Packham gets General License revoked!!!!

[223AI]

The pin to burst your bubble is that if it was all about votes there would have been no need for it to be taken to court, they could have just revoked them when he phoned them up and told them what a wonderful vote winning idea he'd come up with. :rollseyes

You avoided my question above, do you actually kill deer?

[RobF]

Do you shoot any living quarry Mason?

You avoided my question above, do you actually kill deer?

No I didn't. You didn't actually ask me the question.

I'm not sure what deer have to do to with this. FWIW I don't. That subname came from something else and was applied to me. My other half used to stalk. I also have several friends who stalk as well. I see no issue with it when it's done for legitimate reasons yet I'm not going to reach for the .308 because one is nibbling my garden flowers which I've just planted. There is a massive difference between culling and popping off at birds because you think that's what should be done.

[223AI]

Doesn't matter if your pro or anti game shooting, what it isn't is legitimate pest control, which was the point.

My response was to the post below, if packham had his way he would stop all lethal control of all bird species for whatever and by whomever, that is blatantly obvious!

I’ve seen quite a few similar comments in Facebook groups. Some of the BBS members need to check a few out to see what we’re really up against. It’s not legitimate shooters carrying out pest control on permissions that Packham want to stop.

[223AI]

So is a GSW. What’s your point, that predators shouldn’t be allowed to predate?

What is a GSW?

Yes that is exactly my point, predators should have their numbers controlled by humans as humans have created an ecosytem with very few apex predators and the added pressure to songbirds who are already struggling uncontrolled predation will be a problem!

Do you actually kill Bambies? If so why?

post #35 responding to you (You hit one with a car I take it)

No I didn't. You didn't actually ask me the question.

I'm not sure what deer have to do to with this. FWIW I don't. That subname came from something else and was applied to me. My other half used to stalk. I also have several friends who stalk as well. I see no issue with it when it's done for legitimate reasons yet I'm not going to reach for the .308 because one is nibbling my garden flowers which I've just planted. There is a massive difference between culling and popping off at birds because you think that's what should be done.

I truely did, now what according to yourself, who I am getting the feeling doesn't do much pest or predator control, are the legitimate reasons for controlling deer, to paraphrase you 'should grazer not be allowed to graze and browsers not be allowed to browse'?? What about shooting deer for sport, is that legitimate?? Loads of deer are shot every year because they are feeding on ornamental plants, is that not a legitimate reason??

The RSPB control corvids and foxes on their reserves so they obviously see a value in all of it, i have heard they control deer too . . .

[RobF]

My response was to the post below, if packham had his way he would stop all lethal control of all bird species for whatever and by whomever, that is blatantly obvious!

Yes but that wasn't what you said. You said game shooting was under threat, which as I pointed out was not legitimate pest control.

You might be right that is what CP wants, but that isn't what you said. And if he wanted to challenge game shooting then he's missed because they aren't shot under what has been revoked.

The GL's which have been revoked are

General licence GL04: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to prevent serious damage or disease https://www.gov.uk/government/public...age-or-disease

General licence GL05: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to preserve public health or public safety https://www.gov.uk/government/public...afety-purposes

General licence GL06: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to conserve wild birds or flora or fauna https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ation-purposes

[223AI]

Yes but that wasn't what you said. You said game shooting was under threat, which as I pointed out was not legitimate pest control.

You might be right that is what CP wants, but that isn't what you said. And if he wanted to challenge game shooting then he's missed because they aren't shot under what has been revoked.

The GL's which have been revoked are

General licence GL04: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to prevent serious damage or disease https://www.gov.uk/government/public...age-or-disease

General licence GL05: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to preserve public health or public safety https://www.gov.uk/government/public...afety-purposes

General licence GL06: To kill or take certain species of wild birds to conserve wild birds or flora or fauna https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ation-purposes

No I said take a look at his views of game shooting as an example of how it wasn't just illegitimate pest control he was out to stop!

