Jump to content

Crows Magpies


tisme

Recommended Posts

Rules ? None i think . If in back garden next to residential then air rifle , some can be extemly cautious , but persist and you will get them , or larson trap ? Pellets must stay in your boundry . So however tempting it is to shoot them from a out of boundry tree i wouldn't risk . Thieving little beggars however beautiful maggies look ! have you got an air rifle ? Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tisme

Having seen you on several occasions at the range I'm surprised you are even thinking of shooting them, you know as well as I do that you couldn't hit a barn from the inside and certainly any targets within 300 yds are going to be perfectly safe.

However if you can set up about 1500 + yds away then I'm sure there won't be a crow or magpie safe in the south of England.

 

Blessings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tisme

Having seen you on several occasions at the range I'm surprised you are even thinking of shooting them, you know as well as I do that you couldn't hit a barn from the inside and certainly any targets within 300 yds are going to be perfectly safe.

However if you can set up about 1500 + yds away then I'm sure there won't be a crow or magpie safe in the south of England.

 

Blessings

I'll use a 22lr at 500 yards ;o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tisme - you are right. Gunner - FYI !

 

We - as shooters - have to abide by the rules of the General Licence available from the Natural England website and to have proved to have initially used means, other than shooting to scare away those birds listed (crow, jay, jackdaw, rook, parakeet, feral pigeon, Canada goose, woodpigeon, collared dove, magpie) which has proved impracticable. The GL cover 6 pages of stuff.

 

Well worth reading / to be aware of to ensure your arse is covered.

 

That is my understanding and how I have been advised after a do-gooder stirred the porridge as I was shooting jackdaws. We proved other means of deterrent and proved danger to livestock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tisme - you are right. Gunner - FYI !

 

We - as shooters - have to abide by the rules of the General Licence available from the Natural England website and to have proved to have initially used means, other than shooting to scare away those birds listed (crow, jay, jackdaw, rook, parakeet, feral pigeon, Canada goose, woodpigeon, collared dove, magpie) which has proved impracticable. The GL cover 6 pages of stuff.

 

Well worth reading / to be aware of to ensure your arse is covered.

 

That is my understanding and how I have been advised after a do-gooder stirred the porridge as I was shooting jackdaws. We proved other means of deterrent and proved danger to livestock.

Thanks for that, I'll try something else first, any sensible ideas? Does make me think about all the videos on you tube of crows etc being shot in fields!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OVERVIEW

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had same thing and used Larsen with chicken eggs in it, caught 6 on the first day and a further 14 over the next 10 days. Just ensure they don't watch you emptying it or you may educate them. Even managed to shoot one or two off the top of the trap when both compartments had caught!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SNC - in specific response - I used the word prove and I'm not going to get caught up in a debate about semantics.

 

If I or the landowner has undertaken actions of alternate deterrent - other than shooting - we can thus present evidence and or prove we have undertaken actions to comply with the terms of the General Licence as posted by Justin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always a good idea to read the relevant legislation etc,and avoid needless quibbling etc.

 

Justin's summary is verbatim from the General Licence regulations,specifically "GL to kill or take certain species of wild birds to prevent serious damage or disease".

 

As it says "the user must be satisfied.....'

I can't see "prove" specifically;but David's point is entirely reasonable too-one reasonably clear and defensible 'reason to be satisfied' is showing that other methods have been tried and failed...even though there seems no specific insistence in the regulations that this be done in every single instance.

But having done so must put the shooter in a strong position wrt the General Licence (and pedantic/mischievous/conscientious/whatever objectors to such shooting-who will have a difficult time 'proving' otherwise!)

 

gbal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530414/gl05-birds-phs-licence.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530450/gl04-birds-prevent-damage-disease-licence.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530445/gl06-birds-conservation-licence.pdf

 

These are the licences. Each contains the following:

'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.'

 

There is no need to try anything else first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both species are defined as pest/vermin under general licence. That's the good news. However if they are in your garden steeling eggs and you wish to eradicate them the you will be breaking the law as the licence if for application on agricultural land in protection of crops.

 

This is my personal interpretation and happy for others to challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both species are defined as pest/vermin under general licence. That's the good news. However if they are in your garden steeling eggs and you wish to eradicate them the you will be breaking the law as the licence if for application on agricultural land in protection of crops.

 

This is my personal interpretation and happy for others to challenge.

 

He who asserts must prove. It's legal until it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530414/gl05-birds-phs-licence.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530450/gl04-birds-prevent-damage-disease-licence.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/530445/gl06-birds-conservation-licence.pdf

 

These are the licences. Each contains the following:

'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.'

 

There is no need to try anything else first.

 

Interesting to read the actual licences.

I think just about anyone with a need can find a legal reason to reduce pest rooks etc under one of those (ie not just farmland/crops).

The wording on semi-autos is suitably complicated. I think it's saying that FAC shotguns are 'good to go' when reducing pests under the licence. Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting to read the actual licences.

I think just about anyone with a need can find a legal reason to reduce pest rooks etc under one of those (ie not just farmland/crops).

The wording on semi-autos is suitably complicated. I think it's saying that FAC shotguns are 'good to go' when reducing pests under the licence. Anyone?

That is my understanding of the meaning of the semi auto clause, and the rest, e.g. in the case of crop protection, I don't think the crops have to be yours, or present where you are shooting, "crop protection" is a blanket clause. The intention of the license is not to make it difficult to shoot pest birds, it is basically to continue the provisions of the 1988 Wildlife and Countryside Act (which defined a list of pest species which could be shot at all times) while complying with the EU European Birds Directive.

 

You mainly need to be aware of the license to know what to say if challenged, people shooting pest birds in their gardens have been prosecuted when they gave the "wrong answer" when asked why they were shooting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both species are defined as pest/vermin under general licence. That's the good news. However if they are in your garden steeling eggs and you wish to eradicate them the you will be breaking the law as the licence if for application on agricultural land in protection of crops.

This is my personal interpretation and happy for others to challenge.

You need to look at the last of the 3 general licences kindly attached to post 18 above. It allows you to kill crows and magpies for the protection of other flora and fauna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to look at the last of the 3 general licences kindly attached to post 18 above. It allows you to kill crows and magpies for the protection of other flora and fauna.

I've got a duck called Flora and a goose called Fauna so thats ok then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy