What happens next?

[VSS]

. So in regards to the op you have an fac whether it's open or closed you can't have half and half.

No, it isn't the FAC that's open or closed. It's the conditions applied to the individual rifles listed on it. For example, you could have a rifle for target use only, and another for stalking.

 

[Nots so bad lad]

It’s not mentoring in that respect: they wanted evidence that I have been out and gained experience with the calibre I have applied for.

Now I think they have got a bit confused and think my application is based on his land, and that is why they are requesting clarification on locations of his permissions and confirmation that they have been cleared for 308.

A. Quick check on their data base once you give them the address is all it takes to see what the lands been cleared for if it comes back cleared for 308 fine . Land owner does not need to know .

 

[VSS]

A. Quick check on their data base once you give them the address is all it takes to see what the lands been cleared for if it comes back cleared for 308 fine . Land owner does not need to know .

Trouble is, once you've given the address, if their database shows "not cleared", then they can get straight in touch with the landowner. So your policy of "land owner does not need to know" is likely to come around and bite you on the bum, and could lose you a fair bit of goodwill for effectively going behind his back.

Basically, don't ever list a piece of land on an application or variation form unless the landowner is 100% happy for you to do so. A lot don't mind you shooting, but want nothing to do with forms, paperwork or police checks.

(I'm speaking as a landowner here).

 

[Nots so bad lad]

Trouble is, once you've given the address, if their database shows "not cleared", then they can get straight in touch with the landowner. So your policy of "land owner does not need to know" is likely to come around and bite you on the bum, and could lose you a fair bit of goodwill for effectively going behind his back.

Any body can ring the fire arms department and ask about a peace of land and see what it’s been cleared for

 

[Jeff8861]

No, it isn't the FAC that's open or closed. It's the conditions applied to the individual rifles listed on it. For example, you could have a rifle for target use only, and another for stalking.

Yes but that doesn't apply in this case

 

[VSS]

Yes but that doesn't apply in this case

Not sure what you mean?
The OP has open conditions for his rimfire, and has been told he'll have closed conditions for his centrefire (when granted). Nothing unusual about that. The conditions apply to the individual rifles, not the FAC as a whole.
No different from having different rifles conditioned for different disciplines.
He can always ask for the conditions to be altered, and if his request is justified then he'll get what he wants.

 

[sikamalc]

A 1 were removed from this site after we had reports of their website containing photos of land that they had no stalking rights on. A 1 were contacted and asked to produce evidence to the fact that they had stalking rights, and were given several days to do so.
About 24 hours later the photos had been removed from their website, and NO evidence was given to support the fact that they had rights.

The owner of the stalking rights had been on the land for around 10 years if my memory serves me correct, and knew nothing of anyone else stalking there. Based on this evidence we removed A1 from the site.

This was, and has been a practice undertaken by various individuals over the years, and has landed some people in court, (not A1) but there was a well known case a few years back where a so called professional guide was taking paid clients onto land he had no rights too.

 

[25 Sharps]

A 1 were removed from this site after we had reports of their website containing photos of land that they had no stalking rights on. A 1 were contacted and asked to produce evidence to the fact that they had stalking rights, and were given several days to do so.
About 24 hours later the photos had been removed from their website, and NO evidence was given to support the fact that they had rights.

The owner of the stalking rights had been on the land for around 10 years if my memory serves me correct, and knew nothing of anyone else stalking there. Based on this evidence we removed A1 from the site.

This was, and has been a practice undertaken by various individuals over the years, and has landed some people in court, (not A1) but there was a well known case a few years back where a so called professional guide was taking paid clients onto land he had no rights too.

@Scotty99 there you go.

Thanks for clarifying @sikamalc

 

[25 Sharps]

A. Quick check on their data base once you give them the address is all it takes to see what the lands been cleared for if it comes back cleared for 308 fine . Land owner does not need to know .

I imagine the issue is the land is not cleared, it may then not get cleared on in inspection which may cause the permission holder an issue come renewal, if he is in an area that insists on a cleared piece of land for your largest calibre.

Luckily I’m not, biggest calibre clearance my land has is .22 WMR!

 

[Pete6.5]

Trouble is, once you've given the address, if their database shows "not cleared", then they can get straight in touch with the landowner. So your policy of "land owner does not need to know" is likely to come around and bite you on the bum, and could lose you a fair bit of goodwill for effectively going behind his back.

Basically, don't ever list a piece of land on an application or variation form unless the landowner is 100% happy for you to do so. A lot don't mind you shooting, but want nothing to do with forms, paperwork or police checks.

(I'm speaking as a landowner here).

I agree never use a landowners address or details with out asking first unless you like loosing ground and upsetting people

 

[Nots so bad lad]

A 1 were removed from this site after we had reports of their website containing photos of land that they had no stalking rights on. A 1 were contacted and asked to produce evidence to the fact that they had stalking rights, and were given several days to do so.
About 24 hours later the photos had been removed from their website, and NO evidence was given to support the fact that they had rights.

The owner of the stalking rights had been on the land for around 10 years if my memory serves me correct, and knew nothing of anyone else stalking there. Based on this evidence we removed A1 from the site.

This was, and has been a practice undertaken by various individuals over the years, and has landed some people in court, (not A1) but there was a well known case a few years back where a so called professional guide was taking paid clients onto land he had no rights too.

Thanks for the heads up it’s very tempting to join someone like this when struggling for permission.

 

[Scotty99]

A 1 were removed from this site after we had reports of their website containing photos of land that they had no stalking rights on. A 1 were contacted and asked to produce evidence to the fact that they had stalking rights, and were given several days to do so.
About 24 hours later the photos had been removed from their website, and NO evidence was given to support the fact that they had rights.

The owner of the stalking rights had been on the land for around 10 years if my memory serves me correct, and knew nothing of anyone else stalking there. Based on this evidence we removed A1 from the site.

This was, and has been a practice undertaken by various individuals over the years, and has landed some people in court, (not A1) but there was a well known case a few years back where a so called professional guide was taking paid clients onto land he had no rights too.

Thanks for the update, how long ago was their removal?

 

[Scotty99]

@Scotty99 there you go.

Thanks for clarifying @sikamalc

Thanks, I’ve asked Sikamalc for the date they were thrown off the site as I could do with understanding the timeline as there were some very positive reports coming from syndicate members when A1 Decoy took over the management of this syndicate from Shooting.sh which itself had a very bad reputation. Perhaps it started off well but then didn’t continue well.

 

[sikamalc]

Thanks for the update, how long ago was their removal?

Less than a year ago I think. As far as I know the shooting s.h guy is still involved. But I stand to be corrected.

 

[25 Sharps]

Thanks, I’ve asked Sikamalc for the date they were thrown off the site as I could do with understanding the timeline as there were some very positive reports coming from syndicate members when A1 Decoy took over the management of this syndicate from Shooting.sh which itself had a very bad reputation. Perhaps it started off well but then didn’t continue well.

It is after a1 took over, he was posting on here. Bad egg, simple as that!

 

[Scotty99]

Less than a year ago I think. As far as I know the shooting s.h guy is still involved. But I stand to be corrected.

OK so no real lasting improvement then. Yes I think the original ShootingSH guy is still involved with A1 doing the marketing and selling. So all in all to be avoided again then.

 

[Scotty99]

It is after a1 took over, he was posting on here. Bad egg, simple as that!

Does seem to be the case.