Jump to content

308 and foxes


Avian

Recommended Posts

My son is just putting in for a 243 for foxes.

 

One farm we have permission on was cleared for 308 but it has lapsed and has to be renewed.

 

We have a 308 that we'd like to use on there, AXMC, to take out some foxes and to be able to use the rifle there as well as on the ranges we use.

 

The firearms officer came to visit my son today about his 243 application and stated that the 308 is too big a calibre for foxes. Is that correct?

 

Also at my sons house we have a section of land cleared for zeroing the 308 and 338. This was inspected by a previous firearms officer and we have it in writing from him that we can zero the 308 and 338 there and a map of the location we can do that, which has a large grass field acting as a steep bank for the backstop. The firearms officer seemed to think that it should not have been cleared for that and said he would have to check on it. Surly if one officers clears it another cannot later come back and say it is not Ok, providing nothing on the land has changed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all seem to make it up as they go along, so best thing to do is get them to put it in writing and then get someone like Basc to tear it to pieces.

I have, like lots of others on here, a .308 for fox control. They normally come out with the bullshit about it being 'too big a calibre' or 'over- kill' but at the end of the day that is all it is....a bullshit excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're telling you a load of porkies, a complete crock of sheeeeite!

 

The FA Act, as amended 2016 contains a section entitled "Guidelines for Quarry".

 

It contains a table, and the wording above it states "Paragraphs 13.9 and 13.16-13.18 should be read in conjunction with this table."

 

On that table, .308 is alongside a box under fox and other medium game which says that .308 is not recommended (ie there's a "no" in the box). However, this is NOT law, and only guidelines based on the minimum required recommended energy at the muzzle to humanely dispatch quarry.

 

It does NOT mean that the police should refuse all applicaitons for .308.

 

If you apply for "deer and other large Quarry", you can also state "fox" on that calibre, as there is no such thing as "over-kill". If the land is cleared for .308 and that is what you'd like, providing you prove good reason for that calibre, then you are legally free to shoot all other lawful quarry besides deer. ( Deer does have to be specified in it's own right and does not come under AOLQ).

 

The truth is that the police are uncomfortable of any first (and sometimes second) application which requests a .308 outright, especially where lack of experience is involved as they have a duty of care to the general public. They just haven't got it into their heads that a .243 will kill someone just as dead at 1000 yards, as a .308. Conversely, a safe shot is a safe shot irrespective of calibre.

 

My advice is to ask your FEO out onto the land with you and demonstrate that you have thought about where it will be used, point out the safe back stops, and get a letter from the landowner permitting .308 to be used on his land for the control of fox. If they refuse, and you are a member of BASC, speak to Mike Evely and see if he can help. Sometimes all it takes is a phone call to the licencing team.

 

Remember, providing that you show good reason, you cannot be reasonably refused an application at the whim of the licencing team, unless there are other compelling factors to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're telling you a load of porkies, a complete crock of sheeeeite!

 

The FA Act, as amended 2016 contains a section entitled "Guidelines for Quarry".

 

It contains a table, and the wording above it states "Paragraphs 13.9 and 13.16-13.18 should be read in conjunction with this table."

 

On that table, .308 is alongside a box under fox and other medium game which says that .308 is not recommended (ie there's a "no" in the box). However, this is NOT law, and only guidelines based on the minimum required recommended energy at the muzzle to humanely dispatch quarry.

 

It does NOT mean that the police should refuse all applicaitons for .308.

 

If you apply for "deer and other large Quarry", you can also state "fox" on that calibre, as there is no such thing as "over-kill". If the land is cleared for .308 and that is what you'd like, providing you prove good reason for that calibre, then you are legally free to shoot all other lawful quarry besides deer. ( Deer does have to be specified in it's own right and does not come under AOLQ).

 

The truth is that the police are uncomfortable of any first (and sometimes second) application which requests a .308 outright, especially where lack of experience is involved as they have a duty of care to the general public. They just haven't got it into their heads that a .243 will kill someone just as dead at 1000 yards, as a .308. Conversely, a safe shot is a safe shot irrespective of calibre.

 

My advice is to ask your FEO out onto the land with you and demonstrate that you have thought about where it will be used, point out the safe back stops, and get a letter from the landowner permitting .308 to be used on his land for the control of fox. If they refuse, and you are a member of BASC, speak to Mike Evely and see if he can help. Sometimes all it takes is a phone call to the licencing team.

 

Remember, providing that you show good reason, you cannot be reasonably refused an application at the whim of the licencing team, unless there are other compelling factors to be considered.

 

+ 1

 

But also.... be aware a hurdle you may also encounter will be if your firearms dept have no knowledge of deer, that can be lawfully shot, graze the land on for which you're applying to use the .308 ....(They are most usually aware if there is, or is not deer on the proposed land)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no deer on the land which is why we have not asked for them in the application.

