Bop Shot

[R.A.M.C.63]

Am 100% sure its only birds NATIVE to UK witch are protected, not HYBRED CROSSES, i dont believe this Fancier can be convicted under Wildlife crime laws,But its still Crimal damage to someones property witch works both ways,If am wrong then RSPB should be prosecuted for their disposal of RUDDIE DUCK problem, i visited place and was shocked to see 15-18 Perigrine x Saker falcons 4 Sale, also think SHU should support this fancier,( if not to win to let RSPB know they will SUPPORT pigeon fanciers) who have a case, it would send STRONG message to Fanciers that they r not alone, and maybe Fanciers thinking of packing in would have rethink, Good Luck to this Fancier ,

[yeboah]

Hear that the RSPB are in negotiations with the BBC to have a memorial service on Xmas day for the falcon if the Queen is willing to drop her slot,Don't they no we have young men being blown to pieces in a far away land that don't receive as many column inches as a f-- bird of prey,they should go under the heading RSPR as raptors seem to be the only thing they are concerned about,yet another case of taxpayers money going up in smoke ,wonder if they would be as keen in prosecuting if they had to dig into there own pockets

[R.A.M.C.63]

Sorry ment to include migrating birds visiting UK, Ruddie duck included, also Fancier incrimated himself, bad move, ( when in Dout-say nowt)

[Guest Tooshy Boy]

THEY WILL NOT GO INTO THEIR OWN POCKETS...THEY WILL JUST GO OUT AND RATTLE MORE TINS AT THE PUBLIC INTHE STREETS.///

[Guest IB]

Their is a comment on stv but have to refresh to see it.

 

I've posted a comment there, but these posts aren't monitored by STV so they are unlikely to stimulate any investigative journalism from them. There have been more replies on the link that I posted earlier and I think that's where our viewpoint is best made plain - 'Raptor Politics'.

 

http://raptorpolitic...1/#comment-7010

[THE FIFER]

Hear that the RSPB are in negotiations with the BBC to have a memorial service on Xmas day for the falcon if the Queen is willing to drop her slot,Don't they no we have young men being blown to pieces in a far away land that don't receive as many column inches as a f-- bird of prey,they should go under the heading RSPR as raptors seem to be the only thing they are concerned about,yet another case of taxpayers money going up in smoke ,wonder if they would be as keen in prosecuting if they had to dig into there own pockets

 

there are children starving all over the world and people in this country cant get work and the Scottish goverment are in China to get Pandas

[billt]

What a bizarre story, a hybrid falcon, that's been trained to chase but not kill feral pigeons gets lost in a gust of wind and turns up in the garden of a man who has pigeons, not a coincidence I would think, I think all of the Unions should get behind this man and why would they need so many falcons for that job, The government must have money to waste. PS I have fox's that chase and kill my chicken, can I have the address of the person who trains the falcon to chase but not kill

[frank-123]

An old man left to fend of the rspb and there bop lovers. Let's here the SHU stand up for this man, this is our chance to fight back and highlight our grievances.

No matter the fine it should not be left to the gentleman to pay it

[jonl6280]

why dont we all email the big newspapers

[Guest geordiejen]

ive signed the petition at blackpool show and the guy had sheets of signatures but still nothing will be done.i wonder if you can train birds of prey to only eat seagulls.they are a pest to the majority of people but nobody else is interested in pigeon fanciers.

[Guest bluemorning]

Here's your chance to comment. Please do your best to draw out the pertinent facts here - as given in the Report - don't post the usual anti-RSPB crap, this isn't a wild bird, it's somebody's pet killer. Since when have they the right to lose control of them in a built-up area?

 

 

http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2011/12/05/scottish-pigeon-fancier-admits-shooting-dead-holyrood-falcon/comment-page-1/#comment-7010

 

 

1 comment to Scottish Pigeon Fancier admits shooting dead Holyrood falcon

• paul williams

December 6, 2011 at 8:55 am • Reply

£3500 paid for an untrained Falcon + the cost of training. We then add the cost to replace the falcon lost, at least another £3500 plus training the second bird. I would estimate a final conservative bill of £15,000. I will watch this posting to see if the punishment fits this horrendous wildlife crime here.

