Why is there shooting in fields near me and is it legal?
It typically is because some landowners want to kill birds, and the law says they can...
We’ve seen a recent increase in the number of emails asking us about ‘shooting’. As the ‘seasons’ for shooting birds like Pheasants, Partridges, and Mallards (birds bred in huge numbers just to be shot) haven’t opened yet, what is going on - and is it legal?
Protect the Wild (and End Bird Shooting is a part of Protect the Wild, of course) receives numerous emails from supporters inquiring about hunting and shooting. Many of those emails come through to me (Charlie Moores), and I do my best to answer them. My responses often point supporters towards one of the most regularly visited sections of the Protect the Wild website, a series of pages and FAQs we call ‘Protectors of the Wild’. ‘Protectors’ is a free resource looking at the laws that protect wildlife and our rights in the field.
The ‘Protectors’ pages are regularly updated, and now contain well over 500 Frequently Asked Questions. I should make clear at this point that none of us are lawyers, and ‘Protectors’ (or the post that follows) shouldn’t be considered legal advice, but collating the information has given us quite an insight into how laws protect - and in far too many cases DON’T protect - wildlife.
The pages are, however, based on the legislation that police forces across the UK work from…
That last point is important to note, because (as I wrote above) we have seen a recent uptick in emails from supporters asking us about ‘shooting’. Some of those supporters have already written to the police and been frustrated with the standard (and standardised) responses they’ve had back.
Where those responses from the police have been forwarded to us, they are indeed frustrating - but they are legally ‘correct’. There is often some subjective and patronising nonsense about ‘not understanding life in the countryside’ (many of the emailers live in the countryside, they just haven’t had to grapple with the law before), which is unfortunate but (frankly) what we’ve come to expect.
Leaving that aside, we thought that it would be a good idea to write a post based on a question we frequently get, and construct (based on the experience of both our supporters and ourselves) a hypothetical answer that the police might give in response if it were sent to them.
Please note, we are not saying that this is precisely what you will get back from your own force if you mailed them. It will though, hopefully, go some way to explaining why I often have to write back to supporters providing links to the relevant ‘Protectors’ pages’ and saying, ‘Laws in this country favour landowners and frequently don’t give wildlife the protection we think that they should. I’m sorry and I wish I could do more, but, yes, the police are (in this instance anway) absolutely correct…
Shooting ‘pests’, footpaths, and the General Licences
Question:
This morning there were extremely loud shotgun bangs from the field immediately behind our village. This went on for about two hours. I asked the people shooting what they were doing, and they said ‘pest control’. They were shooting Wood Pigeons. They were shooting close to a road, and not far from our properties. Is this legal and is there anything I can do to stop them?
Answer:
If the persons shooting were on the land lawfully (i.e with the landowners permission) and have the correct firearms licences then they can legally carry out pest control activities.
Wild birds are offered basic protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, however certain species that are deemed as "Pest Species" can be shot/killed under General Licence. You do not have to apply for a General Licence and you are considered to be automatically covered by it, provided you abide by the provisions within it.
Pest control is generally considered essential to running a large farm or estate.
With regards to shooting near a highway and/or residential properties, there is no legal limit on how close to a house or other residential building someone may shoot.
Provided the shooter is 50ft from the centre of a vehicular highway and the shot does not leave the boundary of their land, then it is lawful (50ft separation does not apply to a land boundary or a garden).
Discharging a firearm less than 50ft from a vehicular highway is in itself not automatically an offence, unless it can also be proven that in doing so the action specifically resulted in injury, interruption or danger to a highway user (not a bystander/third party).
Please note that it is unlawful to disrupt a legal activity and may be considered aggravated trespass. If you accidentally wander onto private land and disrupt legal shooting without meaning to, you will likely simply be asked to leave the area with no further action being taken if you comply promptly and peaceably.
Let’s look at that in more detail
The laws that apply to landowners are almost ludicrously lax - a result of them being written by a Parliament of landowners who have for centuries made it as easy a possible for ‘people like them’ to do pretty much what they want, when they want. Yes, there are some supposed guard rails like the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and firearms licencing, but in effect landowners have given themselves permission to kill far too many species of bird (and mammal) on their land and there is very little we can do about it (except, of course, work to change the law…)
So, here is the reasoning behind our fictitious police response, and links to our ‘Protectors’ pages if you’d like more information.