 

 

If this is the case then the dept would likely see it .."you have no good reason......." ...particularly when alternative calibres are available

 

As VarmLR states

 

"My advice is to ask your FEO out onto the land with you and demonstrate that you have thought about where it will be used, point out the safe back stops, and get a letter from the landowner permitting .308 to be used on his land for the control of fox. If they refuse, and you are a member of BASC, speak to Mike Evely and see if he can help. Sometimes all it takes is a phone call to the licencing team.

Remember, providing that you show good reason, you cannot be reasonably refused an application at the whim of the licencing team, unless there are other compelling factors to be considered"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment it is just target.

 

But since the land has previously been cleared for 308 for the farmer I see no reason I cannot use my 308 on it.

 

If the land is deemed to be safe for 308 then why should I not be able to use my 308 on it.

 

The higher weight round is better then 243 in windy conditions I would assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment it is just target.

 

But since the land has previously been cleared for 308 for the farmer I see no reason I cannot use my 308 on it.

 

If the land is deemed to be safe for 308 then why should I not be able to use my 308 on it.

 

The higher weight round is better then 243 in windy conditions I would assume.

 

There's a bit of a long-winded answer to this:

 

But in summary, essentially you have to 'prove' to the department that you are safe to shoot over land (not the land in itself)....

 

You could do this by informing the firearms dept of your intentions about fox-control and accompanying someone with a certificate who has experience in fox control with a suitable calibre rifle. Resubmit your application with covering letter evidencing your experiences while out hunting and it is more than helpful if at all possible your 'mentor' also provide a letter on your behalf stating how many times you have been out hunting, your safety in the use of firearms and whether he deems you responsible enough to hunt alone - some mentors flatly refuse to provide this evidence, which is understandable as they don't want to put their own good reputation on the line should anything untoward occur when you hunt alone

 

There is reams of debate on 'mentoring'...Some say you don't need to be mentored whilst others say you do. On a personal level I think it's prudent to have someone show you the ropes (safety first, always.. and extremely grateful to the guy who mentored me) ..but each to their own.

 

Scour this site for articles..and contact BASC for their advice (if you're not a member of BASC, search the articles on their website - all the answers to your questions about this are on there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a .308 for deer and OALQ. This includes fox. It also includes wild boar.

 

I have previously had this condition written as "fox" or "vermin" or "OALQ" by different forces at different times.

 

Ideally (!!) they should all have ONE set of consistent, clearly explicit wording in accordance with the HO Guidelines.

 

Speak to BASC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, there is no requirement in law for further training or mentoring. These are both things asked for by the licencing departments by many police authorities. They ask for these as at least a form of evidence that you can safely handle firearms as a lone hunter in areas where the public may have (lawful or unlawful) access, where people working the land may be present and in close proximity (relatively speaking) to other properties, as well as where livestock may be present. Their reasonable concern is that if they grant a licence for someone to wander that land with a large calibre with high muzzle energy, they have no knowledge or evidence that that person may be safe in such circumstances to handle that weapon without putting either themselves or others at risk. This is not like shooting on a range where a Range Officer is keeping an eye on things and where firearms and their owners are tightly controlled (or should be).

 

As Snakeman says, this is why they look for evidence to support an application, and in your case, "good reason" may include the fact that 1) you already possess the .308 and 2) that land was previously cleared and the owner has given you permission. As the quarry may be safely dispatched with your rifle, it falls to you simply to provide evidence of your competence in the field. You could also put in for some paid stalks on other land and this would further strengthen "good reason". You can also make the point that a .308 loaded with 110 grain bullets is no different ballistically (to all intents and purposes) than a .243 loaded with the same, as if I were shooting fox with a .308, I'd probably look to the 110 grain loaded pretty zippy, especially if night shooting were on the cards. The police have a difficult task as they have a duty to the public at large, it has (whether folk accept it or not) become very political, and worth remembering that firearms law to one side, it is for the Chief Constable to satisfy him or herself that they can justify any decision in court. Any licencing team will tell you that in spite of some intransigent views of licence holders, they are the ones that make the recommendations and the CC's are the one's that make the decisions based on the reasoning and evidence put before them. Quoting the law at them is seldom helpful or welcomed. Pragmatism rules.

 

If you provide good evidence to support your application and in your (and the BASC's) view, they have little justification for a refusal to grant, this strengthen's your position. Remember though that you need a good relationship with your local licencing team as you will have to go back in the future to ask for anything from a variation to a renewal. Getting off on the wrong footing, letter of the law to one side, will make things rockier in future, such is the nature of human relationships. Keep 'em happy and provide what evidence you can. You can do no more than that, otherwise put a variation in for a .243 or .223 for fox if you really want to undertake this shooting to keep the landowner happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your man is probably leaning on this, see Section 13.25 on p110 re foxes and the table on p123:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf

 

The key point though is it is GUIDANCE, not law.

