LAZ(er)Y WAY TO SHOOT MAGPIES

[Raygun]

The only fact that makes it illegal is that the birds (doesn't matter what kind) are being attracted in by offering them food.

You are in effect cancelling out any reason to shoot to protect other birds as it's you that is causing the problem.

It matters not to me if someone wants to take the chance and shoot Magpies under the circumstances described. It will be them that faces any prosecution and also risks their rifles being taken for test.

Sure it may not happen but if it does you are in deep trouble. Just like the bloke who was shooting ferals (in compliance to the General Licence). Pellet left his boundary (new law), rifles taken for test and one with AT fitted was over. Criminal record, loss of rifle and costs.

Baiting birds in and shooting them has been successfully prosecuted before and will be again.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

The only fact that makes it illegal is that the birds (doesn't matter what kind) are being attracted in by offering them food.

You are in effect cancelling out any reason to shoot to protect other birds as it's you that is causing the problem.

It matters not to me if someone wants to take the chance and shoot Magpies under the circumstances described. It will be them that faces any prosecution and also risks their rifles being taken for test.

Sure it may not happen but if it does you are in deep trouble. Just like the bloke who was shooting ferals (in compliance to the General Licence). Pellet left his boundary (new law), rifles taken for test and one with AT fitted was over. Criminal record, loss of rifle and costs.

Baiting birds in and shooting them has been successfully prosecuted before and will be again.

ATB
Ray.

I'm sure there have been successful prosecutions, in my heart of hearts I just wish court time were spent on more worthy subjects.

How would sticking a decoy down there opposite the bird feeders figure in to it?

Were they baited or decoyed?



I've not heard about the feral pigeon shooter who was without a safe back stop but would not think it the same thing at all really but understand your meaning - why attract unnecessary scrutiny and potential bother if it can be avoided - couldn't agree more.

[Raygun]

I'm sure there have been successful prosecutions, in my heart of hearts I just wish court time were spent on more worthy subjects.

How would sticking a decoy down there opposite the bird feeders figure in to it?

Were they baited or decoyed?



I've not heard about the feral pigeon shooter who was without a safe back stop but would not think it the same thing at all really but understand your meaning - why attract unnecessary scrutiny and potential bother if it can be avoided - couldn't agree more.

The only way you could successfully defend your actions and comply with the General Licence would be to stop feeding the birds.

It's quite simple. Feed the birds and it's you that's the problem.

Don't feed the birds and you can shoot those listed for the reasons outlined on the Licence.

It's quite clear in the Wildlife & Countryside Act that all birds are protected and it's an offence to kill them.

If you wish to kill them then you have to comply to the requirements of the General Licence.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

The only way you could successfully defend your actions and comply with the General Licence would be to stop feeding the birds.

It's quite simple. Feed the birds and it's you that's the problem.

Don't feed the birds and you can shoot those listed for the reasons outlined on the Licence.

It's quite clear in the Wildlife & Countryside Act that all birds are protected and it's an offence to kill them.

If you wish to kill them then you have to comply to the requirements of the General Licence.

ATB
Ray.

The licence specificity states;

This licence permits landowners, occupiers and other authorised persons to carry out a range of otherwise prohibited activities against the species of wild birds listed on the licence. This licence may only be relied upon where the activities are carried out for the purposes specified, and users must comply with licence terms and conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the user must be satisfied that legal (including non-lethal) methods of resolving the problem are ineffective or impracticable.

THE PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH THIS LICENCE APPLIES
1. Subject to paragraph 2 and the licence conditions, this licence is granted to:
(i) Conserve wild birds, and
(ii) Conserve flora and fauna.

To argue for the removal of bird feeders for other species would be to argue against that which is logical never mind practicable.

It is not logical or practicable to remove a source of food for other wild birds when all you wish to do is aid those wild birds conservation.

It is for the purpose of the wild birds conservation that shooting magpies is permitted under the terms of the licence.

Feeding other birds cannot be the problem (IMHO) as attracting other species to the safe harbour of your garden to propagate and flourish is their purpose - feeders are not there as a bait for magpies, but as a conservation means for other species.

I have had a good read of the "Act" though I will freely admit I might have missed the glaringly obvious but I can't find anything that says otherwise.

[albrown]

Yes it all abit crazy now. I remember not too long ago a man being charged and convicted, because he shot a pigeon in his garden. I think he had put bread down to lure it in and also could not show that he had tryied other forms of non lethal pest control before shooting it...

What a joke... How did we let ourselves get into such a position?

ALex

[Wilyfox]

What about baiting crows & magpies down with a dead rabbit then ? Is that considered legal now.

[Raygun]

The licence specificity states;

This licence permits landowners, occupiers and other authorised persons to carry out a range of otherwise prohibited activities against the species of wild birds listed on the licence. This licence may only be relied upon where the activities are carried out for the purposes specified, and users must comply with licence terms and conditions. These conditions include the requirement that the user must be satisfied that legal (including non-lethal) methods of resolving the problem are ineffective or impracticable.