“If the persons shooting were on the land lawfully (i.e with the landowners permission) and have the correct firearms licences then they can legally carry out pest control activities.”
This is correct. If shooters are the landowner or lawful occupier, or they have the permission of the landowner (or lawful occupier) to be on the land, they can legally shoot there. The permission doesn’t have to be written down anywhere, but some pro-shoot websites suggest shooters carry written permission in case they are asked for it.
The shooters must be licenced to legally carry firearms though. Firearms (in general terms a rifle, pistol or any other kind of smaller, handheld gun) are regulated in the UK by the Firearms Act 1968. The police are the licensing authority for firearm and shot gun certificates, as well as for firearms dealers. The authority rests with local police forces rather than a central licensing authority because of the local information that police will use to inform their judgement.
Trespassing on land (so not having the permission of the owner/lawful occupier) while armed is ‘armed trespass’, a serious criminal offence, regardless of whether or not the shooters have a firearms licence. Police will usually respond very quickly to ‘armed trespass’.
“Wild birds are offered basic protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (W&CA) 1981, however certain species that are deemed as "Pest Species" can be shot/killed under General Licence. You do not have to apply for a General Licence and you are considered to be automatically covered by it, provided you abide by the provisions within it.”
Again, this is broadly correct. The W&CA is the primary legislation which protects animals, plants and habitats in the UK, and all wild birds are protected. However, some birds are ‘more equal’ than others. As the police ‘response’ suggests some bird species are considered ‘pests’ and subject to General Licences issued by Natural England (or the devolved equivalents in Wales, Scotland, NI). These licences apply only to birds. They are quite complex and have been challenged by eg Wild Justice in the past, but they do indeed set out which bird species can be killed and for what reasons (e.g. to prevent serious damage to crops, protect public health, or conserve other species), and under what conditions.
Failing to follow the licence's terms is a criminal offence, but as the police response states, no one has to apply for a General Licence (GL) or own (or even download) a paper version. In reality, they exist in name only. That means that any ‘authorised person’ can claim to be killing birds under a General Licence.
Wild Justice described the system of general licencing as adding up “to casual licensing of casual killing of birds“. We agree.
“Pest control is generally considered essential to running a large farm or estate.”
This is most definitely where we and our imaginary police officer diverge.
In England GL42 (GL001 in Wales) covers the shooting of Wood Pigeons in the following circumstances:
Preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables or fruit.
Preventing the spread of disease to livestock or livestock foodstuffs.
Compounding the ease of obtaining a ‘GL’, at this time of the year our shooters will be killing Wood Pigeons feeding in stubble fields. So typically AFTER the wheat or corn has been harvested, and the birds are feeding on what’s left over. Killing them can’t possibly be considered preventing ‘serious damage’ to crops.
Owners and occupiers of land, such as farmers, are supposed to try non-lethal deterrents like bird-scarers (the gas guns many of us will be familiar with, for example) first, before turning to the gun. In our experience - and the experience of our supporters - they often don’t.
Besides which, just after the breeding season and as they are coming together before autumn, Wood Pigeons are far too numerous to ‘control’ by wandering around with a gun. Any that are shot will soon be replaced. It’s almost impossible to shake off the feeling that the shooters in question are just out enjoying themselves or getting some ‘early season’ practice in before they turn their guns on Pheasants and partridges…
With regards to shooting near a highway and/or residential properties, there is no legal limit on how close to a house or other residential building someone may shoot.
Almost incredibly, this is correct. A shooter can stand right next to your house, and as long as they are on ‘their’ land (or have permission from the landowner/lawful occupier) and do not endanger the public, livestock, or property, they can shoot birds pretty much right in front of you. A shooter might be advised to “take extra care regarding both safety and the possible alarm or annoyance” that shooting in populated areas may cause to others and it may be suggested that they use a sound moderator “if they have one” but there is no legal requirement.
Some unfortunate homeowners have found themselves in the horrible situation where a shoot has set up on previously quiet fields right by their back garden and there is nothing they can do about it.
It is however ‘constructive trespass’ (a civil offence, so not a police matter) if any shot lands on or in someone else’s property without their permission.
Provided the shooter is 50ft from the centre of a vehicular highway and the shot does not leave the boundary of their land, then it is lawful (50ft separation does not apply to a land boundary or a garden).
