Aolq

[willowbank]

Hi chaps, apologies if this has been covered before somewhere.

After requesting Kent to condition all my rifles AOLQ they have come back with "you will need to prove there are Boar on your land for the .270" I asked how I might do this and the reply was "use cameras" now this isn't a problem provided they accept that the photos I show them are in fact on my land.
How far do I go with this and what if I had no cameras or indeed could not afford that sort of gear in the first place?
When I initially asked for a .270 together with a .38 revolver for Deer they made me take and pass DSC1 which I have since been told by BASC is outside their remit.
I have no objection to sensible precautions being taken by firearms depts but I have held a ticket for a good many years (40plus) now and it gets a tad tiresome to be treated like an inexperienced newcomer to the sport, I have been out for approx 2 dozen stalks for Boar,a few paid but mostly with friends so I really do not see why it is necessary to prove anything, what difference does the presence of Boar make to the granting of AOLQ?

ATB WB

 

[Dalua]

Some years ago, before AOLQ was invented, I used to stalk as a guest on an estate that had occasional boar and therefore asked for boar to be added to my stalking rifles.

The FLD asked for proof from the stalker/estate owners that boar were present, but I wasn't keen to bother them with such BS. I told the FLD that I was happy to compromise, and that if he added a boar condition to my stalking rifles without any proof of there presence on the estate, then I would promise not to shoot any if there were none there.

 

[Si]

AOLQ usually follows the primary quarry.... i.e "The .270 rifle and ammunition shall be used for the control of boar and any other legal quarry"
so it's not unreasonable to have to provide good reason. However a letter from a land owner, or in my case the FEO telephoned the landowner to ask what species were present on the land. The use of trail cams proves nothing, I have loads of trail cam footage of boar, you can send him some if you want.

 

[Dalua]

so it's not unreasonable to have to provide good reason.

I might have misunderstood, but my interpretation is that the OP's good reason is established as deer.

 

[Si]

In that case just ask for "deer and AOLQ" and don't mention boar...

and don't take "no" for an answer

 

[Shootgun]

what difference does the presence of Boar make to the granting of AOLQ?

It doesn't make any difference... i got .270 for deer and AOLQ whitout a question... AOLQ includes fox, boar etc...
Some forces are taking the mick...

 

[Orion]

After requesting Kent to condition all my rifles AOLQ they have come back with "you will need to prove there are Boar on your land for the .270"

Was that in writing from them? In your position I would write/email them pointing out the relevant section(s) of the HO Guidance, (I've quoted one below but read through Chapter 13 for further info), and asking why they are not complying with the Guidance in applying AOLQ in addition to your primary quarry of deer for the .270, and whether they have informed ACPO FELWEG of the fact that they are deviating from it as per the directive - ask for a copy. If they still want to ignore the Guidance then a letter to the Chief Constable and PCC might be in order.

13.9 A certificate holder may shoot any quarry that is lawful (where they are authorised to shoot). Whilst guidance is provided, it is the responsibility of the shooter and the shooting community to know what calibre is suitable for which quarry, and when certain quarry is lawful (including the need to obtain or rely upon a licence from the relevant licensing authority to permit the shooting of protected species). Once initial “good reason” has been established for the possession of a firearm, there is no requirement for “good reason” to be demonstrated for additional quarry species or amendments providing the firearms are not underpowered for the species (see also paragraph 13.17). A cartridge should be capable of achieving a humane kill, and it is the responsibility of the shooter to ensure that any excess energy will be absorbed by the backstop. The “any other lawful quarry” condition (which also covers protected species that the certificate holder is licensed to shoot) should be applied. If an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm certificate and is deemed safe to do so, there is no requirement to restrict the quarry they shoot by the use of conditions.

Here's the link to the College of Policing blurb on firearms licensing: https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...lic-protection/firearms-licensing/#priorities

Includes this gem!

Forces that choose not to align their activities with the Home Office Guide are required to notify the national policing lead of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) and provide a rationale for their decision.

 

[gerarddwatts]

Despite being a rozzer for most of my working life, I do not understand why forces take liberties like this. This sort of behaviour is exactly why the Home Office guidance exists. These unnecessary enquiries are very expensive in terms of police time and will inflate the cost of certificates; it is the intention of a future Labour government to charge the 'cost price' of renewals and grants. The only way to prevent this sort of thing is to hold them to account at every opportunity....complain loudly!!