 

• Ian Brown

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

December 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm • Reply

Surely this bird isn’t a wild bird? It is a hybrid – a cross between 2 birds which don’t mate naturally – then reared in captivity – and was outwith the handler’s control when it landed in a private garden.

This falcon was kept for a specific purpose, to hunt pigeons. It was trained to ‘chase’ pigeons, and landed in a man’s garden who just happened to keep them. He said it was going for his pigeons. The bird’s background suggests the man was telling the truth, and his killing of it was humane and done to protect his own birds.

In my opinion the pigeon fancier was perfectly within his rights to shoot the bird.

 

martin sykes

 

birds of prey are being used to clear birds from airports and other places for a few years now,but to control a bop you need to find the correct hunting weight which is done by loss of weight manning and training.the birds weight is reduced untill it responds to the falconer and training.once the flying weight is found this is what you try and keep the bird at because it responds to you and but also but effort in hunting,you can put the birds weight up slightly still have reasonble control over the bird but you can remove some of the drive to hunt.no falconer will hunt pigeons in a built up area for obvious reasons. thats why this bird was flown slightly high just to scare the pigeons away and not be in full hunting mode ie hungry.imo the gust of wind theory is untrue as a hungry falcon will seek food or the lure and when called will turn and come for the lure,this falcon is a master of the air no gust of wind will will deter it.it simply was not that hungry and decided to have a jolly.or it could have been low and started chasing anything that moved and got lost that way.the price of the falcon could be near the truth as gry falcons are 10 times more expensive than a peri.although the falconer had telemetry fitted to the bird this did nothing to assist the old guys pigeons.if you fly a bop you are responsible for any actions or outcome of flying it.this bird scaring business pays well thats why people are prepaired to fly bop in areas not sutible to fly in,this is going to happen. picture a pet rabbit running around your own back yard with your kids and a bop slams into it.i think the use of a peri/gry is overkill for the job the falconer was doing.its against the law to shoot wild birds of prey and i strongly support this,but this falcon was captive bred hybred being used as a tool and the falconer was being paid for this service.

[peter pandy]

I cannot believe that this incident took place on April 3rd and no one appears to know anything regarding it. Surely this should have been brought to the attention of fanciers through the fancy press so we as fanciers could take the appropriate steps to finance a Q.C. and create a precedence, ie " Protection of our poultry ".

No doubt some reading this will be saying to themselves we dont keep poultry we keep racing pigeons however please bear with me and I will explain in the following which will be posted to Sheriff Craig McSherry c/o Dunfermline Sheriff Court for reference regarding background reports on Mr Andrew Hutchison which I have no doubt will enlighten him on a subject he has absolutely no knowledge off.

 

1) The bird Mr Andrew Hutchison allegedly shot on April 3rd 2011 with an air rifle "no licence required" is not on the protected birds list on the Wildlife & Countryside act 1981 therefore not a protected species.

 

2) In 1981 The British Goverment with D.E.F.R.A. classed racing pigeons as Poultry with all the protection required to protect our flock with the same right's in protecting our stock as the farming community with the proviso of yearly vaccination for Paramyxovirus.

 

3) Mr Ryan Dryburgh was flying "not excersising" a bird trained to kill pigeons on Public Land without permission from the Local Council adjacent to a pigeon loft without seeking or gaining permission or at least warning Racing Pigeon Owners "poultry owners" of his intentions.

 

4) Mr ryan Dryburgh would have observed Mr Andrew Hutchison's pigeons excercising around his loft "Council By-Law, Pigeons must be excercised twice daily"

 

 

5) Mr Ryan Dryburgh stated to the court that a gust of wind blew the bird into a tree in Mr Andrew Hutchison's garden, "The weather forecast for that day according to the Meteorological Office was moderate wind speed" which would make the accuser's evidence doubtful on that point of his evidence.

