'lesser species' rule

User00003

Well-Known Member
just having a variation processed and at the same time I asked for some changes to conditions where it only states that my .243 and 30-06 are for usage on 'deer'. I argued I'd like to be able to use them on vermin/fox/boar, etc. where applicable and correct in choice.

I received a response back that my conditions would not be changed due to the 'lesser species' rule in Scotland - which means that if my firearm is conditioned for deer, any 'lesser species' such as vermin, fox, boar, etc. can automatically be shot legally, even though the FAC does not state those species nor 'any lawful quarry'.

I am going to keep that email printed along with my FAC 'just in case'

do you guys agree with this?:-|
 
do you guys agree with this?:-|

Agree with you keeping the email - yes, without a doubt.

Agree with the presumption of 'lesser species' nonsense - no, not at all.

Why can't they just put AOLQ on the ticket instead of going all round the houses to justify themselves and then do it in a 'supplementary' email? Bonkers.

Anyhow, what is defined as a 'lesser species' than deer - dolphin, aardvark, dodo?
 
I have the same email.
Except I got him to say that his statement would be accepted nationally not just L&B or Scotland.

think it is a fair idea, saves them from condtioning for specific animals in the positive but then they go and do it for the .243 with Deer AND fox?
you could argue that on the basis of his description a .243 condition for deer would automatically be conditioned for fox under the lesser species balls!
 
AOLQ must the the way forward.

I think whether the statement would be accepted nationally would depend on the part of the nation you happen to be in, rather than on the opion of the FEO issuing the certificate.

I guess that having 'deer and fox' on a .243 might be seen simply as the FLD confirming that the 'good reason to possess' is deer and fox, just as the 'good reason to possess' the .30-06 is deer.

It does sound like a load of cobblers to me, though.

It is very reasonable of them to issue FACs with the idea that once the rifle is issued you can shoot any lawful quarry with it, but personally I'd be happier if they made it explicit in the conditions.
 
I agree with Dalua, I like to know exactly where the "line in the sand" is. I would not be happy with that wording.

Paul
 
My FEO says that they havent heard of the 'lesser species' rule and they dont do AOLQ, but then i can shoot vermin,ground game,foxes and deer with my 308.
 
Their only human no body likes to admit they made a mistake.I hadmy 459 lot listed for vermin control but my 375 for overseas use only.Tried to keep it quite but they noticed it at renewal.
looked cool though there in ink.
 
Some force FLDs treat their 'open' FAC holders as adults though. Just one condition covering all firearms/ammo for AOLQ or similar - it's then up to the user to decide what is suitable/legal to use on what quarry. No need for prescriptive conditions, if the holder is deemed suitable and sensible enough to possess the firearm(s), I'm sure they don't need telling what to do with it. Or maybe people like following instructions?
 
I think the lesser species rule is kind of like that just not particularly well worded legally. They didnt think of the AOLQ so obviously dont want to use it.

In short the Snr FEO said if you want to shoot crows with your .243 that is up to you. expensive but up to you. it is conditioned for fox and deer though, so I can use it extensively for either OR both.

If you want to shoot foxes with your .270 that is up to you also.

what they were clear about is that they would not enter "fox only" for .270 as they didnt feel it was appropriate, if I shoot a fox with it that is fine.
If I use the .270 "solely" for fox shooting then I am not using it for the good reason specified at the time of the variation.

It is conditioned for deer. that is the "good reason" not a restriction. what else I shoot they couldnt care less. it is unenforceable even if it was a firm restriction
In that sense it is the same as AOLQ it just doesnt specifify it....but my email does.....
 
The issue I think I might have with the presumption of 'lesser species', (and would seek written conformation as back-up as you wisely have), is that there are already more than one named species against, say, your .243.

If the condition states that the rifle is to be used for those named, then there might be a presumption that those not named are not included - if you get what I mean.

There would also be the potential problem with shooting in a force area where 'lesser species' is not recognised - which appears to to almost everywhere else!
 
An alternative view, based on the general idea that in law that which is not specifically forbidden is lawful, is that unless the conditon contains the word 'only' (i.e. 'shall be used only for deer and zeroing'), then the condition does not actually exclude any quarry, it simply names the species which was cited as the 'good reason to possess'.

This is not, however, the way most FLDs seem to view the meaning of their discretionary conditions.
 
thanks for your input gents - sounds like I'll just be using my firearms as I please an see fit under this condition/wording.
 