Discharging a firearm less than 50ft from a vehicular highway is in itself not automatically an offence, unless it can also be proven that in doing so the action specifically resulted in injury, interruption or danger to a highway user (not a bystander/third party).
Again, contrary to what many of us might assume, this is correct.
It can be really intimidating to come across shooting activities near a road, footpath, or right of way but shooting is (currently, anyway) a legal activity and can legally take place in locations where the public has a right of access.
Looking at the specific response given here, in English common law, a highway is any route over which the public has a right of passage at all times and for all purposes of travel. It is not limited to motor vehicles - it covers pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists, and vehicles, depending on what rights have been established. A vehicular highway, on the other hand, refers specifically to a highway over which the public has a right of way with vehicles.
The law is quite clear: for the purposes of Section 161 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) in England and Wales it is only an offence without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to discharge any firearm within 50 feet of the centre of a vehicular highway if it injures, interrupts, or endangers a highway user.
There is even a get-out clause protecting the shooter, which says that if a highway user is injured, interrupted, or endangered as a result of the shooting, the person discharging the firearm can be fined, but the offense does not apply if there is lawful authority or excuse for the discharge.
However, shooting near highways like footpaths is more risky - for both the user and the shooter. If shooting endangers or disturbs anyone on the path (and walkers (including children, dogs, horses) may appear suddenly), and especially if stray pellets or bullets were to cause injury, then the shooter would potentially be liable.
Shooters are also supposed to make sure their positioning and the angles they are firing at are safe so that shot cannot fall across the footpath. A shooter may shoot over a footpath, but only if they have permission to drop shot over the land on the other side. Firing a bullet or shot onto land without permission amounts to constructive trespass, a civil matter.
If someone shoots from a path which is crossing somebody else’s land without permission or without a reasonable excuse to do so it is taken to be armed trespass, which as stated above is a criminal offence.
Please note that it is unlawful to disrupt a legal activity and may be considered aggravated trespass. If you accidentally wander onto private land and disrupt legal shooting without meaning to, you will likely simply be asked to leave the area with no further action being taken if you comply promptly and peaceably.
We are frequently asked by supporters whether they can ‘stop a shoot’ by wandering into a field (or onto a grouse moor) in front of a shooter. We would NEVER recommend it! Apart from being extremely dangerous (we’re not suggesting a shooter would deliberately shoot at an unarmed local annoyed by the gratuitous slaughter of the local avifauna, but accidents happen), it is in fact (potentially at least) unlawful.
Whether we like it or not (and we don’t) as long as no laws are being broken and shooters have the landowner’s permission to be on the site, then shooting is currently a lawful activity and disrupting a lawful activity carries the risk of committing an offence.
Assuming no violence or criminal damage takes place (when the police will always be called by a shoot manager), this would usually be trespass or aggravated trespass.
Trespass is a civil offence and it is up to the landowner on whose land there has been an incursion to decide on what action to take.
On private land (and shooting almost always takes place on private land) trespass becomes a criminal offence of aggravated trespass the moment somebody tries to prevent another person pursuing a lawful activity. This is thanks to section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Again it is up to the landowner on whose land there has been an incursion to decide on what action to take.
Note though that it is also aggravated trespass if a shooter tries to stop a member of the public from lawfully using a footpath. So things do occasionally go both ways…
There we go. Not a typical End Bird Shooting post perhaps - and hopefully as the author I got the facts right. As I wrote at the start, though, no one at Protect the Wild is a lawyer and that includes me, so please don’t rely on this post or consider it legal advice. If you know better, please do let me know in the comments below and I will make any corrections or amendments etc.
Having said that, I do believe the post is accurate, and does prove the point made right up at the top of the page:
Laws in this country favour landowners and they frequently don’t give wildlife the protection we think that they should. If you’d like to help us change them in favour of wildlife (and on this Substack, birds especially). please subscribe to End Bird Shooting and support Protect the Wild.
For more information please go to the following Protectors of the Wild pages:
Thank you, Charlie! It is not what I wanted to read - but we must fight to get these antiquated laws changed.
So it is alright to shoot guns near houses, even if those houses contain babies, dogs, horses, that might be terrified by the noise. My dog was so scared of explosions, if on a walk, gunfire, bird scarers, even in the distance, would send her running home. Now I must face another winter of constant gunfire. Thankfully my dog is no longer here to suffer it.