Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gkbiv



Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question Reply with quote

What training requirements are there to hunt in the UK? Is there a hunting license similar to the US or German systems?
Thank you,
George in Las Vegas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question Reply with quote

gkbiv wrote:
What training requirements are there to hunt in the UK? Is there a hunting license similar to the US or German systems?
Thank you,
George in Las Vegas

Thanks George. There are courses run by various shooting organisations such as DSC, but there is no requirement to have completed one in order to go stalking.

You can use somebody else's stalking rifle in their prescence on land over which they have permission to stalk. It's called the 'estate rifle' exemption where you go with a ghillie on the hills or even lowland deer stalking.

The other way is to get someone to 'sponsor' you on a visit. You then get a visitors permit to bring your own Section 1 (basically bolt or lever action) rifle to the UK and go stalking with them.

Hope this helps.

Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like you're going to have a friend in Las Vegas, Mr F.
Take 'em where you can find 'em, that's my advice to you.
It's probably Elvis, working in a fish and chip shop . . . . . . thank you ma'am.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4597

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question Reply with quote

gkbiv wrote:
What training requirements are there to hunt in the UK? Is there a hunting license similar to the US or German systems?


There isn't one, to cut a long story short. Not one that is legally required anyway. BASC have training courses for deer stalking and the like, and you have to show a "good reason" to get a firearm certificate for a rifle, so when the police interview you, you can produce that to show you've had some training, but it's not legally required. It usually helps though. You need to convince them that you have access to land to shoot over as well, generally speaking. The police will usually inspect the land imx to make sure it's safe to shoot over. Then they'll put on the FAC something similar to this:

Quote:
The .243 rifle and ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin and deer and for zeroing on ranges, or land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.


The what, when and how of shooting animals is covered by the Deer Acts and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Scotland has different deer legislation than England & Wales. Scotland also has a game licence requirement still, which is basically a licence you buy at a big post office that is essentially a tax. Certain landholders need a licence from DEFRA under the 1981 Act to allow people to shoot certain bird species under certain conditions.

There is more info on www.basc.org.uk

I think one thing to bear in mind is that the UK doesn't have large species as in the US, there's rarely a reason to go larger than a .270 or a 7mm-08. It works in a similar way in Ireland, the Garda won't give permission for anything larger than .270, is my understanding. In fact they can't legally give permission for anything larger than .308 and then only for target shooting. (In Northern Ireland the police require centrefire rifles to be stored in an armoury, although I'm not sure if they're still imposing that since gallery rifle became popular).

What makes the UK and Ireland a fair bit different from the vast majority of other countries in the world (the main exceptions being the ones that have copied UK legislation verbatim) are the very strict controls on rifles. Most countries put rifles and shotguns in the same category, for example it's pretty straightforward in France to get a rifle for hunting, you basically just do the hunting licence test at the town hall and produce that when you buy a rifle.

In the UK and Ireland it was originally made that tough because the Govt. feared an uprising, so they wanted strict control of rifles (in France they just imposed really tough licensing on military calibre rifles). In recent years the main justification for it is purely because of population density, i.e. the police want to control where and when rifles are discharged for public safety reasons. I don't think anyone suggests that rifles are commonly used by criminals, except maybe the GCN.

Most visitors use the estate rifle exemption that Mick pointed out, i.e. you borrow a rifle for use on that estate. You can get a visitor's permit but for most people it's more hassle than it's worth.

One argument that has been made since 1920 and comes up now and again is that .22 rimfire rifles should be under the same controls as shotguns.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JonathanL
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 1013
Location: North East

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the other difference that hasn't been mentioned is that we don't have areas of public land which is open to all and sundry to go hunting whenever they feel like it. Everything is privately owned and private landowners don't let just anyone wander over their property killing game without restriction. Hence, far less requirement for statutory competence training. It's self regfulated by landowners.

J.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the extra level of bureaucratic regulation of shotguns (I won't say "controls", since the only people controlled are the law abiding anyway) since 1988, I can't see any reason why rifles are not treated in the same way as shotguns. Under section 2 shotguns have to be individually registered and stored securely, can anyone really argue that section 1 regulation of rifles is anything more than an exercise in bureaucratic self justification?

Section 2 regulation is as much as any reasonable government should ever want to impose.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4597

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason I saw for it put forward, I think in an FCC report was that FACs can have bespoke conditions attached to them, SGCs cannot, so they can regulate where rifles are discharged. Another reason I saw once was that shotgun components are not subject to control, but rifle components are. The GTA opposes controls on shotgun components because it would mean barrel makers would have to get RFDs, and obviously the Govt. is not going to remove controls on rifle parts.

