ShootingUK is the complete shooting resource for the British shooting community. From shotgun licence and shotgun certificate information to gun reviews, game shooting, clay shooting and more.
DEFRA's proposals include a 4p tax for each gamebird which could be introduced in 2012 If the Government gets its way, from 2012 everyone in England who keeps a quantity of animals will be paying a new tax. For gamebirds,it will be 4p a bird, whether it’s a chick worth 40p that the hatchery owns for 24 hours or a laying bird kept all year round. Shoots will have to pay for each poult in a release pen. There will also be a compulsory insurance scheme costing perhaps a further 12p a bird. This is supposedly to meet the costs of dealing with notifiable diseases such as bird flu, but DEFRA’s recently proposed charges are buried deep within a document entitled Consultation on a new independent body for animal health. As stealth taxes go, it takes some beating.
A year or so ago, farmers were told that this scheme would be about “responsibility sharing”. They were assured that there needed to be a new body to deal with animal health issues, particularly notifiable diseases. It was to be independent of DEFRA and would answer to a board of livestock experts representing all farming sectors so that we could have confidence in future decision-making on these important matters.
Now we find that the new body will start with 240 staff, who will move directly across from DEFRA, and the board will be only eight or 10 strong, so, while it might include a poultry farmer, there is hardly likely to be a gamekeeper sitting on it. All livestock owners will be expected, through the sector-specific per-animal levies, to contribute 50 per cent of the new body’s costs, estimated at £44million a year. The additional insurance is to cover the Government’s bills for any future notifiable disease outbreaks.
The first question is why any of this is necessary. DEFRA says that it will improve decision-making and prepare the country for the unexpected, such as foot-and-mouth or bird flu. We need a good mechanism for detecting and dealing with nasty disease outbreaks, but where is the evidence that the current set-up is not working? Management of the most recent outbreaks has actually been pretty effective. If the Government was honest, the real driver for this is an urgent need to reduce expenditure. It is simply hiding conveniently behind an alleged EU desire to “harmonise cost-sharing policy by 2012”.
The new independent body would make all future animal health decisions, but policy on animal welfare will be left with the minister, who apparently doesn’t trust farmers with politically sensitive issues such as badger culling and the ritual slaughter of animals on religious grounds. The upshot will be that administrative bodies such as Animal Health will effectively have two masters. This is a recipe for disaster. It is also one of the reasons that the Scots and the Welsh have disassociated themselves from the English plan, saying they don’t think a new body is either needed or will be helpful. Celtic officials have been saying in private that they think it will cause chaos.
Nor is there any logic in the Government’s assertion that animal producers, through its insurers, should pay the nation’s bills for notifiable diseases. Car manufacturers do not meet the costs of road traffic accidents. Farmers spend a fortune on biosecurity and disease management, reducing the risk of notifiable diseases and other health problems spreading. Also bear in mind that gamefarmers, uniquely among all livestock keepers, are currently
liable for business rates because, absurdly, they do not benefit from the “agricultural” exemption. In short, the gamefarming industry is already saying more than its fair whack to Government.
How could the insurance scheme be operated fairly? Would a massive gamefarm, with indoor units, computerised systems and a very low mortality rate pay more or less than a badly managed rearing field with fewer birds, but a higher disease risk? The consultation says vague things about risk being taken into account, even suggesting that keepers near to potential bird flu hotspots such as water bodies should pay more, but there is no detail on who would carry out meaningful risk assessments, let alone pay for them.
Finally, for any of this to work there will have to be an up-to-date, verifiable register of exactly who owns what animals, where, and in what conditions at any one time. In the light of recent events, how secure will that database be? What would such a bureaucratic nightmare cost? Why should the game industry pay three times for the same bird — in the hatchery, on the rearing field and in the release pen?
Recently described by the National Farmers’ Union president Peter Kendall as “One of the most ill-thought-out consultations I’ve ever read,” this half-baked scheme should either be radically changed or preferably scrapped. The public consultation on DEFRA’s website closes at the end of June and there are some regional meetings to which anyone can go along, find out more and make a comment. If you feel strongly, now is the time to have your say.
