Singing from the same hymn sheet???

https://Immersive-optics.com/
finnbear270

finnbear270

Well-Known Member
Supporter
This is an account of two peoples dealings with two adjoining police force f.a.c. depts, "I require the condition for geese on my .223" shooter in Merseyside, reply," OOOH! You can't have that! there will be nothing left to pick up!" shooter's reply," I don't want to eat them, the farmer just want's some control doing!" reply, "No sorry!"......... shooter in Cheshire, "Hi, I need the condition for geese on my .223, as central science laboratory have stated that this is the appropriate calibre for Canadas", Cheshire reply, "O.K., send it in & we'll do it a.s.a.p.!", on further contact with Merseyside the condition was applied to the f.a.c................When are we going to get some standardisation with the way uk laws are applied? :roll:
 
Application to control deer over 80 acres of farmland with significant numbers of fallow refused by North Wales Police -

". . . because the land does not lend itself to deer stalking in the manner typified in the Scottish Highlands."

Furthermore, the inspecting officer also told the land owner that the request was made with reference to the use of a .308, which was "far too large a calibre for the acreage". The officer then suggested they would have looked more favourably on the application had it been made with reference to a .270.
 
same hymn sheet

Maybe stalking in Scotland is not subjected to so many numpties having brain fa*ts, .270Win usual muzzle energy runs @ 2,800/3000, suitable for some African plains game, ( a necked down 30.06). .308Win usual muzzle M/E runs @ 2,500/2,700 ish, similar & slightly under 30.06 power. :roll:
 
Iwrch said:
they would have looked more favourably on the application had it been made with reference to a .270.
Click to expand...

Make a wildcat Iwrch, You can call it "the bureaucracy stopper"

270 = 6.8 so make a 6.8 x 338 Lap!!! That'll learn them :lol:

Ps. They tried exactly the same thing with me. :???:
 
In all honesty the police were right not to grant permission for a .300 on a 80 acre piece of ground .

But had you said it was to shoot from high seats as you did not feel the ground was suitable for that particular caliber ,but this is the safest manner in which to carry out such deer control, that the .308 was the correct caliber for the species of deer in your opinion .

You may just have been granted it ,had you put forward the correct mode and manner, for the safety of yourself and others due to the type and size of ground .

Ive had similar problems in which I gave all the facts to the police including photographs, Ariel photographs, due to i did not deem the ground suitable for a full bore rifle, this ground would be approx 100 acres with 4 roads running round it , due to the consideration i showed to the facts and the use of suitably placed high seats, and the reasons for the use of them i was granted the permission .

Its always better if you can show the police a plan first of all, they'll then look at in in a different light ,without first showing doubt and secondly saying NO thats then the door closed .
 
singing from the same hymn sheet

Legend on a brick of .22LR ..........."dangerous up to 1k",, 80 Acres? It's the calibre of the nut behind the butt, not the calbre of the weapon! :roll:
 
when i put in for my .308 staffs police said there wasnt enough deer on the land to warrant the calibre,there was around 300 acres and they were reds on there :shock: :shock:,so i got it passed for another estate and they sent me a open ticket back :shock:
 
Standardisation should come with the NFLMS system. This has already been trialled successfully in several constabularies and has a good deal of "common sense" features such as a .30 cal being a .30 cal despite it's case size!
 
widows son said:
In all honesty the police were right not to grant permission for a .300 on a 80 acre piece of ground .
Click to expand...

This is the sort of thing one might expect to hear from a FEO of the less-enlightened type.

Richard Parsons said:
There is also no such thing as a dangerous bit of land..........I use my .308 on 12 acres.
Click to expand...

That is both more practical and more realistic.

So I think, in any case.
 
Dalua :no doubt you read the rest or is it just the bit where people fall over ,
The rest of it does make sense also had you printed it all .

Ive been in this situation more than once with the Scottish police ,the very reason i printed the way I get around it .

When you give a clear and concise way of doing a thing they are less likely to say no .

One of the reasons is NOT there eating everything in the garden, field or allotment , it must be a safety thing firstly then a mode and manner of how your going to carry out the work at hand .

When the facts are presented in full, they are lees likely to put it in the bin ,granting the request without any stipulations due to you coming up with the answers ,not them .

9 x out of 10 times there answer will be no because they don't know anything about shooting or stalking there issue is only about firearms .

According to the firearms officer in Strathclyde his words at a BDS meeting when asked the question , my officers don't have to know anything about weapons, ammunition ,shooting or stalking, that is what we the certificate holder should know about , his officers were only there to follow force and home office guidelines .

I before contacting the licencing department ,about any of the above make sure I have all the facts to hand , what we all must remember the personnel working in the firearms department don't know anything of what we are talking about .
 
widows son said:
Dalua :no doubt you read the rest or is it just the bit where people fall over ,
The rest of it does make sense also had you printed it all .