I did write a very long submission to the various Home Office reviews over the years saying everything in categories C and D of the EFD (essentially most types of rifle and shotgun) should be regulated in a similar way to how section 2 works now. If you want people to be safe shooting near urban areas, there is plenty of precedent on how to do it in other European countries with testing of shooters (which happens in Northern Ireland as well).
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
....... in other European countries with testing of shooters (which happens in Northern Ireland as well).

Can't see the shooting organisations going for that in my view. Bearing in mind how many UK shooters are killed every year and how many French, I see part of their argument.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
Given the extra level of bureaucratic regulation of shotguns (I won't say "controls", since the only people controlled are the law abiding anyway) since 1988, I can't see any reason why rifles are not treated in the same way as shotguns. Under section 2 shotguns have to be individually registered and stored securely, can anyone really argue that section 1 regulation of rifles is anything more than an exercise in bureaucratic self justification?

Section 2 regulation is as much as any reasonable government should ever want to impose.

The main differences, as I'm sure you know; are 'good reason' and the additional test of 'fit to be entrusted.'

Extra bureaucratic controls? Getting a photo and storing your shot guns securely?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The main differences, as I'm sure you know; are 'good reason' and the additional test of 'fit to be entrusted.'


And what extra level of public safety do these provide? Is a person who is fit to own a shotgun not fit to own a rifle, and vice versa?

Quote:
Extra bureaucratic controls? Getting a photo and storing your shot guns securely?


Plus individual registration of each gun, the major change of the 1988 Act with regard to shotguns surely?

In any meaningful sense, s2 gives all the "control" any government could reasonably require. It is a testament to the bureaucratic rigidity of the British state that s1 controls have been more or less unchanged since 1920. As it stands, about 80% of guns are held under s2, only 20% under s1. If s1 controls were brought in for shotguns, the system would probably collapse. The only reason we have the current s1 controls on rifles is because that's the way it's always been, and of course the Home Office mindset that "controls are good".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4597

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Bearing in mind how many UK shooters are killed every year and how many French, I see part of their argument.


That's a bogus argument, shooting and hunting in particular is much more popular in France. And we're not just talking about France - Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have training standards too.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.


Last edited by cybershooters on Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4597

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Extra bureaucratic controls? Getting a photo and storing your shot guns securely?


The main impact of the 1988 Act was on section 2 controls; the principal changes made were to prohibit or put in section 1 large numbers of guns that were in section 2 previously and to introduce registration.

As I worked out at some length in my submission, these new provisions failed quite badly. If you assume the same number of guns owned by a shotgun certificate holder prior to the 1988 Act (as they weren't registered back then) as now, and take into account how many were surrendered or put on FAC then something like a third of shotguns were unaccounted for.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4597

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob wrote:
If s1 controls were brought in for shotguns, the system would probably collapse.


I doubt it, it's already done that way in Northern Ireland and Jersey and if you look at the stats the average SGC holder only owns two shotguns. In Northern Ireland, RFDs are allowed to vary certificates when it's a one-for-one for a shotgun so that could be done in GB as well.

The real problem to my mind is that section 1 controls on shotguns generally aren't practical, for the reasons the GTA has pointed out and also secure storage of shotgun ammunition cannot be done in the same way because it's much bulkier than rifle and pistol ammunition.

But there should be a unified licensing system for rifles and shotguns, which was the basic gist of my submission to the Home Office review. Like I said, I think there should be something roughly like a shotgun certificate for category C and D, and instead of conditions and so on for FACs this could be solved with training and testing, which as pointed out at the very start of this thread is how most countries do it.

The key component of any licensing system frankly is the background check of the licensee, the rest of it after that is just bureaucracy designed to hassle people out of owning guns for the most part, I do have some sympathy though with making certain people who own guns are competent in their safe use.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I doubt it, it's already done that way in Northern Ireland and Jersey and if you look at the stats the average SGC holder only owns two shotguns.


Can you imagine if the police had to "approve" all the land used by shotgun owners?

The fact is that s1 is a bureaucratic monstrosity which has never been subjected to a meaningful cost/benefit analysis. It's there because it's there, no other reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Bearing in mind how many UK shooters are killed every year and how many French, I see part of their argument.

That's a bogus argument, shooting and hunting in particular is much more popular in France. And we're not just talking about France - Germany, Spain, Italy etc. all have training standards too.

Why is it a bogus argument? Many shooters are killed in France every year even though they have safety courses. If such a regime was applioed here would it make the UK any safer? Or is it the licensing regime in those countries that allows so many deaths?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 1 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group