Mirrors in Larsens

[stephen58 1]

Hi John B , I think ? that the idea/principle works on the idea that the corvid see,s it image in the mirror and thinks that it,s got an intruder in it,s territory and enters the trap , but I think that the idea will only work on a side entry trap !! have any other members of THL tried this type of trap ? best regards Steve

Edited May 26, 2008 by john b
Interesting topic - I have split it out from the two strand one it was originally in

[Matt 160]

The use of a mirror in a larsen trap would be illegal under the W&C Act 1981, as shown recently in the Shooting Times when an old friend of mine advised it wrongly.

[verminator 0]

The use of a mirror in a larsen trap would be illegal under the W&C Act 1981, as shown recently in the Shooting Times when an old friend of mine advised it wrongly.

 

 

Hey Matt, does it say why it is illegal to use a mirror? I am struggling with catching a call bird. I can get one easily from other people, but wanted to try and catch my own, I have tried eggs, fluffy chicks and now a baby rabbit which has been eviscerated. Still no luck.

Edited May 17, 2008 by verminator

[zig zag wanderer 0]

I can't agree with Matt that a mirror would be illegal under the W&C Act.

 

Surely it's use in a Larsen trap would be to reflect the image of the bird. The W&C Act only outlaws the use of a mirror for dazzling.

 

Therefore the mirror would obviously be legal in a Larsen.

[zig zag wanderer 0]

Still interested in the legal question of the mirror in the Larsen. Anyone else have any opinions other than Matt and me?

[john b 38]

This came up inside another topic but it's interesting in it's own right.

 

Matt - can you expand a bit more on the thinking behind your post ?

[Matt 160]

OK, I'm not sure on this one either.....

 

Someone asked the question in ST a few weeks ago, it went something like this:

 

"What is the easiest way to catch your first magpie for a larsen trap?"

 

The answer, provided by an old friend of mine (Brian Mitchell) was something like the following;

 

" Try putting a mirror in your larsen trap and you'll soon have one"

 

Then, the following week, some smart arse writes into ST to say that it is bad advice as the W&C act clearly states, etc, etc..... ST duly publish a retraction and apologise stating that said smart arse is, actually correct, and it would be an offence.

 

 

 

I've had a look through my books here, and it is indeed an offence to use a mirror, or 'device intended to dazzle' any animal listed in section six.......... the problem is that section six relates to mammals not birds, so I'm not sure whats what.........

 

Anyone else?

[john b 38]

Can anyone find the relevant issues of the magazines ?

[zig zag wanderer 0]

This is covered under the W&C Act Part 1 Section 5 (prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds) c) (vi) any form of artificial lighting or any mirror or other dazzling device;

 

I would say that was pretty clear cut and should allow a mirror in a Larsen trap as it would not be designed to dazzle.

Edited May 26, 2008 by zig zag wanderer

[john b 38]

I'd be inclined to agree with you ZZW but I'd be interested to see what reason was given in the magazine.

[Matt 160]

Here it is, word for word:

 

Shooting Times, 1 May 2008

 

Mirrors in traps

 

As a gamekeeper and long-term supporter and member of the NGO, I have great respect for the organisation and its aims.

 

I was therefore surprised to read in Sporting Answers (17 April) the vice-chairman Brian Mitchell's suggestion of using mirrors in Larsen traps. Under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, the use of a mirror in a Larsen trap is an offence. I would have thought most keepers, expecially head keepers, would be aware of the rules.

 

To catch your first magpie without using a decoy, carry out a through recce of the area to discover where the local magpies are, then place the trap in their territory. Bait it with white bread or white eggs. Using only white bread, I once caught a brace of magpies within 28 minutes.

 

MJ

Buckinghamshire

[brian Mitchell replies: I can only apologise to Mr J and all Larsen trappers. He is right, the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act Section 5 (1) prohibits the use of any mirror or dazzling devices in taking wild birds]

 

 

Make of that what you will. I'm still not sure. I know Brian quite well, and I'm sure he would have checked this out with the legal eagles at the NGO.

 

Perhaps someone on here has enough legal nouse to find out....... what happened to the ARSPCA slagging lawyer of the general section????

[john b 38]

OK so that's part of the answer. The Act prohibits lots of things - that how the system works - and then specific permission is given to do some things in some circumstances. Significantly the words say ".... or any mirror or other dazzling device."

 

So it states a 'mirror' specifically and although you could infer that it means if being used for dazzling it doesn't say that.

 

 

The key here is the General Licenses which are the legal documents which allow you to kill magpies at all.

 

Now I have just been through them quickly (they're here) and the one that usually relates to Magpies is the Conservation of Wild Birds and that does NOT make any mention of allowing a mirror. In fact is states " Except as specifically permitted under subparagraph (2) above, this licence does not permit the use of any method of killing or taking which is prohibited by section 5 or section 8 of the Act. "

 

Interestingly the license relating to Public Heath and Safety does allow the use of mirrors but only and specifically in relation to feral pigeons. (section 2 iv).

 

What I don't know is if there has ever been a test case ruling - it all seems to hinge on whether the mirror is prohibited per-se or only as a dazzling device.

 

My personal interpretation is that it's not legal for magpies specifically because of the positive inclusion of it in the case of pigeons. I think that they have been prohibited from this use accidentally by ambiguous wording

[zig zag wanderer 0]

I disagree John. For me the clue is in one word in the W&C Act; other. "any mirror or other dazzling device". The word other surely implies that the mirror must also be a dazzling device. Once that can be established it's use in a Larsen would be legal?????

Edited May 27, 2008 by zig zag wanderer

[john b 38]

I think we're in agreement on that - it all comes down that wording in the act.

 

"Any form of artificial lighting or any mirror or other dazzling device"

 

If they had written "no artificial lighting, mirror or other device may be used to dazzle" it would be a lot clearer.

 

Without a test case it's down to interpretation.

 

I'm not stating this as fact by the way because I don't know - just my interpretation

[snareman 3]

I think we're in agreement on that - it all comes down that wording in the act.

 

"Any form of artificial lighting or any mirror or other dazzling device"

 

If they had written "no artificial lighting, mirror or other device may be used to dazzle" it would be a lot clearer.

 

Without a test case it's down to interpretation.

 

I'm not stating this as fact by the way because I don't know - just my interpretation

john, they use them in cubbies in canada, to trap wolverine. the mirror has been around a long time .