Charles Nodder is the political adviser to the Game Farmers’ Association
British shooters will lose their home advantage by being unable to train at Woolwich prior to the Games The recent announcement that the Olympic shooting events will remain at Woolwich was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Using temporary facilities will mean there will be no legacy for shooting sports after the Olympics are over.
The shooting plans for London 2012 have been well documented, but I would like to remind readers of what has happened to our Olympic shooting sports since 1996. After the massacre at Dunblane, the Labour Party used the tragedy for its own political ends. In its last throes, the Conservative Party banned full-bore pistols, but did not ban the pistols needed for Olympic shooting. New Labour went one step further for political gain and banned all cartridge pistols in order to be seen to hit the ground running after being elected. When the Bill was given Royal Assent, Alun Michael, the deputy home secretary, stood on the steps of the Home Office and had the audacity to state: “We have removed these guns off the streets of Britain,” thus insinuating that our pistols were regularly used by the law abiding for nefarious means.
Our cause was not helped at the time by the shooting community, which kept a respectful silence. We were as horrified by the massacre as everyone else. However, it was obvious that we needed to speak up. Our shooting organisations did not rise to the occasion due to being disparate, and some were opposed to pistol shooting as a pariah sport not to be associated with. This is how The Sportsman’s Association was born, but it failed to save cartridge pistol shooting.
Since the banning of cartridge pistols the UK has held the 2002 Commonwealth Games. After being forced to reintroduce shooting into the programme,the organisers decided that, instead of building facilities in Manchester as a legacy for the north, they would pay for an upgrade at Bisley. “Bravo,” we said, and rallied around to make the Games a success. What publicity did we get? None. There was no effort to advertise an international event in the local area. Media coverage by the BBC was equally dismal. The final, in which Mick Gault won another gold, did not feature due to “technical difficulties”, yet the same match was shown live in India. At the time, I tackled the BBC’s director at Bisley. He was “pulling his hair out” as he had “some of the most exciting sport he had covered in years”, but it was not being taken for transmission. I believe this was due to Government pressure.
The outcome was that the only people at Bisley were the volunteers, judges and grass-roots shooters who were spectating and they made it a success for the competitors. As a result of the event, there are modern facilities as a legacy. That success gave the Government ammunition to refute that the ban affects competition shooting in this country. They point out how successful the Games were, but don’t mention that many other events don’t happen because of the ban, for example the annual Commonwealth Games European Division Championships.
Despite politicians privately admitting that the 1997 Firearms Act was wrong (the current defence secretary said as much to me) they will not commit to reforming it. The home secretary has still not made provision for our pistol shooters to train in the UK, despite the MOD offering facilities for them to train on secure military ranges in barracks.
In March, British Shooting’s budget was drastically cut by £3million. It has lost its performance director and very few shooters are being financially supported for 2012. Yet the Government is prepared to waste £30million or more at Woolwich.
We have the debacle of building a temporary facility with no legacy for shooting. Worst of all, none of our shooters will have the comfort or advantage of shooting on their home range. One of the main reasons that the home countries do so well when they host games is that the home athletes are competing at facilities they have used for years. This helps to reduce the pressures when performing as they know the smell, feel, idiosyncrasies and all those little things about the facilities that give them an edge over their opponents. Woolwich’s facilities will not be available for our hooters to train on beforehand. Shooters of all nations will have the same amount of time to train at the venue as British competitors. Therefore, we are calling on all British shooters, volunteers and so on to withdraw from offering their services for the Woolwich venue. Support our shooters by all means, but don’t assist the Government with running the event.
Our judges and other volunteers will argue that they want to run the best event possible for our shooters to help them win. That doesn’t wash anymore. If we again make the Games a success the Government will do nothing in return for us. We must harness the anger felt by the shooters of this country to embarrass the Government. This will be the last opportunity we have to publicise how the law-abiding shooters of this country have been treated and to demonstrate to the International Olympic Committee the lack of legacy and how the Olympic charter is being broken by the UK’s pistol shooters not being
able to train here.
