England vs Scotland Deer Act.

[slider]

This document quotes 21st October for the change to close seasons, but doesn't give a date for the change in ammo:

Red Deer and the natural environment - what differences will the changes to the legislation make? - parkswatchscotland

The damage caused by Scotland’s exceedingly high numbers of red deer and muirburn are the two main issues that need to be tackled if we are to tackle the nature and climate emergencies in the uplands. This post takes a look at the three changes in the law the Scottish Government announced...

parkswatchscotland.co.uk

Sorry I'm wrong again, confused myself and everyone else in the process. 21st it is
The Deer (Close Seasons) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023

 

[Island]

NatureScot have delegated authority act for the Scottish Ministers in nature related matters, just as FLS have delegated powers to manage the national forests and land on behalf of the Scottish Ministers

So then, as I understand it, they could authorise someone as part of the legal trials (in which case why the "sorry, can't give further details" cloak-and-dagger nonsense), but surely they couldn't legally tell select individuals, estates and agencies to just "crack on" because the change is coming? They can't be delegated powers that the Scottish Ministers themselves don't have, the power to tell people to ignore legislation? (The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 is still draft legislation and is not yet a Scottish Statutory Instrument, therefore The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 is still in effect as written?)

 

[Pete6.5]

Good God people love to over think things. I just don't get the moaning about this if you like shooting small calibers then pick the smallest legal cal and just get out there and shoot some deer. Does the difference between a .22 and .243 really warrant the time thinking about it. What ever the limit set there will always be one that wants to use a different caliber to just be awkward and different.

 

[Lancaster]

Not being lazy, I have studied both sets of legislation and wanted to see if there was anything I had missed. I know that most on here will come up with something that none of us would of thought of.. I don't normally venture south of the border, but there is an opportunity for a contract in England, hence the question.

No problem, fair play

 

[slider]

So then, as I understand it, they could authorise someone as part of the legal trials (in which case why the "sorry, can't give further details" cloak-and-dagger nonsense), but surely they couldn't legally tell select individuals, estates and agencies to just "crack on" because the change is coming? They can't be delegated powers that the Scottish Ministers themselves don't have, the power to tell people to ignore legislation? (The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2023 is still draft legislation and is not yet a Scottish Statutory Instrument, therefore The Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985 is still in effect as written?)

But they do have powers to allow research......

 

[Mungo]

For a while now large estates and government departments have been told to crack on . Testing has also been done and quite appropriately . Sorry cannot give further details
Oh i dont mean any shooting org doing tests on paper targets

Sorry, I think there is either some confusion here, or someone isn’t telling the truth.

No one has been told to ‘crack on’ - at least not officially. Quite a few people THINK they’ve been told to, or the Chinese whispers have gone round and people think the law has already changed.

Some were involved in official trials, but those are now finished (hence there is enough data for the legislation to be changed).

But the simple fact is that (1) the law does not actually change until the autumn, and (2) it is extremely difficult (and requires quite complex special dispensation) to get official derogation of a law.

However, what is clear (and has been for some time) is that no one is going to get arrested (or even noticed) for using 80gr, using a thermal scope or shooting males when they feel like it. It’s quite possible your friend got an unofficial nod, along the lines of ‘no one’s watching and no one cares’, but it’s extremely unlikely that he has an official communication anywhere giving authorisation.

 

[Bowland blades]

Sorry, I think there is either some confusion here, or someone isn’t telling the truth.

No one has been told to ‘crack on’ - at least not officially. Quite a few people THINK they’ve been told to, or the Chinese whispers have gone round and people think the law has already changed.

Some were involved in official trials, but those are now finished (hence there is enough data for the legislation to be changed).

But the simple fact is that (1) the law does not actually change until the autumn, and (2) it is extremely difficult (and requires quite complex special dispensation) to get official derogation of a law.

However, what is clear (and has been for some time) is that no one is going to get arrested (or even noticed) for using 80gr, using a thermal scope or shooting males when they feel like it. It’s quite possible your friend got an unofficial nod, along the lines of ‘no one’s watching and no one cares’, but it’s extremely unlikely that he has an official communication anywhere giving authorisation.

Sorry but I am working off facts of what has actually been given to me first hand . Do you think government will just say "yeah that seems like it could work so lets right it into law " before actually testing ?
imagine the mess if nobody had actually checked out if and how well this all works in practice. You can believe what I relate or not i really dont give one nor do I have anything to gain.

 

[@theroedeerguy]

Always interesting to hear the anecdotal stories of people risking their firearms certificates to illegally shoot deer.

Given the greed, backstabbing and superiority complex held by some within the shooting community I’m surprised that none of these anecdotal tales ever seems to be reported to the police?

The trials conducted by NatureScot were done so under special licence conditions which can be used in such instances.

I would suggest that choosing to break any of legislative conditions is a gamble that could cost you your privilege of owning firearms.

Whilst I’m not aware of any convictions to date that doesn’t exclude the possibility of there being one.

 

[Mungo]

Sorry but I am working off facts of what has actually been given to me first hand . Do you think government will just say "yeah that seems like it could work so lets right it into law " before actually testing ?
imagine the mess if nobody had actually checked out if and how well this all works in practice. You can believe what I relate or not i really dont give one nor do I have anything to gain.

As I said, there WERE official trials and testing, but those have finished.

As you say - they’re not going to change the policy without testing. However, the fact that the policy is now being changed should indicate to you that that they have the information they need.

Why continue testing once the decision has been made?

I don’t doubt that you’ve been told that this estate has been given the go ahead. What I doubt is that this was in any way an official authorisation.

 

[Bowland blades]

As I said, there WERE official trials and testing, but those have finished.

As you say - they’re not going to change the policy without testing. However, the fact that the policy is now being changed should indicate to you that that they have the information they need.

Why continue testing once the decision has been made?

I don’t doubt that you’ve been told that this estate has been given the go ahead. What I doubt is that this was in any way an official authorisation.

Doubt away your not the one who has received the relevant go ahead e mail

 

[Island]

Doubt away your not the one who has received the relevant go ahead e mail

An email is not a defence in law.

As has been alluded to above if it is part of an officially sanctioned trial then it is legit, otherwise it is not. If it is an "official" go ahead, then why the "sorry I can't say more" secret-squirrel stuff?

No government can say "we are changing the law in a couple of months but in the meantime just crack on and break the current law, here is an email to cover your back". That is not how it works.

 

[cutty sark]

As I said, there WERE official trials and testing, but those have finished.

As you say - they’re not going to change the policy without testing. However, the fact that the policy is now being changed should indicate to you that that they have the information they need.

Why continue testing once the decision has been made?

I don’t doubt that you’ve been told that this estate has been given the go ahead. What I doubt is that this was in any way an official authorisation.

I suspect the outcome was never in doubt, testing or no testing.

 

[Mungo]

I suspect the outcome was never in doubt, testing or no testing.

With regard to use of thermals/nightvision, and the male close season, I think that’s right.

80gr in .243 I think there was genuine uncertainty.

 

[Island]

I suspect the outcome was never in doubt, testing or no testing.

I am inclined to agree.

And said as much following the publication of the DWG report, when everyone was bemoaning the "death of the .243Win in Scotland"...