 

[nun_hunter]

When I first got granted my .243 it was for "Fox and AOLQ" and was told I can not shoot deer with it unless I have deer written on my cert and to get that I must have DSC1. Being young and not knowing any different I went along with it. When I then got a 308 with "deer and aolq " the same FEO said I couldn't shoot boar without proof of boar and them written on my cert. I disagreed with him and spike to another FEO in the same force and he said boar was fine under aolq and I also should have been able to shoot deer under aolq as the .243 was granted for Fox so that was the good reason and so I should have been ok to shoot deer too.

I just wish I had been a member on here with all the knowledge and help it has given me back then when I was advised incorrectly by my first FEO.

 

[willowbank]

My thanks for the replies especially Orion, I intend to show these replies to the Feo next Thursday, in the meantime I think it would be worth contacting BASC for their views.
I have to agree that some forces appear to be making life difficult for the sake of it but rely on ignorance of the law to avoid accountability.

regards WB

 

[Orion]

WB, rather than just print off the replies from a load of forum know nothings , which your FEO might dismiss out of hand, you might be better off downloading the 2013 HO Guide .pdf from the sticky at the head of this section and printing off the relevant sections - plus the Authorised Professional Practice webpage from the College of Policing.

In addition to S.13.9 from Chapter 13 of the Guide, there are also parts of 13.16 & 13.17 and elsewhere that might help counter any attempt by the FEO to say that you require additional 'good reason' for further quarry species - keep to the forefront the fact that once initial 'good reason' is established and authority to possess a firearm is granted with a primary quarry stated i.e. 'deer', any further quarry should be included under AOLQ as per 13.9.

Agree with others that if the police want to go towards recovering costs of licensing, they must stop ignoring the HO Guidance and racking up uneccessary man hours with ridiculous attempts to micro-manage the system. It's all laid out for them, so why not just follow the Guidance?

 

[Uncle Norm]

WB, rather than just print off the replies from a load of forum know nothings , which your FEO might dismiss out of hand, you might be better off downloading the 2013 HO Guide .pdf from the sticky at the head of this section and printing off the relevant sections - plus the Authorised Professional Practice webpage from the College of Policing.

In addition to S.13.9 from Chapter 13 of the Guide, there are also parts of 13.16 & 13.17 and elsewhere that might help counter any attempt by the FEO to say that you require additional 'good reason' for further quarry species - keep to the forefront the fact that once initial 'good reason' is established and authority to possess a firearm is granted with a primary quarry stated i.e. 'deer', any further quarry should be included under AOLQ as per 13.9.

Agree with others that if the police want to go towards recovering costs of licensing, they must stop ignoring the HO Guidance and racking up uneccessary man hours with ridiculous attempts to micro-manage the system. It's all laid out for them, so why not just follow the Guidance?

This is good advice from Orion. Also I am aware that HMIC are currently preparing an inspection of all forces firearms licensing units. Part of that inspection will be the level of compliance with home office and ACPO guidance.

All issues should be put in writing to the firearms licensing manager and if not resolved by the manager, to the chief constable.

Some feos get it wrong and unless one writes to the manager, the manager remains unaware and the bad practice continues and may spread.

 

[Legolas]

I've just taken a look at my ticket to make sure I wasn't misquoting. It doesn't state a priimary quarry, rather it says ''firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting any lawful quarry suitable for that calibre of rifle'' I'm not trying to open another can of worms, just trying to emphisise how some forces (in this case N Yorks) have a positive/practical approach to assisting the certificate holders.

 

[Orion]

I've just taken a look at my ticket to make sure I wasn't misquoting. It doesn't state a priimary quarry, rather it says ''firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting any lawful quarry suitable for that calibre of rifle'' I'm not trying to open another can of worms, just trying to emphisise how some forces (in this case N Yorks) have a positive/practical approach to assisting the certificate holders.

Maybe, maybe not, because they've tacked a bit on.

Can of worms potentially open!

By deviating from the advised form of the condition as per the HO Guidance, and adding in the "suitable for that calibre of rifle", they've actually made it nonsensical - muntjac & CWD being 'suitable' for some but not all .22 calibres, (some CF but not others and RF of course). Plus they've thrown it open to interpretation of who decides what is and isn't 'suitable' - the shooter, the police, DEFRA, or even RSPCA or LACS should they get involved in an animal welfare case? Extreme I know, but I suspect there's the potential for problems with that condition.

IMO the AOLQ condition in Appendix 3 of the Guidance is workable and the one all forces should be using without trying to make up their own b*stardised versions.