 

Your guys seem a bit pernickety but it is probably fair to assume that unless he has a good reason to go to his boss and recommend something that is not in the 'guidance' then he has a problem.

 

You can help him out by making a case as you have the 308 anyway and you don't really want to have another firearm in the cabinet just to shoot foxes. So if you were just applying to have a rifle for fox shooting of course you would buy a 223/22-250/243 but as you have a 308 and, lets say, 99% of the rounds fired will be on a range (or whatever) it seems daft to buy another rifle for the relatively small number of rounds that will actually be shot at foxes. Something along those lines.

 

Given he has already said no then you need to see if you can reset the conversation. Normally they would rather you didn't increase your firearm count rather than restrict an additional permitted use. You just need to construct the argument.

 

I have 308 for deer and got permission to shoot foxes and other vermin with it on the basis that if I saw something when I was out with the 308 I could whack it. PC was happy enough as he had a good reason. What happens after that is up to you. What you really want is a condition stating 'any legal quarry', after all why not ?? If you are deemed competent to own a 308 why would you not be competent to shoot anything legal with it.

 

Failing that it is indeed get something in writing and get BASC or whoever on the case. Fine in the short term but then you will be seen as a 'problem', better to negotiate a solution if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chanonry.

 

Yes I'd rather do it without getting BASC involved as I don't want to run their guys back up the wrong way.

 

I can't however see how he can say that the land we have already had cleared, in writing, from one of his colleges, to zero the 308 and 338 is not suitable. It must g=have been when it was passed and nothing has changed on teh land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first rifle was a 308 for stalking (still have it for that use ), and was conditioned to shoot foxes whilst stalking , was not allowed ALOQ 15 years back with out a battle, and as I was new to shooting, initially I just went with it

About 12 months later I asked to have fox,as a stand alone condition, added to my 308, and was refused

I then asked of them that they would rather I have another rifle for foxing, they said yep that's preferable

I then ran through the scenario that if I wanted to go foxing after I've been out stalking I would have to switch rifles, yep that's right

 

They were happier for me to have a rifle sitting in a car unattended whilst I was out stalking and later foxing that give me permission for fox on my 308!!! Go figure, so I got second rifle in 22-250 for foxing

 

Now all my open ticket hunting rifles are ALOQ so no longer a problem what I take out as long as it's species legal (deer)

 

There is no legal grounds of too large a caliber, there is only Guidance, and common sense, which unfortunately doesn't always prevail

 

Good luck with your quest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given he has already said no then you need to see if you can reset the conversation. Normally they would rather you didn't increase your firearm count rather than restrict an additional permitted use. You just need to construct the argument.

 

I have 308 for deer and got permission to shoot foxes and other vermin with it on the basis that if I saw something when I was out with the 308 I could whack it. PC was happy enough as he had a good reason.

 

I see the problem as Chanonry points out about needing to reset the convo, as once they say no theyre usually very reluctant to change their minds...

 

I also have 308 (and 6.5) for deer but specifically asked that AOLQ be included in the conditions (wasnt sure if TVP usually added it or not, but assumed not) as I was required to shoot foxes on sight on some stalking ground, and wanted to use the 308 for shooting pigs too - no problems, all 7 rifles have AOLQ. Again as above, the 'use the 308 you already have instead of permitting an additional firearm'-avenue may be worth exploring.

 

If it were me, I'd book a few paid stalks and then get the 308 conditioned for deer for that (good) reason - AOLQ for foxes etc cause they need to be shot on sight on your stalking ground.

 

Failing the above, its a job for BASC etc to point out the HO guidance is exactly that, but as previously mentioned, best to try and avoid confrontation if poss to avoid aggro doen the road...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the land we have permission on right now has no deer so I can't at the moment apply for deer.

 

I will book some stalking though as that seems a very good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the land we have permission on right now has no deer so I can't at the moment apply for deer.

 

I will book some stalking though as that seems a very good idea.

Book a few stalks with someone, ask them to write a couple of line letter saying you appear competent handling firearms and can identify a safe backstop etc, job done hopefully - 308 conditioned for shooting deer and AOLQ.

 

Bit of a rigmarole, hoop jumping etc and shouldnt be necessary in theory, however the path of least resistance is sometimes the quickest/easiest way of getting what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Book a few stalks with someone, ask them to write a couple of line letter saying you appear competent handling firearms and can identify a safe backstop etc, job done hopefully - 308 conditioned for shooting deer and AOLQ.

 

Bit of a rigmarole, hoop jumping etc and shouldnt be necessary in theory, however the path of least resistance is sometimes the quickest/easiest way of getting what you want.

 

 

It is unlikely it will be as straighforward.

