William Peach, a research biologist, said at the magistrates' hearing that it was "almost unheard of for starlings to pose a risk to public health in the summer."

A spokesman for the RSPCA welcomed the ruling. "This means that people with licences who shoot birds in their back garden or on their land can only do so for authorised purposes," he said.

"Those who have legitimate reasons for controlling birds under certain circumstances do not have to worry about this judgment," he added. "It will be relatively easy for farmers and landowners to demonstrate if birds are being a nuisance."

‘We’ as in the major contributors to this thread!

Harvest is an important time for pigeon control, it is one of the best times for taking numbers, this reduces potential damage risk to the following years crop. The wording of the new licence may make shooting over stubble really quite precarious.

You are all missing the point though, I would suggest removal of these pests was never intended purely for farmers and landowners and in the case of the protection of fauna the proof of the birds ‘being a nuisance’ could very easily come too late

[223AI]

He’s a bleddy hero, dontcha know? Even the SAS defer to his skills

They even sing his praises in Valhalla

Did mr F call for backup?