Packham gets General License revoked!!!!

[angrybear]

No it doesn’t the Woodpigeons one states that you must have tried non lethal methods, must be able to provide proof that you have done so and must continue doing so whilst lethal methods are pursued!!! This is the crux of it, the old licence you had to be satisfied non lethal methods would not be successful now you must PROVE they are not. Very, very different kettles if fish!

d)
e)
Before using the licence reasonable endeavours must have been made to resolve the problem using the lawful methods identified in Table 1 (unless their use would be impractical, without effect or disproportionate in the circumstances) and any other lawful methods that may be appropriate in the circumstances.
Reasonable endeavours must continue to be made to resolve the problem using such appropriate lawful methods alongside use of the licence.

Any person using this licence must be able to show, if asked by an officer of Natural England or the Police:
(i) what type of crop any action under this licence is protecting;
(ii) what lawful methods have been, and are being, taken to prevent serious damage to such crops by woodpigeon or why the lawful methods have not been taken;
(iii) what measures have been and are being taken to minimise losses due to other species and causes; and


In fact reading that again point (iii) means you are leaving yourself open to prosecution if you have covered all the other conditions so shooting the pigeons but are for example not shooting the hares that are also feeding on the crop! That rules put shooting avian pest species on about 3200 acres for me as the estate don’t want the hares shot. Hates being in very high numbers, I have seen over 30 in one field on several occasions

Who really wants to be a test case to find out what the acceptable reasons for non lethal methods not being practical are? Not me that’s for sure!

OK well 1/. that is the wood pigeon version not Feral pigeon, & 2/. if it's hugely expensive & you can't afford it, then both impractical or disproportionate would be covered

[bighit]

I’m not arguing that the individual licences are not the only option for most scenarios previously covered, I don’t really get you point!?

My point is that if you have a crow attacking lambs or wood pigeon problem them you will have to satisfy the guidelines of the general license .

You are then saying no one can satisfy the conditions so that only leaves applying for a personal individual license that you then have to JUSTIFY to Natural England or Defra that you NEED one to protect your livestock or crops .

At present that is the only way for it to be done unless you do it illegally .

If that is not the case then you tell us what the other ways to do it are .

[angrybear]

But as we’ve established nobody is really sure what the full letter of the law is currently!

It's what the user decides it is & that will depend on each individual case .

[RobF]

How do you think Larsen and ladder traps work, you attract predators so you can stop them leaving!

The context was shooting corvids in the garden.

[RobF]

Here you are wrong. What everyone has been doing for ion years in practice is what DEFRA thought they had allowed. Anything less would have caused a riot. Unless you think they have deliberately misinformed the public and the agricultural industry? They gave assurances that there would be no real change and saw many of the EU regulations as silliness that they are... "the waving of hands".

Resist the urge for the hyperbole.

What everyone has been doing for ion years in practice is what DEFRA thought they had allowed. Not everyone, but that aside it has still been found not to be lawful to be allowed.

Anything less would have caused a riot. Complete speculation and moot as it is the law.

Unless you think they have deliberately misinformed the public and the agricultural industry? They gave assurances that there would be no real change and saw many of the EU regulations as silliness that they are... "the waving of hands". Clearly they didn't implement it properly. As to the reasons why, that's complete speculation.

Sure the law doesn't reflect what being happening in practice, good practice at that as it was working. I am just saying the law should be change so it reflects what is practicable and seen to work.
Present law is impractical to administer, to police, and fails to get the job done. Written by muppets. And the establishment who work in the field know it.
For a few years now the powers at be ignored it because they didn't agree though had helped write it up. They hoped no one would notice or were just being irresponsible.
The goalpost need putting back where they belong.

Again, what you don't seem capable of understanding is that the 'good practice' you describe hasn't been deemed legal. For a good practice that's pretty high up a quality list to qualify as being good.

The rest is complete speculation.

The goalposts won't be going back because they can't be put there in law.

You can go around the loop again if you like but you'll end up in the same place, demanding something that is not legal so won't happen.

[223AI]

OK well 1/. that is the wood pigeon version not Feral pigeon, & 2/. if it's hugely expensive & you can't afford it, then both impractical or disproportionate would be covered

Ah so all I have to say is I can’t afford non lethal methods. Didn’t realise it was that easy!

[bighit]

Ah so all I have to say is I can’t afford non lethal methods. Didn’t realise it was that easy!

Not quite

One of the suggested methods could even cost less than a box of shotgun cartridges or even a tin of the average priced pellets

Physical barriers
over crops at
vulnerable periods
 For high value crops grown on a small scale only, physical barriers can be effective. Netting is the most effective barrier, although
lines and tapes can also be used to good effect. Reflective or red and white barrier tape can also provide a visual deterrent, and
should be set at varying heights and spacing to break up flight lines.

https://www.google.com/search?q=red+...CLQQuw0IwwIoAg

Might look unsightly but its on the list as Nick Knowles would say if we were on an episode of Who Dares Wins.