 

Avian, it seems because you have .308 for target shooting only, it implies you have a 'closed' ticket with your conditions therefore restricting your use of the.308 to Home Office approved ranges - correct? ..If this is the case and you simply apply for use of it over land and, your evidence of competency is with paid stalks only, (with receipts) ..the department can still/have done, ask you to name the ground/land on which you're going to use the calibre and, for what good reason. Remember, the authorities will likely know if there are deer present that can be legally culled. Whether you have accessed paid stalking or not, you are still requesting the use of a calibre on land for which there is no good reason for that calibre in the HO Guidelines (although the Firearms Dept's seem to differ in their views so you might be fortunate)....Significantly, you are requesting this on a 'closed' certificate.

 

If you are fortunate enough to be granted permission to use it over that 'named' land (for deer - following paid stalks- and AOLQ because .308 is the appropriate calibre in this case) this will then be referred to loosely as a 'semi-open' certificate. This means the Firearms Department is aware of that land and know there's deer present that can be legally shot and, have cleared it as safe from the Chief Constable's point of view - the named land will then be typed on your certificate as a condition and specifies what you can shoot and where you are permitted to shoot the rifle. Simply put, this means that the Department have taken the responsibility to state the land is safe and has been cleared to shoot on..

 

In contrast, the 'fully-open' certificate differs slightly and places the responsibility of safety in the hands of the shooter. This means that you alone make the decisions pertinent to safety and judge whether the land is safe to shoot on. You are accountable for any discrepancies that may arise on that land or any other land where you have permission to use the rifle - this can be any number of permissions and, which importantly includes, land that has not been cleared by the Firearms Dept - the onus is on you.

 

The 'fully-open' certificate will allow you to achieve your aims.

 

I'd take heed of VarmLR advice here and request a meeting with your FEO and in your discussion include/suggest the possibilities of a 'fully-open' certificate before you make the written application ..(following posting the written application however is the moment when you might be asked to acquire a 'mentor' but, some Firearms Dep's differ on this view)

 

But, if you already have some kind of permission to shoot fox or AOLQ, disregard my post and apologies, I stand corrected

 

Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Snakeman,

 

The FAC is currently for "target shooting on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearms and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim."

 

There is no mention of mention of it being a home office approved range and our BASC insurance covers us for the claim part. We have land at my sons house that we have authorisation in writing from the previous firearms officer to allow us to zero the .308 and .338. The current firearms officer has said that he does not think we should have been granted that permission and is going to have a look at it and come back to my son next week. This concerns me since it must have been OK or the previous firearms officer would not have issued it.

 

Unfortunately the land we currently have permission on does not have any deer on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Snakeman,

 

The FAC is currently for "target shooting on ranges suitable for the safe use of that class of firearms and with adequate financial arrangements in place to meet any injury or damage claim."

 

There is no mention of mention of it being a home office approved range and our BASC insurance covers us for the claim part. We have land at my sons house that we have authorisation in writing from the previous firearms officer to allow us to zero the .308 and .338. The current firearms officer has said that he does not think we should have been granted that permission and is going to have a look at it and come back to my son next week. This concerns me since it must have been OK or the previous firearms officer would not have issued it.

 

Unfortunately the land we currently have permission on does not have any deer on.

 

 

Avian...then at this moment in time you're in limbo and have to await a categorical decision whether the land is deemed safe for .308. Your first port-of-call is ascertaining whether you can, or cannot use the land to zero the rifle..Of this, I 'would most certainly suggest 'keeping my toys in my pram'..The "he said-she said, woe is me" approach, will do you no favours if you don't get the response you hoped.

 

Indeed, the authorities may very well take into account past clearances, but the likelihood is the focus will be on if the land is safe to zero the rifle in the now, in the present, in the eyes of the current FEO; and probably not because of previous clearances. It is never an argument but always a good-reasoned and balanced request you put forward - (leave the 'arguments' to more qualified people if you ever need them - absolute last resort)

 

Your ultimate goal has to start in the here & now, with forward-thinking, presenting solutions to the obstacles, and a clear case of how you intend to use the rifle in the future.

 

ATB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing on the land has changed then I can't see how it can possibly have been safe before and not now.

 

It is or is not safe, simple as that. It has been cleared, in writing, so if the new firearms officer deems it unsafe then he is also stating that the previous one made a mistake.

 

Lets see what they come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing on the land has changed then I can't see how it can possibly have been safe before and not now.

 

It is or is not safe, simple as that. It has been cleared, in writing, so if the new firearms officer deems it unsafe then he is also stating that the previous one made a mistake.

 

Lets see what they come up with.

 

 

I agree...and in an ideal world it should be as "simple as that"...

 

But sometimes not everything is Black & White...sometimes it's Gray all over, as it seems now since the most recent inspection.

 

Like you though, it would surprise me too if the land is not cleared to zero following a revisit to past records

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