 

6) Mr Andrew Hutchison was protecting his flock as was his right to do when they were attacked by this bird, killing it as a farmer would a dog worrying his livestock.

 

The only criminal act that day was the removal of property not belonging to him.

 

 

Should any forum members have anything further that I could add to the above I would be most grateful because we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding this case as it was the perfect instrument in getting a precedent set by a Queens Council for the future of our sport. It would appear to me,Mr Hutchison was not legally represented in a prosecution which could cost him £10.000 and his loss of liberty.

Any stupid or infantile remarks from forum members will not be appreciated as I am prepaired to put £100 into a fighting fund

[Guest IB]

If you read what the man was charged with, 'Wildlife' and 'Wildlife Act' has nothing at all to do with it - this is not a wild bird. He is charged with malicious damage to another mans property [hawk] and disposal of the transmitter in an attempt to conceal a crime.

 

The Raptor Politics editor added a footnote to my post on there that 'they' have case law on their side, meaning that there has been a previous case like this where the judge found for the hawk owner - and awarded him damages? - which the post prior to mine reckoned would be in the region of £15,000.

 

I don't know the man, but I agree with his actions, which were not malicious in that sense (what does it mean in Law?) but a reasonable act to protect his property. I hope that his Lawyer has appealed the conviction- there is only a very short time in which this can be done, so I ask anyone that knows him to contact him and find out if this has been done, and for goodness sake tell him to contact SHU - I'm sure they would be more than willing to fight this case for him.

[THE FIFER]

If you read what the man was charged with, 'Wildlife' and 'Wildlife Act' has nothing at all to do with it - this is not a wild bird. He is charged with malicious damage to another mans property [hawk] and disposal of the transmitter in an attempt to conceal a crime.

 

The Raptor Politics editor added a footnote to my post on there that 'they' have case law on their side, meaning that there has been a previous case like this where the judge found for the hawk owner - and awarded him damages? - which the post prior to mine reckoned would be in the region of £15,000.

 

I don't know the man, but I agree with his actions, which were not malicious in that sense (what does it mean in Law?) but a reasonable act to protect his property. I hope that his Lawyer has appealed the conviction- there is only a very short time in which this can be done, so I ask anyone that knows him to contact him and find out if this has been done, and for goodness sake tell him to contact SHU - I'm sure they would be more than willing to fight this case for him.

 

 

 

think it would be better getting the Alliance of Unions which we now have dealing with raptors, this could be their first action, what they are on about re the case is (A STATED CASE) this is one which has already been dealt with

[frank-123]

I cannot believe that this incident took place on April 3rd and no one appears to know anything regarding it. Surely this should have been brought to the attention of fanciers through the fancy press so we as fanciers could take the appropriate steps to finance a Q.C. and create a precedence, ie " Protection of our poultry ".

No doubt some reading this will be saying to themselves we dont keep poultry we keep racing pigeons however please bear with me and I will explain in the following which will be posted to Sheriff Craig McSherry c/o Dunfermline Sheriff Court for reference regarding background reports on Mr Andrew Hutchison which I have no doubt will enlighten him on a subject he has absolutely no knowledge off.

 

1) The bird Mr Andrew Hutchison allegedly shot on April 3rd 2011 with an air rifle "no licence required" is not on the protected birds list on the Wildlife & Countryside act 1981 therefore not a protected species.

 

2) In 1981 The British Goverment with D.E.F.R.A. classed racing pigeons as Poultry with all the protection required to protect our flock with the same right's in protecting our stock as the farming community with the proviso of yearly vaccination for Paramyxovirus.

 

3) Mr Ryan Dryburgh was flying "not excersising" a bird trained to kill pigeons on Public Land without permission from the Local Council adjacent to a pigeon loft without seeking or gaining permission or at least warning Racing Pigeon Owners "poultry owners" of his intentions.