I know which general licences have been revoked, I've posted about them on this forum and others.

Still interested in you answers to the above on deer control, which isn't actually very different other than The Deer Act applies not general licences.

Do you shoot live quarry at all?

Are you a closet anti?

[bighit]

Keep it civilised guys. Remember this section shows up in Google searches .

https://www.google.com/search?q=airg...w=1366&bih=657

Cant have the media finding this and seeing shooters fighting amongst themselves

[223AI]

Keep it civilised guys. Remember this section shows up in Google searches .

https://www.google.com/search?q=airg...w=1366&bih=657

Cant have the media finding this and seeing shooters fighting amongst themselves

Perhaps those that are tacitly or obviously approving ought to have a think about their stance then, though thy probably don’t actually shoot love quarry anyway

[bighit]

Perhaps those that are tacitly or obviously approving ought to have a think about their stance then, though thy probably don’t actually shoot love quarry anyway

We all need to think about it rationally . Are you disputing the fact that some use the general license wrongly as the permission to shoot birds in their gardens ( I don't mean farm field sized gardens here i mean housing estate gardens ) ?

If the general license was used correctly then it could have been argued in court that it was robust enough to contradict Packham's complaints and may have stood up in court as being suitable .

The fact that it was being abused and possibly Packham had evidence that it was widely abused is the possible the reason it has been revoked for an overhaul.

Do you think you could stand up in court and defend something that you knew was being used incorrectly and expect to win the case ?

[Spanner.]

In your post you hint that you are having problems with pest attacks on your crops and livestock and show concern that the revocation of certain bird species from the General License may impact on your current methods of control. Other than a paperwork trail, there seems at the moment to be little difference between the proposal and the current general license. Both require non lethal forms of control to be tried first and only allow lethal methods as a last resort, when the former has failed or are impractical. There is no right under common law that allows anyone to shoot domestic or wildlife, the exception being dogs that attack livestock which can be shot on sight. As you are aware lethal control is only allowed under the conditions of the General License for the control of pest species. Far from being an attack on the shooting community, it is merely a refinement to the license that if anything affords the shooter greater protection. How? By obtaining the new individual license, you have already demonstrated beforehand the need to the licensing authority, that there is a real need for lethal control of the named species. So if you are reported by a concerned member of the public your license will exonerate you from further inquiries or possible prosecution. The General license does not do this.

You may find my point of view very strange but it comes from an individual who spent a significant portion of his life in the agricultural industry. Perhaps you can list the problems you have been having and the remedies that you have tried so far; if I can help or point you in the right direction I will, as I am sure others on this forum will share their knowledge too.

I shoot Crows and Pigeons on a few arable farms and they ring me when they have issues and I go up and shoot ASAP. Waiting 30 days for a licence as they are quoting won't help much will it and that is after you have demonstrated you have tried Gas Guns, Kites etc they would be long gone with the damage done. A licence for every time and location you wish to shoot, you think that is workable? The same shooting Carrions during the Lambing and Nesting season, you can't apply for Licences constantly it is not feasible in any shape of form for the people issuing the licences or the people needing them. You need to be able to act instantly or at short notice to get the job done. I shot 2 Carrions the other day that were on a rigged sheep, should I have gone home and applied for a Licence and waited 30 days!! This is nothing but a direct attack on legitimate pest control for PC appeasement and wholly unworkable which is the intent.

[Spanner.]

We all need to think about it rationally . Are you disputing the fact that some use the general license wrongly as the permission to shoot birds in their gardens ( I don't mean farm field sized gardens here i mean housing estate gardens ) ?

If the general license was used correctly then it could have been argued in court that it was robust enough to contradict Packham's complaints and may have stood up in court as being suitable .

The fact that it was being abused and possibly Packham had evidence that it was widely abused is the possible the reason it has been revoked for an overhaul.

Do you think you could stand up in court and defend something that you knew was being used incorrectly and expect to win the case ?