 

[Legolas]

By deviating from the advised form of the condition as per the HO Guidance, and adding in the "suitable for that calibre of rifle", they've actually made it nonsensical - muntjac & CWD being 'suitable' for some but not all .22 calibres, (some CF but not others and RF of course). Plus they've thrown it open to interpretation of who decides what is and isn't 'suitable' - the shooter, the police, DEFRA, or even RSPCA or LACS should they get involved in an animal welfare case? Extreme I know, but I suspect there's the potential for problems with that condition.

I'm not going to defend their terminology too much as it suits me down to the ground, but it's only nonsensical if you want it to be. Unless you have say, a deer rifle condition that specifies the bullet weight and muzzle velocity of the round you're going to use then surely everyone with a rifle with a general deer condition is having to interperet what is suitable, which is what we all do (hopefully!) every time we go out shooting.

 

[Tackleberry270]

Some years ago, before AOLQ was invented, I used to stalk as a guest on an estate that had occasional boar and therefore asked for boar to be added to my stalking rifles.

The FLD asked for proof from the stalker/estate owners that boar were present, but I wasn't keen to bother them with such BS. I told the FLD that I was happy to compromise, and that if he added a boar condition to my stalking rifles without any proof of there presence on the estate, then I would promise not to shoot any if there were none there.

I love the way you tackled this one. You have to have a sense of humor about it otherwise you could end up getting quite angry.

I certainly refuse to jump through completely unnecessary hoops to get what I want. I just do my homework and quote their own guidelines at them and then politely dig my heels in. I have never been refused anything so it seems to have worked so far.

 

[AN DU RU FOX]

no help but i asked for larger cals and got allowed two larger cals deer and aolq ,initially they refused my vari ,same situation as nun hunters,asked about boar they said aolq covers it, all with help off here, atb

 

[DaveK]

I've just taken a look at my ticket to make sure I wasn't misquoting. It doesn't state a priimary quarry, rather it says ''firearms and ammunition shall be used for shooting any lawful quarry suitable for that calibre of rifle'' I'm not trying to open another can of worms, just trying to emphisise how some forces (in this case N Yorks) have a positive/practical approach to assisting the certificate holders.

Not surprising. I've always seen N. Yorks to be pragmatic where licensing is concerned. Where we in West Yorks had to jump through ridiculous hoops, over the border they always seemed to put responsibility on the shooter and give them the ability to exercise it. To the extent that a friend of mine, on first application asking for a rimfire, was persuaded by the FEO to apply for a .243 as there were deer on his land. The ticket came back open. Practical approach or WOT!? I just wish other forces took the same approach.

 

[Erik Hamburger]

Some years ago, before AOLQ was invented, I used to stalk as a guest on an estate that had occasional boar and therefore asked for boar to be added to my stalking rifles.

The FLD asked for proof from the stalker/estate owners that boar were present, but I wasn't keen to bother them with such BS. I told the FLD that I was happy to compromise, and that if he added a boar condition to my stalking rifles without any proof of there presence on the estate, then I would promise not to shoot any if there were none there.

Brilliant. I assume they accepted your compromise proposal?

 

[shaun22/250]

My thanks for the replies especially Orion, I intend to show these replies to the Feo next Thursday, in the meantime I think it would be worth contacting BASC for their views.
I have to agree that some forces appear to be making life difficult for the sake of it but rely on ignorance of the law to avoid accountability.

regards WB

Hi i am also in Kent and when i got a .270 I was also told to do DSC1 before deer granted. I asked for boar also but was told basicaly the same as you. I settled for deer and AOLQ as after contacting basc they said that would cover boar and didnt need it to be named on cert.

[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr Vale,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your emails, I apologise for the delay in responding but I have been on leave until now.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The condition for your .270 rifle does include boar and fox. It states Deer as the primary reason for possessing it, this is important for the purposes of assessing good reason at renewal and states the main reason you applied for the rifle on first application. The words any lawful quarry allows you to shoot anything lawful under wildlife laws from grey squirrel to wild boar.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So in essence whether or not they have refused to grant boar specifically in previous applications, this new any lawful quarry condition does away with any need for you to approach the police for new species to be added, it is now your freedom of choice to shot any lawful animal as and when you wish to do so on land where you have permission and permission to shoot those animals from the holder of shooting rights if it is not yourself who holds them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I hope this helps[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Best wishes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]MATT PERRING [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Firearms & Explosives Officer[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BASC | Marford Mill | Rossett | Wrexham | LL12 0HL
01244-573010 |[/FONT][FONT=&quot] matt.perring@basc.org.uk "[/FONT]