Another asinine British gun law...


PDA






DRZinn
March 5, 2005, 11:14 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1511614,00.html

March 05, 2005

Gun law: don't shoot first, shout
By Valerie Elliott
Countryfolk must try to scare off their prey before opening fire
COUNTRY sportsmen keen on pigeon pie will need to put the cat among them first. Farmers and landowners will also need to hone their windmill gyrations and scarecrow impersonations if they are planning a potshot at crop-eating birds.

The Government has ruled that it is now illegal to shoot a crow, rook or pigeon for the pot without scaring it first. The legislation says shooters must attempt to frighten off the birds before pulling the trigger.

Only when the birds fail to respond can he or she shoot it for dinner. The same rule applies to farmers who have shooting days blasting woodpigeons and rooks to protect their crops or gamebirds.

At this time of the year thousands of people pull on their camouflages for a day’s rough shooting. They are now acting unlawfully. They too must first engage in frightening techniques to disperse the birds. Only if their antics are ignored can they shoot legally. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to £5,000 or a maximum six months in prison.

The new rules emerged this week when new “general licences” were issued covering the killing of pest species, which also include magpies, jays, collared doves, Canada geese, and greater and lesser black-backed gulls.

However, without warning, a new rule was added that states: “This licence can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person can demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable.”

The “licence” referred to means a general permission for everyone; it is not a piece of paper, it is simply a law. Firearms licences must still be applied for in the usual way.

There was uproar from country organisations but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs denied that there was any change of law and issued a clarification. This has only added to the confusion, for it underlines that scaring must always be a precursor to shooting and that records of scaring may be required.

Defra said: “It is not a requirement that detailed records of non-lethal methods are kept, although this may be helpful under some circumstances. Users must however be able to explain why they believe that such methods are either ineffective or impracticable.”

The Country Land and Business Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance have lodged objections with the Government.

Clarissa Dickson Wright, a countrywoman and cook who enjoys cooking pigeon, said she despaired at the “fluffy bunny brigade” in the Government. She said: “Scare them off. Where to? To the next field or vegetable plot.

“What’s more, though possibly inadvertently, they have removed the countryman’s right to one for the pot.”

The “open general licences” are to allow exemptions to the EU Birds Directive which protects all bird species. This allows any authorised person to shoot a pest bird to protect livestock, crops or human health or to prevent other damage to agriculture. An authorised person is anyone with a firearms licence but can also cover cage-trapping.

Defra said: “People have to demonstrate that they have looked at alternative, non- lethal measures. If these have not worked then, yes, they can shoot species thast are causing problems.”

If you enjoyed reading about "Another asinine British gun law..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
March 6, 2005, 12:04 AM
People have to demonstrate that they have looked at alternative, non- lethal measures. If these have not worked then, yes, they can shoot species thast are causing problems.

One wonders whether British politicians count as birds. They are carrion feeders, are they not?

Third_Rail
March 6, 2005, 12:49 AM
The Government has ruled that it is now illegal to shoot a crow, rook or pigeon for the pot without scaring it first. The legislation says shooters must attempt to frighten off the birds before pulling the trigger.

Only when the birds fail to respond can he or she shoot it for dinner.


Seems to me that someone that's hungry isn't going to care one way or another. :rolleyes:

Randy in Arizona
March 6, 2005, 01:00 AM
Another asinine British gun law...

I know asinine fits, but it is far too mild an adjective!

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

I'm glad that those of my anchestors that came from Merry Old England did so centuries ago! :fire:

Some blokes doing what they can - -

Cybershooters Mission
To distribute information which is relevant to the campaign against unreasonable UK and world-wide gun controls;
to provide a co-ordination forum for UK and overseas shooters and shooting organisations;
to disseminate other information of general interest to shooters and gun owners.

http://www.cybershooters.org/

nico
March 6, 2005, 01:02 AM
At this rate, it wouldn't surprise me if England banned eating meat without a license and some sort of justification within my lifetime. :rolleyes:

dmftoy1
March 6, 2005, 08:22 AM
It's a whole different world over there. They speak the same language but the culture is very different. They passed a law shortly after 9/11 where they can jail you for refusing to answer questions related to terrorism. If they bring you in for questioning and start asking you whether you are affiliated with x or y or know a or b and you refuse to answer you can be sentanced to prison time. Pretty scary.

Have a good one,
Dave

Mike P.
March 6, 2005, 03:29 PM
More a result of animal rights nutcases than gun control advcates. Remember that any time that you support any type of pro animal rights legislation, you are helping lead the way to eventual passage of laws that are just as asinine as this British / EU one.

G36-UK
March 6, 2005, 04:26 PM
Just so you know, we may be banning airguns, which might include our Airsoft sites.

Any chance we could be liberated next? I mean, we actually do have WMDs, to the best of my knowledge.

beerslurpy
March 6, 2005, 04:46 PM
What is the point of scaring away a bird that you wish to cook in a pot with vegetables? Unless there is someone standing behind the bird, or it is some rare or exotic species, why would this even be of interest to the government?

Surely the UK government has more pressing matters than regulating the welfare of vermin and pest animals?

Talon
March 6, 2005, 04:59 PM
Surely the UK government has more pressing matters than regulating the welfare of vermin and pest animals?

Apparently, there is our errant assumption. Please see my plea for help on a very similar subject:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=128796

Bruce H
March 6, 2005, 05:05 PM
If the citizens of the United States spent as much effort on repealing their own firearms laws as they do ragging other countries laws maybe some good would be done. The king of England isn't in our face anymore. The Queen of the Bay damn sure is.

beerslurpy
March 6, 2005, 05:29 PM
We have just as much contempt for the asinine laws of MA, CA, NJ, IL, NY and CT as we do for those of england.

I am happy with florida's gun control laws. Its the federal ones that piss me off.

Until we do something about attitudes in the communist states, we arent going to make much progress on the national level.

Billll
March 6, 2005, 05:52 PM
" Honest, yer lardship, 'e wuz comin' right at me, 'e wuz."

Mk VII
March 6, 2005, 07:39 PM
less to this than meets the eye (as so often). BASC seems pretty relaxed about it
http://www.basc.org.uk/content/new_licences_no_threat_to
and again
http://www.basc.org.uk/content/basc_advice_to_members_on
largely shifting the pieces on the board to comply with the latest Führerbefehl from the European Union

DRZinn
March 6, 2005, 07:48 PM
would simply have to state that what he was doing was a contribution to crop protection and cite the extensive literature that demonstrates non-lethal methods to be ineffective and impracticable. He might also add that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states in the opening paragraph of the licence “that there is no other satisfactory solution”.Sounds like a lot of trouble for someone who's just trying to (A) put food on the table, or (B) protect his crops. Where was the problem that had to addressed by this new law?

Dain Bramage
March 7, 2005, 12:37 AM
So what happened to Agricola? Did he finally grow tired of us?

Woo-hoo!! We win!

beerslurpy
March 7, 2005, 03:22 AM
Hey MK7 thanks for posting that. It explained a lot to me.

So basically they are complying with the EU without actually changing anything.

I like that, its almost like sovereignity.

"You dont actually have to try non-lethal methods before you begin shooting."

HankB
March 7, 2005, 08:46 AM
. . . scaring must always be a precursor to shooting and that records of scaring may be required. Records of scaring? Say WHAT?

Actually, this idiocy may be easy to comply with. Put up a scarecrow. Take a picture of the birds perched on the scarecrow. Carry a copy with you.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another asinine British gun law..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!