Would that not help Mr Allotment Muskett ?

[Muskett]

As if it hasn't all been tried before!
More plastics and rubbish in the countryside just to appease bird lovers! Isn't there enough mess? Enough KFC packaging fly tipped.
Turning the countryside into a crime scene, such a good idea!


We will see what ruckus this causes, and if its enough to revert to sensible legislation.
There was nothing wrong how we used to do it.

[RobF]

There was nothing wrong how we used to do it.

There was.

It wasn't lawful.

[bighit]

As if it hasn't all been tried before! 1
More plastics and rubbish in the countryside just to appease bird lovers! 2 Isn't there enough mess? Enough KFC packaging fly tipped.
Turning the countryside into a crime scene, such a good idea! 3

We will see what ruckus this causes, and if its enough to revert to sensible legislation.
[B]There was nothing wrong how we used to do it. 4

Numbers in red
1, It still works for some so its not been a complete failure

2, I thought you were a bird lover ? You have countless times told us so on this thread that you want to protect songbirds

3,It was always the case in the last ten or so years that other methods had to be tried . It's nothing new

4, It would not have been changed in the wildlife act or any other acts if there was nothing wrong with they way you used to do it

Have you bought your weedkiller yet that could kill of the habitats for insects and the food source for songbirds yet ?


https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media...eek-daisy.html Weed of the Week: Daisy (Bellis Perennis)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/b...act-songbirds/
DAISY (BELLIS PERENNIS)
Garden favorites, cheerful daisies form nutritious seeds that are vital winter fare for finches, sparrows, cardinals, and towhees.

Do you still want to kill the Daisies that can feed the songbirds you want to protect by shooting pests in you garden ?

[223AI]

Not quite

One of the suggested methods could even cost less than a box of shotgun cartridges or even a tin of the average priced pellets

Physical barriers
over crops at
vulnerable periods
 For high value crops grown on a small scale only, physical barriers can be effective. Netting is the most effective barrier, although
lines and tapes can also be used to good effect. Reflective or red and white barrier tape can also provide a visual deterrent, and
should be set at varying heights and spacing to break up flight lines.

https://www.google.com/search?q=red+...CLQQuw0IwwIoAg

Might look unsightly but its on the list as Nick Knowles would say if we were on an episode of Who Dares Wins.


Would that not help Mr Allotment Muskett ?

Not really practical in my opinion for fields that are close to 1 km in length and over 500 metres wide though is it?

[RobF]

Not really practical in my opinion for fields that are close to 1 km in length and over 500 metres wide though is it?

For high value crops grown on a small scale only

Good job they're big, you seem to have trouble seeing the smaller stuff.

[Muskett]

There was.

It wasn't lawful.

Before that, it just hasn't been lawful for 6 years. Who messed it up? Who gave the assurances all the changes weren't really changes?

Do you agree with the new rules, because many people think its pants?

[Muskett]

Numbers in red
1, It still works for some so its not been a complete failure
Who? KFC Conservationists?

2, I thought you were a bird lover ? You have countless times told us so on this thread that you want to protect songbirds ldwin:
I am, which means doing the management which might include controlling predator numbers when excessive on any one patch.

3,It was always the case in the last ten or so years that other methods had to be tried . It's nothing new
Give us an alternative method that actually works long term in practice and which doesn't use unlimited resources.

4, It would not have been changed in the wildlife act or any other acts if there was nothing wrong with they way you used to do it
It was only changed because of the EU, for it was thought up by the EU. It wasn't fully scrutinised because that would have required effort. So poor was it that the authorities ignored it and gave assurances nothing had changed.

Have you bought your weedkiller yet that could kill of the habitats for insects and the food source for songbirds yet ?
A1.3rd of my garden is set aside as a wild garden with specialised planting and includes nettles. You are just being a twat now.


https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media...eek-daisy.html Weed of the Week: Daisy (Bellis Perennis)
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/b...act-songbirds/
DAISY (BELLIS PERENNIS)
Garden favorites, cheerful daisies form nutritious seeds that are vital winter fare for finches, sparrows, cardinals, and towhees.

Do you still want to kill the Daisies that can feed the songbirds you want to protect by shooting pests in you garden ?

Yes, on my cricket and Badminton lawn. I have plenty elsewhere.

I have bumblebee houses, butterfly hibernation places, shed roofs for bats, hedgehog mounds, wood piles, an apple tree, eaves for the Martins, all sorts.
What have you got in your garden? Predator magnet bird table?

Please don't try and lecture me on conservation.

[RobF]

Before that, it just hasn't been lawful for 6 years. Who messed it up? Who gave the assurances all the changes weren't really changes?

Do you agree with the new rules, because many people think its pants?

It doesn't matter who thinks what and why about whatever. Many people think Burger King is good. Many people and my opinion and yours means Jack.

If you read back over my posts I think it's pretty clear what I agree with. I'm not going to spend more time going around in another one of your circular points where you avoid taking on board the facts of the situation and instead go off on another tangent. It's a waste of everyone's time.