If you have that e-mail kept then I can't see any issues arising and as they are the licensing force then the conditions should apply throughout the uk. I've had all sorts of wording it seems to change each time but currently it is pest control and deer. Realistically that seems to cover most things in my mind, when you consider the extra responsibility that goes with a FAC the fact they are conditioned is complete rubbish when shotguns you can shoot whatever you like.
 
just having a variation processed and at the same time I asked for some changes to conditions where it only states that my .243 and 30-06 are for usage on 'deer'. I argued I'd like to be able to use them on vermin/fox/boar, etc. where applicable and correct in choice.

I received a response back that my conditions would not be changed due to the 'lesser species' rule in Scotland - which means that if my firearm is conditioned for deer, any 'lesser species' such as vermin, fox, boar, etc. can automatically be shot legally, even though the FAC does not state those species nor 'any lawful quarry'.

I am going to keep that email printed along with my FAC 'just in case'

do you guys agree with this?:-|

I've read the above, and the responses to it. I sympathise, but it's wishful thinking. Whatever letters or written assurances you get from your FLD won't apply should things go pearshaped. Just watch them back away if that happens. You can depend on the prosecution lawyers to point out that the only legal authority is what's printed on the FAC.

That's now common law, and while any restrictions are irksome they're actually for your own protection. IMHO you should insist on species-specific authority. All this (ACPO) 'lesser species' is hogwash unless your FAC says those very words ... and even then they'll be argued over. Anything in a criminal trial is.

It's this worrying catch-all phrase on your FAC "It is an offence to fail to comply with any of the Conditions below" which bothers me . My FAC, which is a model of the application of the standard Home Office 'Conditions') says:-

The 7mm Rifle, .270 Rifle and the ammunition to which this certificate relates shall be used for shooting deer ..... and for zeroing (etc.)

It doesn't say Fox, and that doesn't bother me one bit. If one appears then the risk is all mine if I choose to take it, but I rarely do as it may screw up my stalking chances. I've got more suitable artillery for serious foxing, by which I mean lamping. That's the acid test, when visibility is vastly reduced, backstops aren't readily verifiable, and light frangible bullets are essential to reduce ricochets as much as poss. What does a fox matter in the scheme of things?

If I needed Boar then I'd be probably operating in the dark anyway, so would probably have to re-tool. Without any previous experience or an established track record on boar-shooting I'd expect my FLD to be involved in this process to check the public safety aspect. Even insist on high-seat shooting only, which I've heard Hampshire FLD do.

In short, I think it's too simplistic to expect that FLD's should Condition any FAC automatically for shooting 'other species' or AOLQ. That's a step too far no matter how experienced the FAC holder is.
 
so you'd like to have your FAC to read like a BBC list of animals you might be able to spot in the countryside?

What you shoot at to me is irrelevant from a licensing perspective what matters is what happens when you pull the trigger every time with regard to safety and that is the polices remit. What you shoot really shouldn't be it should be down to the FAC holder to make that decision much as shotguns based on legality, seasons and species needing control. We carry the can for any accidents and it doesn't matter what you have written on your ticket, you can still shoot at something listed on it in a dangerous fashion.
 
I think we need to have a compulsory theory and practical test for FAC holders, and once you pass you get the authority to hold an unlimited amount of calibres, firearms and ammunition, and to use them as you see fit given that you have passed the test on deeming suitability of firearms with xyz species, land, etc. etc. it would mean the police know people are fully trained and capable of making the right decisions on which firearms and calibres to use on specific game and on different types of land/situations. it would also give them the opportunity to make further financial cuts (!!!), but in addition, to know that the general public is safer due to the higher level of qualification and expertise the uk hunting and shooting community has.

INCOMING!!! - sorry, I'm just sick of the red tape!!!
 
I think we need to have a compulsory theory and practical test for FAC holders..............

.............................. on understanding and deciphering the gobbledegook that is written on some FACs. ;)


I tend to agree that achieving a basic 'firearms safety' standard which then removes all the restrictions placed on us with regard to calibres, territorial limitations, numbers of firearms possessed, (within reason), and quarry species, would be a good idea.

However, what appears to be happening is that many seem to be more than willing to accept training/certification with nothing in return.
 
Last edited:
no-one has ever been prosecuted solely for shooting something that didnt appear in a list on there FAC

I am confident if tested in court the legal definitions and detail provided by the Police stand in your favour.

but this is all immaterial as no-one cares apart from us! if this was an issue it would be enforced and people transgressing would be prosecuted.
its not.
go shoot some crows!
 
wonder if boar is treated as a lesser species to deer?...or if I'd need special permission for that in 'addition' to deer..doesn't seem to be any guidance on which animals are 'lesser' than others, in fact, it's rather degrading to think animals/game is thought of in that way as they all deserve equal respect (apart from spiders).
 
Back
Top