THE PURPOSE(S) FOR WHICH THIS LICENCE APPLIES
1. Subject to paragraph 2 and the licence conditions, this licence is granted to:
(i) Conserve wild birds, and
(ii) Conserve flora and fauna.

To argue for the removal of bird feeders for other species would be to argue against that which is logical never mind practicable.

It is not logical or practicable to remove a source of food for other wild birds when all you wish to do is aid those wild birds conservation.

It is for the purpose of the wild birds conservation that shooting magpies is permitted under the terms of the licence.

Feeding other birds cannot be the problem (IMHO) as attracting other species to the safe harbour of your garden to propagate and flourish is their purpose - feeders are not there as a bait for magpies, but as a conservation means for other species.

I have had a good read of the "Act" though I will freely admit I might have missed the glaringly obvious but I can't find anything that says otherwise.

I would suggest you make your own decision.

I've made mine.
I know what the RSPCA and the RSPB's attitude is and they will prosecute and win.

ATB
Ray.

[ARWP]

I would suggest you make your own decision.

I've made mine.
I know what the RSPCA and the RSPB's attitude is and they will prosecute and win.

ATB
Ray.

Minuteman, I agree with your logic, FWIW, but I think Raygun's view is what the legal process would follow (yes, I think it is absurd as well.)

I have spent the last two springs watching the Thrushes diligently building nests in my garden, only to have Magpies attack and destroy the clutch. The only reason I haven't opened up is this doubt about interpretation of wildbird protection.

A

[prosport.177]

Pulls up a chair

[albrown]

What about baiting crows & magpies down with a dead rabbit then ? Is that considered legal now.

I think you have to be able to show that you have tried other non lethal methods first... To be entirely safe from prosecution... I don't knwo for sure, as I have not looked into it properly. Listen to the guys on here who seem to know...

Alex

[Raygun]

It's not "Rocket Science".

The Wildlife & Countryside Act" protects all wild birds. That's your start point.

The "General Licences" allow you to shoot certain listed species of birds providing you comply with the requirements of the Licences.

One of the listed requirements is that methods of dissuading the birds have to be tried (you don't have to try them yourself but can presume they have been tried somewhere).

You can hardly claim that you have tried to dissuade them (or presume it's been tried) if you are feeding them.

It's you that attracting them so it's you who's causing the problem.

It matters not what logic is involved. It matters more what the Acts say.

ATB
Ray.

[Minuteman]

It's not "Rocket Science".

The Wildlife & Countryside Act" protects all wild birds. That's your start point.

The "General Licences" allow you to shoot certain listed species of birds providing you comply with the requirements of the Licences.

One of the listed requirements is that methods of dissuading the birds have to be tried (you don't have to try them yourself but can presume they have been tried somewhere).

You can hardly claim that you have tried to dissuade them (or presume it's been tried) if you are feeding them.

It's you that attracting them so it's you who's causing the problem.

It matters not what logic is involved. It matters more what the Acts say.

ATB
Ray.

You don't have to dissuade if you can prove it is impracticable - that is specified in the licence.

Logic and reason should be the bedrock of our laws, and where it isn't, it should be highlighted, challenged and changed - except of course, where it is not in our benefit (there's hypocrisy here but I am good with it!)

I agree with both you Ray, and AWRP, as to an outcome for a suburban conservationist though - unnecessary grief, possible prosecution and possible damage to the credibility of the sport.
Which is sad. If the public were more aware of the issues they might be more sympathetic but I await that along the same time scale as the return of Lord Lucan.

Must go - time to feed the cat.

[Gary C]

Doesn't matter what you think.

The law is quite specific, whether you agree with it or not.
All birds are protected but you may shoot some listed species PROVIDED you comply with the requirements of the General Licence that is applicable.

Having feeders means that you cannot comply with any of the Licences. You could say that you are enticing the Magpies in so you are responsible for the deaths of the songbirds.

Get rid of the feeders and you can shoot as many as you can and at the same time comply with the General Licences.

ATB
Ray.

He's fine Ray. Your argument is incorrect, by the same token you could be enticing the pigeons if you have corn fields.

He is feeding the song birds, which are scarce and therefore is within his rights to do so. Because he has created an envirnonmentally friendly garden he has songbirds nesting (some I believe quite rare and threatened) which are being predated on my the magpies.
For this reason he is (with regret) shooting the magpies to protect these songbirds.
That, my friend, is a watertight defense, as long as he kills them clean and no pellet leaves his boundary

[sharpshooter44]

In a previous post it was stated that if you attract the birds in then it is you that is the problem.
How does this stand if the birds are already there causing problems and non-lethal methods have failed but it is also unsafe to shoot at that same place.
Can you then try and attract the birds to a different part of the same property to then shoot them or does this then conflict with what was previously said about baiting/attracting them in?
Sorry if I have missed the obvious here.

[Gambo]

Hmmm, I have read this thread with interest.

As someone else asked, what about Decoying Pigeons....isn't that a form of 'enticement'??

As is so often the case with the wording of the law, it is open to interpretation, so it can be manipulated by the powers that be, for however they see fit.