AOLQ leaves a lot to be desired

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
Now that AOLQ has been rolled out across the country isn't it about time that minimum calibres were set as legal requirements for other species to prevent the shooting of some with unsuitable calibres.
Boar can now legally be shot with any calibre shouldn't there now be a push for the guidelines to become a legal requirement, this IMHO would be in our best interests to support/encourage to show responsible practices are followed for all species, & I think our organisations such as CA, BASC etc should also support this, what do you think?
( I'm not a fan of legislation & DEFRA need to acknowledge UK Boar)
 
Boar can now legally be shot with any calibre

AFAIK they can be shot lawfully with any calibre as long as undue suffering is not caused. I suspect that adherence to the minimum calibre guidance, as well as use of a suitable bullet (e.g. a .270, but not with a 110gr BT) would be seen by a court as a useful indicator of the shooter's intention to avoid causing undue suffering.
 
Now that AOLQ has been rolled out across the country isn't it about time that minimum calibres were set as legal requirements for other species to prevent the shooting of some with unsuitable calibres.

Oh dear! Whatever happened to the own shooter's common sense and discretion? Do we really need more of this "Nobody should be allowed to do something unless it is in the exact manner that I myself do it".

It is this nonsense that saw off a perfectly adequate deer calibre the 6.5x54MS and in shorter barrels makes the 303 borderline illegal in Scotland.

I fail to see how a body that says that 270 Winchester with 150 grain bullet is "minimum" for boar somehow thinks that a 6.5 Swede or a 264 Winchester (that can be loaded with a heavier 160 grain bullet is too small a calibre).
 
Last edited:
IMO too much unnecessary and sometimes pedantic legislation within our sport can give rise to criticism from those that wish it harm (eg. future air gun legislation in Scotland for one is the tip of an iceberg) I also i feel it is removing the one thing that separates responsible hunters with a desire who have spent years learning how, why, and what works in a variety of situation and on various species, the right to take the well practiced correctly placed humane shot.
Sadly the fact that 'AOLQ has been rolled out across the country' is misleading in that it appears on previous threads to not appear on all certs, and there are those who until renewal/variation will not benefit. I would be interested to see what list of unsuitable calibres for various species, (despite the obvious) we could all come up with, i expect that to make entertaining reading.
​cheers
 
Rick6point5, I think a table would provide great fun & laughter if it didn't get out of hand.
As I said I'm not a fan of legislation either however not everyone is as ethical as the responsible hunters referred to by many, this is an unfortunate fact!
By the same logic would you now advocate the removal of the legal min cal for deer in the uk?
 
It would for sure get out of hand, based on some of the threads i read on here..lol
No i do not advocate existing legislation being removed as that itself would create merry hell with the anti's, and our sport does not need that! but i feel creating more will only add to the ammunition that is eventually used against us by these same bodies who it seems to gain strength year on year
it's a great shame that in some cases responsibility, common sense & ethics does not prevail with those given permission to own and use a Firearm.
I have noticed the trend of restriction being imposed over my 30 odd years in the sport getting tighter and am genuinely concerned as to where it will end up!
cheers
 
I agree but feel its a double edged sword we are dammed if we do and if we don't as the flip side of the coin will be when a wounded boar hurts someone or something & the **** hits the fan because some A...hole has shot it with a .22 hornet.
Shirley extending the deer legislation to cover boar would make us seen to be responsible if specific legislation isn't an option?
I dont have an answer but this seems like a ticking time boom that our sport dosent need
It would for sure get out of hand, based on some of the threads i read on here..lol
No i do not advocate existing legislation being removed as that itself would create merry hell with the anti's, and our sport does not need that! but i feel creating more will only add to the ammunition that is eventually used against us by these same bodies who it seems to gain strength year on year
it's a great shame that in some cases responsibility, common sense & ethics does not prevail with those given permission to own and use a Firearm.
I have noticed the trend of restriction being imposed over my 30 odd years in the sport getting tighter and am genuinely concerned as to where it will end up!
cheers
 
I agree but feel its a double edged sword we are dammed if we do and if we don't as the flip side of the coin will be when a wounded boar hurts someone or something & the **** hits the fan because some A...hole has shot it with a .22 hornet.
Shirley extending the deer legislation to cover boar would make us seen to be responsible if specific legislation isn't an option?
I dont have an answer but this seems like a ticking time boom that our sport dosent need

Stop calling me Shirley.

That asshole has broken the law, regardless of wether thre is a minimum calibre set in law, he has caused undue suffering and if he went to court, the DEFRA guidelines would be used to prove his guilt. Probably
 
This is a known fact but can you imagine the ANTI's viewing it so simply and what kneejerk reaction would the government take if if something happened, also with the ever increasing threat of non lead bullets being made compulsory in at least some areas the potential for disaster is there wouldn't it be nice to be one step ahead having been proactive for a change instead of playing catchup and having to defend ourselves again after an event we could have gone some way towards preventing?
Sorry it's this dammed predictive txt shirley
Stop calling me Shirley.

