Contract stalking

[308rws]

Out of curiosity, does business insurance cover for loss of income and contractual penalties in the event of having your firearms seized e.g. as a result of someone complaining about public safety WHY? The net effect being that you can no longer work without your firearms.

 

[HonestJohn]

Out of curiosity, does business insurance cover for loss of income and contractual penalties in the event of having your firearms seized e.g. as a result of someone complaining about public safety WHY? The net effect being that you can no longer work without your firearms.

Doubtful, likely would be seen as your own fault unless proven otherwise, in which case firearms should be returned and FAC reinstated

 

[Chris Richardson]

Doubtful, likely would be seen as your own fault unless proven otherwise, in which case firearms should be returned and FAC reinstated

Yes 12 months later hardly any comfort to the poor sod who can’t work in the meantime without them

 

[VSS]

Certain places dictate no head shooting

Where and why?

 

[308rws]

Yes 12 months later hardly any comfort to the poor sod who can’t work in the meantime without them

Aye, but would you not qualify for compensation for loss of earnings?

 

[rem284]

Where and why?

A lot of places. Part of night shooting license says "head or neck should not be taken". I don't agree, it should be up to the man pulling the trigger. Sometimes it's a welfare issue not to shoot them in the head because it's the only option or the juvenile will get away

 

[Chris Richardson]

Aye, but would you not qualify for compensation for loss of earnings?

I very much doubt it

 

[VSS]

A lot of places. Part of night shooting license says "head or neck should not be taken". I don't agree, it should be up to the man pulling the trigger. Sometimes it's a welfare issue not to shoot them in the head because it's the only option or the juvenile will get away

Head shot very simple at night with those eyes glowing in the beam of the lamp.
Not that I would know, of course....

 

[Dave_45]

Head shot very simple at night with those eyes glowing in the beam of the lamp.
Not that I would know, of course....

Take worst case scenario, you fluff it and take a jaw off.

Bad in the daytime , at night a total mess.

 

[VSS]

Take worst case scenario, you fluff it and take a jaw off.

Bad in the daytime , at night a total mess.

Or you fluff a chest shot, smash a front leg, and write it off as "a clean miss".
I think there's an awful lot like that.

 

[Dave_45]

Or you fluff a chest shot, smash a front leg, and write it off as "a clean miss".
I think there's an awful lot like that.

Head is a lot smaller target.

Likelihood of a mess up increases, chest has much more room for error

 

[shakey jake]

New pickup circa 50k
New quad circa 10k
Rifle circa 2k
Thermal spotter circa 5k
Thermal scope circa 5k
Capstan winch and rope circa 1.5k
Trailer circa 5k
500 factory copper bullets circa 1.5k
Glass binos circa 2k
Glass scope circa 2k

That's circa 84k without courses, spares, and small items like clothing, boots knives, lardering equipment.

Get setup to do a contract. Maybes get one, maybe not.

If you are just buying bullets dont forget reloading gear. Another few hundred

 

[rem284]

If you are just buying bullets dont forget reloading gear. Another few hundred

Home loads are usually not allowed during to liability issues.

 

[shakey jake]

Home loads are usually not allowed during to liability issues.

So why buy bullets if you cant load them?

 

[rem284]

So why buy bullets if you cant load them?

Ok, would you rather I said cartridges

 

[HonestJohn]

Ok, would you rather I said cartridges

Or even ‘rounds’

 

[willie_gunn]

A lot of places. Part of night shooting license says "head or neck should not be taken". I don't agree, it should be up to the man pulling the trigger. Sometimes it's a welfare issue not to shoot them in the head because it's the only option or the juvenile will get away

Is that perhaps just the case in Scotland?

I’ve not seen the physical CL55 for England and Wales, but I can’t see any wording to that effect on the CL55 website:

Licence to kill deer at night by shooting (CL55)

www.gov.uk

There is Condition 10, which states that “You must comply with the Deer Initiative Partnership guidance on night shooting, in force at the time of action, and any other relevant best practices guidelines relating to the shooting of deer. If there is conflict between a licence condition and the guidelines, follow the licence condition.”

The Best Practice Guidance for night shooting, which is linked to from the above, goes on to say on Page 4 in the section on ‘Visibility & Shot’ that:



Which reads that heart/lung shot placement is preferred, but there may be good reason to use others where conditions make this necessary. If challenged, it would then be for the shooter to justify why any such alternatives were used.

 

[rem284]

Is that perhaps just the case in Scotland?

I’ve not seen the physical CL55 for England and Wales, but I can’t see any wording to that effect on the CL55 website:

Licence to kill deer at night by shooting (CL55)

www.gov.uk

There is Condition 10, which states that “You must comply with the Deer Initiative Partnership guidance on night shooting, in force at the time of action, and any other relevant best practices guidelines relating to the shooting of deer. If there is conflict between a licence condition and the guidelines, follow the licence condition.”

The Best Practice Guidance for night shooting, which is linked to from the above, goes on to say on Page 4 in the section on ‘Visibility & Shot’ that:

View attachment 465912

Which reads that heart/lung shot placement is preferred, but there may be good reason to use others where conditions make this necessary. If challenged, it would then be for the shooter to justify why any such alternatives were used.

Yes, I was referring to Scotland. To me the "should" is a recommendation. If it said " must" to me it would imply mandatory

 

[Dave_45]

professional insurance doesn’t allow for homeloads

With clivertons anyway

 

[willie_gunn]

Yes, I was referring to Scotland. To me the "should" is a recommendation. If it said " must" to me it would imply mandatory

Exactly - so to use CL55 the shooter MUST comply with the Best Practice on night shooting, and SHOULD go for heart/lung shot placement unless there is sufficient justification to use an alternative. It that alternative is chosen, the onus would then be on the shooter to provide the reason, if challenged. Furthermore, deciding on a head shot solely because that’s what the game dealer insists on won’t be deemed an acceptable reason. Not saying it’s right, but that’s the way CL55 appears to read…