Update on supervision

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
My FEO is coming over tomorrow night with regards to my request on supervision clause removal. He says his boss is fine with it but wont open my ticket completely yet. He will explain all tomorrow night so will keep you all informed of the outcome just in case anyone else is at the same point in their stalking career. Bye for now.
 

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
Dont know never asked, but by way of fortune my mate has a full open ticket anyway and he did me a letter to say I was safe etc. I will probably get the usual ' land deemed suitable ' sentence left in , but thats ok as the ground I stalk is 5000 acres split into sections and is already passed for most calibres anyway. If I get any land of my own a land check is simple and free I believe.
 

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
Well that was ok. FEO just been and supervision lifted, still subject to land check etc. at the mo, but just happy enough for now to go out solo .
 

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
Land checks are free and I was told in Surrey they will always try to stretch to maximum calibre possible. I quote ' We look hard to see what shooting you want to do, and try our best to let you' Job done.
 

tartinjock

Distinguished Member
Richard Parsons said:
Land checks are free and I was told in Surrey they will always try to stretch to maximum calibre possible. I quote ' We look hard to see what shooting you want to do, and try our best to let you' Job done.
Not what I have heard about Surrey, they are OR were very very strict regarding firearms.
 

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
Tolley,
The letter stated I had stalked 6 times, taken 2 roe safely, and demonstrated correct rifle handling and was fine to be let off the leash basically. I shoot anyhow with a .223 with the same mate over last 2/3 years, so he knows my experience and record. ATB.
 

75

Well-Known Member
Sorry for dragging up and old thread, but I have just been through exactly the same with Thames Valley. FAC initially granted with no condition for fox, but a supervisory condition for deer. Same rifle, same ground etc.

I objected to the requirement as a) it made no sense and b) the condition was not clearly defined and I didn't want to be in breach of it simply through ignorance. During my interview with the FEO the following was stated:

1) He freely admitted that "supervision" wasn't defined by the courts (i.e. did it mean in line of sight, in same wood, at end of phone - he couldn't say and stated it would only be defined if it all went wrong and the courts got involved).

2) When queried how long the supervisory condition would be on (i.e. in months or number of deer shot) he was unable to give me an answer.

3) If I had DSC1 he would grant no supervision, depsite it being a classroom qualification only.

4) I was able to go out on same ground with same rifle unsupervised and shoot foxes (at night if I wanted!).

5) By the FEOs admission, I had met all the legal criteria for grant of a FAC (good reason, temporate & safe).

I questioned the condition and it was passed to the Snr FEO who called me to say the species specific condition shouldn't have been produced and the original FEO had made a mistake. I either had to produce the name of a mentor or someone write saying they had been out with me and I was safe/responsible etc.

BASC got involved, but in all honesty did nothing but delay things sufficiently for me to get out a few times with a local Head Keeper and get him to write me a letter.

I strongly feel that the Police are shirking their responsibility over this issue, and need to get off the bloody fence. Basically, anything which took the responsibility for making the decision away from Thames Valley was acceptable - whether it was a DSC cert or a letter from any FAC holder, they weren't fussy!! It feels a lot like they are doing this to cover their backsides and not for the right reasons of safety or deer welfare.
 

Rangefinder

Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with them applying the law incorrectly and with respect to mentors/supervisors etc, there is no legal requirement for this. We are fools for putting up with it.
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
Rangefinder said:
Nothing to do with them applying the law incorrectly and with respect to mentors/supervisors etc, there is no legal requirement for this. We are fools for putting up with it.
There is a great deal of truth in that, but unfortunately the Police tend to hold all the cards in this situation. :( Its one area BASC could do with taking up as there is absolutely no legal requirement for it...
 

Rangefinder

Well-Known Member
Actually Pete we do.

If a FLO refuses a ticket on the grounds of a person requiring a mentor or supervisor ask them to put it in writing [the reasons why] and who the deciding officer was/is.

The basic legal tennent exists in the legislation, if the CC of Police thinks a person is a risk he ought not to issue the ticket and be prepared to explain the reasons why in accordance with the law.

There is no legal requirement for the authorities to insist on a mentor or supervisor. It is a futile and totally unecessary addition and incorrect interpretation/application of the law and we should resist and BASC and the NGO will resist but you gotta help them and be prepared for a battle but stick with it.

In all probability you will be threatened [as I have been on occassion] with revocation of your ticket but the BASC and NGO offer free legal advice, take it.
 

Richard Parsons

Well-Known Member
Just got my first renewal back last week, no real 'conditions' as such anymore. Can use .22 .223 22-250 .243 .308 on ranges or any land I have lawful authority..... end of.
 

Top