Albie Fox is the press officer for the Sportman's Association
"The law-abiding shooter was the greater danger." Recently the Home Office published figures of firearms and shotgun certificates in England and Wales during March 2008 — about a year out of currency. This delay is not particularly helpful to us at BASC, as we use those figures to refute the “more guns equals more gun crime” argument touted by some of the more fundamentalist anti-gun groups.
The figures are also useful to spot trends nationally and regionally, which helps us to plan for the future. The fact that this data took nearly a year to be published is nothing when we look (or try to look) at the figures for 2006/7 — there aren’t any. This is due to the changeover to the new computerised system, the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS), which was passed into law by the iniquitous 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, but which took 10 years or so to be implemented. Can you imagine for a minute what would happen to a registered fi rearms dealer who didn’t keep records of his guns for a year because he was changing his recording systems? Prosecution and revocation — no doubt about it. I know the NFLMS wasn’t designed to provide statistics initially, but one thing computer systems are good at is counting.
The NFLMS was built by Anite plc, which is clearly so proud of producing this national computer system that there is no mention of it on its website. It might also amuse you to know that the original acronym for the system was FLIMSY (Firearms Licensing Management system), but that was changed to
NFLMS (I can’t imagine why). So, what was the NFLMS designed to do? Well, the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act states that there should be a central register of anyone who has applied for or had a firearms or shotgun certificate granted or renewed. It says nothing about people who have had one refused or revoked, which tells you about the mindset of the Government, which clearly thought that the law-abiding shooter was the greater danger. It was decided that the system could cover all firearms and shotgun licensing and would be common to all police forces in England and Wales.
"The last published figures showed that they did not seem to know what nearly a quarter of those guns were."
Eventually, this is what we got — I say “we” because, as usual, the public paid for it. So has the new system enhanced the Home Office figures? It would appear not. Certainly they haven’t been produced more quickly, taking a year to be published as opposed to the eight months or less it took in the days of pen, paper and typewriter prior to 2006/7. Neither are they more detailed. There are no figures for the number of guns held on certificates (a figure that had been published since 1995), and as a result you can hardly expect them to publish what types of gun those might be. This is probably a relief, though, as the last published figures showed that they did not seem to know what nearly a quarter of those guns were. Rifles, Section 1 shotguns, handguns (pistols, as we adults call them) and muzzle-loading handguns are all listed, but 22.6 per cent of the total were recorded as “other” types of firearm.
As for how useful these figures are, for years we’ve been asking how many people hold certificates — in other words, how many legal shooters are there in England and Wales. Since the records began, the Home Offi ce has only published the total number of certificates, which is useful but limiting as some shooters hold both firearms and shotgun certifi cates. We had hoped that this year we’d fi nally get to know how many shooters there were in England and Wales. No such luck. More worrying still was inaccuracy. Within minutes of publication of the latest data it became clear to me that there were some glaring anomalies and errors in the document.
I contacted the Home Office immediately and they moved very fast once they had confirmed that what I had said was correct. They published a “second edition” within a day — and it’s this that is posted on its website now. I still have some reservations about some figures, but I’m informed that they have now been double-checked and should be okay. So, in essence, all you get for your money is worse data, later. In defence of the Home Office, it’s likely that the coming year will show a considerable improvement. There are some good people there and I have asked for a meeting with various interested parties in the near future. The response so far has been very encouraging.
"How long before the RSPB calls for a licensing system that restricts the release of gamebirds?" Earlier this month, the RSPB published a report entitled Advocacy 2009: Nature Needs a Voice. The report outlined the RSPB’s political campaigning strategy for the next few years and is aimed at the key decision makers and politicians the charity seeks to influence. There is nothing exceptional in that. The RSPB is entitled to campaign politically for legislative change where such change supports its aims. Of more pressing concern to shooters was the fact that, within the bulk of the report, the RSPB stated that one of the key challenges for this and the next UK Government is to explore a licensing system for all shoots.