Ive been in this situation more than once with the Scottish police ,the very reason i printed the way I get around it .

When you give a clear and concise way of doing a thing they are less likely to say no .

One of the reasons is NOT there eating everything in the garden, field or allotment , it must be a safety thing firstly then a mode and manner of how your going to carry out the work at hand .

When the facts are presented in full, they are lees likely to put it in the bin ,granting the request without any stipulations due to you coming up with the answers ,not them .

9 x out of 10 times there answer will be no because they don't know anything about shooting or stalking there issue is only about firearms .

According to the firearms officer in Strathclyde his words at a BDS meeting when asked the question , my officers don't have to know anything about weapons, ammunition ,shooting or stalking, that is what we the certificate holder should know about , his officers were only there to follow force and home office guidelines .

I before contacting the licencing department ,about any of the above make sure I have all the facts to hand , what we all must remember the personnel working in the firearms department don't know anything of what we are talking about .
Click to expand...

I agree nearly entirely.

Everything you say makes sense, apart from the assertion that it was correct for the FLD not grant permission for .30" on 80 acres. This is beacuse everything else you say basically supports the idea of using .30" on 80acres.

The notion that a request to use .30" on 80 acres should be rejected out of hand, as the line of yours I quoted suggests, is therefore exposed as flawed, perhaps?
 
I don't have any problem with the .308 as a weapon I would rather have that as a .22-250 or .243 the bullet energy is more likely to knock the thing over in 80 acres than have it running all over the place.

Opening the door for further controversy .

My point was quite clear, the facts or the reasons for the grant of permission to use the weapon were not clear enough stated .

Had the been clearer the grant would have been issued .

If the person had a open certificate he or they could had done the job without asking anyone, which Iwrch has .

The fact being I shoot a .270 over a far smaller patch of ground than 80 acres which Iwrch has also shot over with his .308.

Which is surrounded by housing and a college to police are not interested in , As Frank Carson would say it the way you tell them .
 
One might argue, then, that the correct thing for the FLD to do would have been to ask for further information.

I agree entirely that we serve ourselves best in dealings with the FLD if we make it easy for them to feel happy about coming to the decision which from our point of view is the correct one.

Nevertheless, they are public servants whose salaries we pay, and I therefore think it reasonable to expect a more enquiry-based approach to decision-making of this sort. Your apparent endorsement of out-of-hand rejection of the request suggests that you would consider that acceptable; I feel we perhaps deserve better, really.
 
Land size doesn't matter a toss because it's about suitability. Obviously a piece of ground where a round can be fired safely without causing alarm to the public and where there is reason has to be acceptable. The flo's aren't always very good at weighing up the merits of a named ground.

You might own 1/2 an acre of ground out in the sticks and have rabbits digging up you grass, fox's eating your ornamental ducks and fallow munching through your end of your garden now and again that come out of the wood. Up goes the high seat facing away from the road and house and there you go, good reason for a full set of rifles with increased safety provision sorted.

You might have 200 acres of flat stoney based silage fields that even with high seats are unsafe to shoot onto or a few acres of soft soil based rough shoot that runs up a hill that is excellent for taking shots onto. What is better?? A round into the ground is safe as my old man said.

Sorry if i'm off on one but it's not quantity it's quality and lets face flo's are very different all round. Some weigh up a piece of ground and other just go on size because they assume some areas must be safe?!

If only Carlsberg did FLO's


:lol:
 
Thank you all for your comments following my concise post in reply to finnbear's opening account. In response, I feel I should provide a little more information to fully illustrate my frustration with the outcome.

The land in question lay along one of the steeper lengths of the Elwy valley, falling away over 60 metres to the river below. Only one public footpath crossed the land and the nearest highway was a C class single track toad running along the northern rim of the valley. The land had previously been deemed suitable for an acquaintance to control foxes with his .243 but who had no desire to shoot the deer of which there were plenty.

The inspecting officer made no effort to contact me with regard to my application. The first I knew of their visit was when the land owner telephoned me to report their concern over the calibre. When their written explanation for rejection made issue of the fact that this wasn't the kind of terrain one would assoiciate with traditional Highland stalking I decided that brick walls and head banging were likely to become a feature of any further dialogue. Several other local Guns reported similar experiences.

I agree I should probably have done more but I had to respect the wishes of the landowner who, despite being equally unhappy with the outcome, didn't wish to become embroiled in a tussle with the police. Sometimes the inevitable is not to our liking but such is the way of a civilised society.

Fortunately, the considerable number of Guns in the area, several of whom were equally flumoxed by similar inconsistencies of reason, are now much better served since said officer subsequently disappeared on long term sick leave and was replaced by someone who actually knew what they were talking about.

I may yet have my moment with those Gog fallow!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Braces Airgun Masters
Back
Top