It is up to the Police to enforce the terms of the Licence where needed not for NE to revoke it entirely!! That is like banning everyone from driving because a few people broke the driving rules, we have been placed in a ridiculous situation at the worst possible time of year.

[Steve Valentine]

We all need to think about it rationally . Are you disputing the fact that some use the general license wrongly as the permission to shoot birds in their gardens ( I don't mean farm field sized gardens here i mean housing estate gardens ) ?

If the general license was used correctly then it could have been argued in court that it was robust enough to contradict Packham's complaints and may have stood up in court as being suitable .

The fact that it was being abused and possibly Packham had evidence that it was widely abused is the possible the reason it has been revoked for an overhaul.

Do you think you could stand up in court and defend something that you knew was being used incorrectly and expect to win the case ?

My point exactly and well put, Paul.

If folks can’t have a civil discussion then this course of debate will go nowhere.

[RobF]

post #35 responding to you (You hit one with a car I take it)

I truely did, now what according to yourself, who I am getting the feeling doesn't do much pest or predator control, are the legitimate reasons for controlling deer, to paraphrase you 'should grazer not be allowed to graze and browsers not be allowed to browse'?? What about shooting deer for sport, is that legitimate?? Loads of deer are shot every year because they are feeding on ornamental plants, is that not a legitimate reason??

The RSPB control corvids and foxes on their reserves so they obviously see a value in all of it, i have heard they control deer too . . .

Apologies, I missed that.

I don't shoot deer.

I have in the past done plenty of pest control. I don't anymore as I have no need to.

There is plenty of deer culling done around here on a permanent basis. Being able to shoot deer is a by product of herd management, it's not done because they occasionally nibble ornamental plants. Deer proof enclosures (as used around here) solve that (which is what they are in part used for) The diet of deer is wide and varied and picking one element out is like picking one bird out and saying that needs balancing.

There's no legitimate need to control birds or deer in your garden. The GL didn't cover that. Nothing has changed in that respect.
The GL didn't cover game either. Nothing has changed there.
It also doesn't cover deer. Nothing has changed there.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing against because so far you've objected to things that aren't changed by the GL being revoked.

For those with legitimate pest control businesses or needs I can see this being a royal pain in the backside and the hope is that it's sorted their favour soon.

[223AI]

We all need to think about it rationally . Are you disputing the fact that some use the general license wrongly as the permission to shoot birds in their gardens ( I don't mean farm field sized gardens here i mean housing estate gardens ) ?

If the general license was used correctly then it could have been argued in court that it was robust enough to contradict Packham's complaints and may have stood up in court as being suitable .

The fact that it was being abused and possibly Packham had evidence that it was widely abused is the possible the reason it has been revoked for an overhaul.

Do you think you could stand up in court and defend something that you knew was being used incorrectly and expect to win the case ?

Read my previous posts on this thread on what I think should happen with the general licences and it should answer your questions

[RobF]

No I said take a look at his views of game shooting as an example of how it wasn't just illegitimate pest control he was out to stop!

No one ever said that. What SV said was that he wasn't out to stop legitimate pest control. As explained above the thrust is presumed that the GL's were being abused and used for illegitimate pest control. The fact that it's caught up legitimate pest control shows the problem and why it might not have been indefensible.

I know which general licences have been revoked, I've posted about them on this forum and others.

So why do you keep on going on about Deer?

Still interested in you answers to the above on deer control, which isn't actually very different other than The Deer Act applies not general licences.

Deer has seasons. You can't off them in your back garden out of season against the license for nibbling your plants.

Do you shoot live quarry at all?

Only in rare circumstances when there is a need for me to do so. Otherwise no.

Are you a closet anti?

What who likes to spend his time making 1000's of posts, running shooting websites, organising shooting competitions, and who has a partner and friends who hunt? Oh yeh Sherlock you've rumbled me.

You do know it's entirely possible to shoot a lot, not shoot live quarry, no support illegitimate quarry despatch but support legitimate quarry despatch don't you?