Unsurprisingly, the proposal has not found favour among shooting and fieldsports bodies. Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, last week voiced the thoughts of many when he said: “For an organisation that claims to be neutral on the subject of fieldsports this seems suspiciously like a blatant political attack on gameshooting.” The RSPB’s proposal may seem at odds with its stated neutrality on fieldsports, but there is an important proviso it clings to in order to justify what many regard as outright hostility to shooting. The charity refuses to remain neutral on the sport where it “adversely affects wildlife conservation”. This justifies its extensive campaigning on raptor persecution.
These crimes, which the charity contends a minority of gameshooters are responsible for, are the means by which the RSPB believes it is within its rights to attack gameshooting as a whole. There is little expansion on the licensing proposal to be found in the document. The only elaboration is in the comments of David Hoccom, head of the species policy unit at the RSPB, who stated: Ultimately, if the minority within the shooting community responsible for killing protected birds cannot or will not change their ways, tighter regulation of their industry is needed through licensing. Those shoots that condone illegal acts should be shut down. The Advocacy 2009 report waves a big stick at shooting. The text calls for stricter regulation, policing, punishment and control of shooters and landowners both directly and indirectly through withdrawal of farm subsidies. There is simply no mention of collaboration with shooting interests.
"We are not anti-wildfowling, but we don't want there to be wildfowling on our reserves."
A small oversight? It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to speculate that a licensing system for all shoots could be devised that would neatly incorporate another aspect of the RSPB’s aims — protection of habitats. How long would it take for the charity to call for a licensing system to be introduced that would restrict wildfowling under that banner? Already the RSPB is on record as saying the following: “We are not anti-wildfowling, but we don’t want there to be wildfowling on our reserves; we don’t think it is compatible with the other things we do... There are places where wildfowling still happens and we wish it didn’t.” Not a ringing endorsement of the sport...
Similarly, under the guise of protecting habitats, how long before the RSPB calls for a licensing system that restricts the release of gamebirds and places a limit on numbers of shoot days? These may seem highly unsubstantiated suggestions, but the real point is that shooters don’t know what the RSPB is calling for since it has not expanded on its proposal. At the moment all we know is that “a licensing system for all shoots” is now on record as one of its stated aims. What form would such a licensing system take, what penalties would it impose, how would it restrict our legitimate activities and would it make our sport prohibitively expensive both in financial terms and in terms of bureaucracy? No-one knows because the proposal is currently a shot across our bows, an ill-advised political statement.
Why ill-advised? For the simple reason that the one thing such a proposal dismisses is the goodwill and co-operation of those in a position to help the RSPB achieve its aims — the landowners and shooters responsible for habitat management, restoration and conservation. Crucially, one of the RSPB’s stated objectives — just below tackling wildlife crime and habitat loss — is to work with landowners and farmers to help countryside birds. A licensing system that seeks to control and restrict our activities can only alienate the shooters responsible for managing two-thirds of the UK’s rural land. The RSPB might not like the fact that shooting exists, but it does and two million hectares in the UK are managed for conservation as a result. The charity is not in a position to disregard that, no matter which shade of government has its ear.
Finally, the biggest concern such a nebulous call for universal licensing elicits regards the assumption the RSPB’s strategists have made that all shoots, by definition, must be controlled. In their minds we are not to be trusted, we need to be licensed — we are all guilty until proven innocent. If that view is not opposed to shooting, what is?
Comment and opinion on country and field sports and countryside events and issues
26th March 09:
23rd March 09:
09th February 09:
26th January 09:
13th October 08:
13th August 08:
18th July 08:
10th July 08:
Derbyshire grousekeeper has failed to have his conviction over... Read more
Shotgun events being scheduled at future Paralympic Games is n... Read more
Save up to 31% on a subscription to Shooting Times & Country Magazine, subscribe today and perfect gift this Christmas.