That asshole has broken the law, regardless of wether thre is a minimum calibre set in law, he has caused undue suffering and if he went to court, the DEFRA guidelines would be used to prove his guilt. Probably
 
CWMMAN is right in that Staying one step ahead is a priority, however it is also essential that we are much more cohesive as a shooting community which we are not, it is left to the likes of BASC etc etc to be our voice which is great and they do a fantastic job in sometimes what must seem like a one sided fight, so as long as sensible constructive debate creates well thought out legislation it can be positive however kneejerk decisions on min calibres with no judged thought and foresight is not productive and will even split our own shooting community as seen in posts here every week.
if you look closely at the activist mentality and actions they have proactive members offering instant responses (before anyone says it they are not all to be tarnished with the no job hippy fools, able to be somewhere at the drop of a hat we are swift to label them) maybe we should fight our corner with the same passions shown during the latest them and us issue of 'CULLING only, as the actual TB issue is not our debate?

the fact that that a.....hole broke/breaks the law does not guarantee any action, so to think that the law will be involved in every case of poor shooting judgement or whatever is living in cloud cuckoo land we see every day actions by iresponsible and illegal persons (even filmed and displayed on youtube for the world to see) getting away scot free, it is a sad fact of life that i have no answer to but does not stop me thinking about how a result could be obtained
Cheers
 
Now that AOLQ has been rolled out across the country isn't it about time that minimum calibres were set as legal requirements for other species to prevent the shooting of some with unsuitable calibres.
Boar can now legally be shot with any calibre shouldn't there now be a push for the guidelines to become a legal requirement, this IMHO would be in our best interests to support/encourage to show responsible practices are followed for all species, & I think our organisations such as CA, BASC etc should also support this, what do you think?
( I'm not a fan of legislation & DEFRA need to acknowledge UK Boar)

In answer to the original question.....no no no!

​Best practice and self regulation is the way forward. Don't provide them with a peg on which to hang yet more regulation.
 
ACPO have rolled out the AOLQ purely to make you/me/us responsible for our actions/decisions,it is as simple as that because they don't have time to police it in real time then the only answer is to give you the responsibility to make the decision based on your experience......BUT....you make a slip up and that is when the **** will definitely hit the spinning thing in the corner,and no mistake!It really doesn't matter what legislation is put on the shooting public there will always be a dick ready to have a pop at a Boar with a small calibre so please don't wish any more legislation onto us.

Martin
 
ACPO have rolled out the AOLQ purely to make you/me/us responsible for our actions/decisions,it is as simple as that because they don't have time to police it in real time then the only answer is to give you the responsibility to make the decision based on your experience......BUT....you make a slip up and that is when the **** will definitely hit the spinning thing in the corner,and no mistake!It really doesn't matter what legislation is put on the shooting public there will always be a dick ready to have a pop at a Boar with a small calibre so please don't wish any more legislation onto us.

Martin

I have to agree with reMington. Do's the minimum calibre for deer stop people taking shots at deer with unsuitable calibres?
But just wait till a walker, dog walk, beater is injured by a boar shot with a unsuitable calibre or shot by a "stalker" who has not got the balls or abillity ​to follow up a wounded boar. That will get the powers that be sitting up and taking notice.
 
ACPO have rolled out the AOLQ purely to make you/me/us responsible for our actions/decisions,it is as simple as that because they don't have time to police it in real time then the only answer is to give you the responsibility to make the decision based on your experience......BUT....you make a slip up and that is when the **** will definitely hit the spinning thing in the corner,and no mistake!It really doesn't matter what legislation is put on the shooting public there will always be a dick ready to have a pop at a Boar with a small calibre so please don't wish any more legislation onto us.

Martin

Not quite sure why it is any different from how its always been.
There are minimum clibres laid down for deer and there is minimum recommended calibre for boar!
Surely its always been the case that any "idiot" could have taken a pop shot at a deer with a calibre that is too small?
 
Why try to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

There is no legal minimum requirement for fox... or any other species (other than deer) for that matter. Why should boar be any different?

When we are issued with an FAC, we are entrusted to do the right thing both legally and morally. On the whole we are a respectable bunch and no doubt there will be a handful of bad eggs but not enough to warrant the need for AOLQ to be brought into question.

People have fought for the AOLQ condition on our tickets so let's be grateful to the shooting organisations and the ACPO for a common sense approach.



Edit;
Just to add... It may be legal for me to shoot boar with a .243 but that doesn't mean I would.
 
Last edited:
Edit;
Just to add... It may be legal for me to shoot boar with a .243 but that doesn't mean I would.

Completley agree with your post. Just to add to this line.
If someone were to shoot a boar with a .243 and wouded it then they could be found to be negligent to causing suffering to an animal seeing as the home office guidelines recommend .270 minimum.

So although its not "law" and a .243 may be legal - if you stick to the guidelines then you cant go wrong.
 
At the end of the day, it's got to be self-regulation / common sense etc. The only person who can really decide whether a particular shot is appropriate to take, with regard to all the variables such as calibre, backstop, proximity of other land users / roads / buildings and even seasonality (for example taking an animal outside the usual season to prevent suffering - who decides if it's suffering?) is the person looking down the scope at the time. Otherwise we might just as well take an inspector with us each time we go shooting.
 
At the end of the day, it's got to be self-regulation / common sense etc. The only person who can really decide whether a particular shot is appropriate to take, with regard to all the variables such as calibre, backstop, proximity of other land users / roads / buildings and even seasonality (for example taking an animal outside the usual season to prevent suffering - who decides if it's suffering?) is the person looking down the scope at the time. Otherwise we might just as well take an inspector with us each time we go shooting.

thats one of the most sensible thing i read in ages well said tim

ps how are you keeping mate
 
Otherwise we might just as well take an inspector with us each time we go shooting.

Strewth mate, don't put any more posts like this up - you'll be giving 'em ideas before long - and guess who'll have to pay (in advance) for the inspector to attend?
 
Back
Top