Old council Rubbish tip??

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

Was driving arround my local area with my mate taking note of local farms to ask for permission. Then on a deserted single track road we came across and old rubbish tip site that had a big gate, that was open. After seeing the ridiculous amount of rabbits in this feild we decided to have a look arround. The small looking feild soon opened up into a huge land space with rabbits all over the place. Now on the wall by the gate there was a sign explaining that this tip site was closed and the name of the new tip site to use. This site looks like it has not been used in a good 10 years and I was woundering what kind of approach to the local council would you guys recomend about the possibility of me shooting there??

 

Any help will be greatly appreciated!!

Edited April 27, 2008 by LOGUNSOLO177

[Little Butch 16]

The approach i would take mate would be to dress up in green, take the dog or gun down there and keep the noise down

Butch

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

Hahahahahaha!! Was thinking about that but the land is so good and large that i would not want to destroy any chance of using it to gain my firearms certificate.

[Guest buster321c]

if its council , bet they will ask for risk assessment

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

:sick: baaaaawww! Risk assessment!! Not all that shite, But lucky for me I carry out risk assessments as part of my job!! Hope that would help??

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

just explain that they need to control the rabbit population and tell them all about the cost of prokill and rentakill then explain you do a better job for free worked for me i have some sound permissions using that line

 

Very good line mate!! That has kicked off the old thought process, will use it if initial approach is not looking good. I could explain that whatever they plan to do with the land, they are still going to have a huge rabbit problem and by letting me hunt there i could reduce numbers for free!!

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Pests Act. 1954. They, as Land Owners, are obliged to sort those rabbits out, or else get them sorted out. Otherwise they'll have to write themselves a letter Demanding they do it. If they still don't do it? Then they can send themselves in and do it themselves. Promptly delivering themselves a huge bill for their own services. If they don't pay that? They can expect to see themselves taking themselves to court for its recovery. That, of course, would mean they'd be even further out of pocket as they'd have to pay their own court costs following the prosecution of themselves by themselves. But they could have the satisfaction of knowing they'd shown themselves and that they'd think twice before trying that stroke on with themselves again! Now then.

 

And you wonder why that country's in the f*cking state it is?

 

What they'll probably do, mate, is f*ck you straight off out of it and send their own boys down there with the gas.

 

Public let loose on council property with guns? Public liability nightmare.

[davyt63 1,845]

The approach i would take mate would be to dress up in green, take the dog or gun down there and keep the noise down

Butch

hi butch

great advise ?

THE LAW : trespassing with an airgun

maximum penalty imprisonment 7 YEARS maximum penalty fine £ UNLIMITED.

GREAT ADVISE

 

davy

[Little Butch 16]

Thats for the compliment, i thought it was good advice thats why i put it up.

Butch

[T78 4]

trespassing with an air rifle can be a costly mistake as i found out a while ago! is a few bunnies and a bit of sport worth a nearly new pcp,scope and a fine plus costs? thats what it cost me!

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

Guys I do not intend to trespass on any land as it is not worth the risk and does not do the sport any good!! If we could keep on topic I would appreciate it alot!!

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Google the Pests Act of 1954. I wasn't kidding.

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

Google the Pests Act of 1954. I wasn't kidding.

 

I did google it mate and if thats the latest pest act then it sounds like they have to do something about the rabbit infestation (which hopefully is good for me)!!

 

But this part worried me-

 

4. The right to shoot rabbits

The Ground Game Act 1880 gives an occupier

the right to shoot rabbits on his/her land during

the day and to authorise in writing one other

person to do so. That person must be a member

of the occupier’s household or staff, or be

employed for reward. An occupier may apply to

Natural England for authority to use a reasonable

number of extra guns, if the owner of the shooting

rights will neither permit the occupier to use extra

guns, nor undertake to destroy the rabbits

themselves. If you wish to apply to use extra

guns, contact Natural England at the address

below.

 

Does this only apply when dealing with a rabbit infestation or is this valid for all permissions??

Edited April 28, 2008 by LOGUNSOLO177

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

I think the key - and missing - part of that extract is that which regards the " Owner of the shooting rights ", mate. See, that law was drafted in the days when the big estates were very much a fact of life - and I don't mean council ones.

 

So a bloke could live in a cottage and have his bit of land, but he didn't Own the land. He'd be renting it from the 'Squire'. That squire owned the land and thus the Shooting Rights. So that part of the law was a safety valve for when the squire told his Keepers to concentrate of rearing game and destroying predatory vermin. It could well have left the tenant farmer over run with 'the squires rabbits', see? Eating him out of house and home.

 

Now, in todays context? The council are the squire. They own that land and so hold the rights over it. But, as I was trying to point out - in a somewhat satirical and 'tounge in cheek' manner above; ANY land owner is obliged to remove infestations from their land. Failing this, rather ironically, the council are legally permitted, if not Obliged, to enforce measures of clearence. See? So they should, technically, be insisting that they themselves clear those rabbits. Failing which they could end up issuing an order against the land owner (themselves) etc.

 

Sadly however, for the likes of you, probably no council in the land is going to hand permission to Joe Public to enter their land with a gun. It has and does happen. But it first involves meetings, discussions, reports, risk assessments and questions of liability. And a strange member of the public abroad on their land adds up to a f*cking Big liability, in their eyes.

 

Thus they'll either want ye to show a whole load of Professional standard type proof that ye not just someone who's bought an unlicensed weapon and found their rabbits. Then they'll want to see ye millions of pounds worth of very well drafted Public Liability Insurance. Then it'd only take one bright spark amongst them to murmer; " Pests? So why can't that bunch of herberts who we've trained, insured to the gunnels and pay a monthly salary to get out there and do what we're paying them for; Control Pests? " And out will come the gas and all will be well on paper as in the council chambers.

 

No one need have niggling thoughts about that bloke with a gun who they've unleashed onto their own ground and who could have someones eye out.

 

 

But in short answer to ye point of law question regarding " all permissions "? No. Most farmers today Own their own farms and therefore, unless they've sold them under contract, own the Sporting Rights and can do, or have done, what they like with regard to shooting stuff.

[LOGUNSOLO177 0]

Wow thats a detailed answer cheers mate!!! On the lines of public liability insurance would the basc shooting insurance help and would re-wording the permissions forms to basicly outline that the council are not responsible for any incident or accident that may happen when i am on there land help If it was all signed??

Edited April 28, 2008 by LOGUNSOLO177