Sorry but...

[Rez 4,957]

I know this is gettin on everyones tits a bit, but I just have to be clear... in this Months [June] Air Gunner, the Mr Eddie Jones drops a couple of woodies in his article and, well, is that alright now? Just taken two birds from a tree that could hardly be doing much damage... Ive quick skim read the article and it doesn't say anywhere that it was written before the GL farce and it just seems everythings back to normal if the airgun press are writing about it in such a way.

I know they dont have to say when the article was written, but Im sure they would to keep things 'legal'.

[villaman 9,983]

Read the new GL you lazy git , it’s all in there 

you just can’t go around and shoot them  , just like before  and this is why all the shit hit the fan 

[Jonjon79 13,358]

Yes, it's all hunky dorey again now - GL827.2.1 specifically states that you can now 'Take wood pigeon because they taste nice'

[Jonjon79 13,358]

But, GL31 says this .........

 

You can use this general licence if you grow crops on a sufficient scale to have financial value, or you act on behalf of a grower.

To prevent serious damage to crops, this licence allows you to:

• kill or take woodpigeons
• take, damage or destroy woodpigeon nests and eggs

You must use permitted methods of control stated on the licence and comply with its other terms and conditions.

 

[j j m 6,534]

mad the changes to these laws a lot of people are confused

[si brown 8,486]

You’ll of been using GL36 

the protection of the cattle food stuffs and when they take off to where it’s safe to shoot them they are snacking on the trees

” growing timber”

[j j m 6,534]

not worth taking chances ,life time ban

[si brown 8,486]

29 minutes ago, timmytree said:

So what are they eating that is causing financial damage to the owner of the trees?

That’ll be the cattle feed that’s listed in the list... and I really can’t be arsed going into a debate about interpretation!

ive been out armed with my printed off copy’s but decided before the ban it was not a good idea to post everything although it was all done and is in line with the relevant gl’s

[iwm 71]

2 hours ago, timmytree said:

The new GLs are almost the same as 04, 05 and 06. It wasn't that they really needed changing, it was forced because too many idiots didn't care about the rules and posted it all over the internet for everyone to see.

Don't forget that although DEFRA issued the new GLs it is NE that will administer them and they've already said that if shooters ignore them again they will revoke again and ALL shooting will go on individual licences.

It's worth reiterating the penalties at this point.

UNLIMITED FINE.

AND OR CUSTODIAL SENTENCE

LIFETIME BAN FROM OWNING ANY WEAPON.

Taking it seriously everyone?

All Pest control should have documented evidence of everything you do on site and thats the way shooting will need to go to keep everyone inside the law. Im lucky i have been in pest control a long time and have been filling in reports (and photos) on sites for years, but you will need to start to be professional in your approach. Even if you dont get paid for your pest control you still have a duty of care to everyone on that site be it human or animal.If you dont do it now some one will take that decision for you with the outcome being more legislation and control over shooting.

iwm

[iwm 71]

5 minutes ago, timmytree said:

Unfortunately too many people just go out and shoot what they see as pests for no reason. I've seen a post today of woodies, jackdaws a rook and a collared dove all shot on a grass field for no reason other than they were in range as far as I'm concerned. Collared doves are completely protected now. It's idiots like that that will finish off shooting for ordinary people under the GLs.

Things are already changing.I have had a contract with a rail contractor to shoot pigeons 3 or 4 times a year in railway stations (air rifle) for several years and since the GL mess they have told me any further shooting will only be allowed when an ecologist will be on site to record the outcome of the shoot, and asked for a FAC (never asked before but i have it) although i only ever use under12 on these jobs.

 

iwm

[Rez 4,957]

So the chap in the magazine is actually shooting birds illegally?

To be honest, there was another article in July’s where the that shooter with stubb hands, he had a couple of woodies. And actually, that other lad from Newcastle, had a couple of magpies. 

One rule for them and another for the rest I guess.

 

 

[Rez 4,957]

Thought I’d ask um... see what they say. Might all be above board.

 

 

[Jonjon79 13,358]

I'd bet good money that the days shooting in the rag was well documented and can be proven to be above board if questioned

 

I'd also bet that it's written and pictured in a way to wind up any of Packhams mob that might be looking in

[Rez 4,957]

1 minute ago, Jonjon79 said:

I'd bet good money that the days shooting in the rag was well documented and can be proven to be above board if questioned

 

I'd also bet that it's written and pictured in a way to wind up any of Packhams mob that might be looking in

For sure. I think so too. I’m just thinking perhaps that those two images there could just be one of us. To the anti... there would be hardly any difference between seeing an image of us on here, or them in that editorial.

[Rez 4,957]

1 minute ago, timmytree said:

Rez, you don't need paperwork at the moment, just abide by the 3 new GLs. But the mags should make it clear WHY these birds were shot and not print childish statements about killing magpies making it a good day, that is moronic.

Sweet. Nice one timmehhh. Shit, made a tit of myself now, best edit that on the Insta