 

4) Mr ryan Dryburgh would have observed Mr Andrew Hutchison's pigeons excercising around his loft "Council By-Law, Pigeons must be excercised twice daily"

 

 

5) Mr Ryan Dryburgh stated to the court that a gust of wind blew the bird into a tree in Mr Andrew Hutchison's garden, "The weather forecast for that day according to the Meteorological Office was moderate wind speed" which would make the accuser's evidence doubtful on that point of his evidence.

 

6) Mr Andrew Hutchison was protecting his flock as was his right to do when they were attacked by this bird, killing it as a farmer would a dog worrying his livestock.

 

The only criminal act that day was the removal of property not belonging to him.

 

 

Should any forum members have anything further that I could add to the above I would be most grateful because we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding this case as it was the perfect instrument in getting a precedent set by a Queens Council for the future of our sport. It would appear to me,Mr Hutchison was not legally represented in a prosecution which could cost him £10.000 and his loss of liberty.

Any stupid or infantile remarks from forum members will not be appreciated as I am prepaired to put £100 into a fighting fund

 

Great post I also will back this fighting fund £100

[Guest IB]

think it would be better getting the Alliance of Unions which we now have dealing with raptors, this could be their first action, what they are on about re the case is (A STATED CASE) this is one which has already been dealt with

 

 

The case is not over, Archie. Every person convicted in court has the right of Appeal of (1) the conviction and (2) the sentence. It could go all the way to the Highest Court of Appeal, but the Appeal must be made by the man's solicitor within a certain time.

 

The Alliance was formed to fight BOP protection under Wildlife Act. This case has nothing to do with that. It is about a falconer's tame hawk - his property - escaping his handler and being shot on another persons private property to stop it attacking and killing his pigeons - his property. Its Malicious / Criminal Damage to property that's being prosecuted here, and the January 'sentencing' could involve substantial damages - a payment of around £15,000. He needs the SHU.

[Guest jim2123]

after blackpool this year i said on here and another site that 20,000 names on bit of paper does nothing but 20,000 £5 notes let the unions collect this take them on ..help this man to win his case the rspb will run if they see we stick together and ready to fight

[THE FIFER]

The case is not over, Archie. Every person convicted in court has the right of Appeal of (1) the conviction and (2) the sentence. It could go all the way to the Highest Court of Appeal, but the Appeal must be made by the man's solicitor within a certain time.

 

The Alliance was formed to fight BOP protection under Wildlife Act. This case has nothing to do with that. It is about a falconer's tame hawk - his property - escaping his handler and being shot on another persons private property to stop it attacking and killing his pigeons - his property. Its Malicious / Criminal Damage to property that's being prosecuted here, and the January 'sentencing' could involve substantial damages - a payment of around £15,000. He needs the SHU.

 

 

yes WE know that,but in the papers and the eye of the public, PIGEON FANCIER KILLS BOP

[Guest jim2123]

if this man wins his case how do we no the differance between wild hawks and captive hawks then mistaken idenity comes in to play opens flood gate also how would joe pulbic no differance ....

[b.massey]

I don't think he will win the case.... But it could be an oppertunity for us to try let joe public know what damage they are doing and that the laws need sorting out to let us defend our pigeons being wiped out on a daily basis! People just don't realise the damage they f***ers are doing to pigeon sport! People are leaving the sport every year and we are in major decline and bop problem is high on list of reasons

[Guest Tooshy Boy]

I THINK THEY WILL ONLY HERE ONE SIDE OF THE STORY HERE .WE NEED SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO OUR SIDE TO.///

[geordie1234]

If you want noticed get yourselves down to the court with big banners outside it and call the national papers of the plans

[sammy]

An old man left to fend of the rspb and there bop lovers. Let's here the SHU stand up for this man, this is our chance to fight back and highlight our grievances.

No matter the fine it should not be left to the gentleman to pay it

WELL LETS HELP THE MAN OUT AND I AM WILLING TO DONATE 50 POUND TOWARDS HIS FINE SO COME LETS TEST THE WATER AND SO WHO IS WILLING TO HELP THEIR OWN KIND

[frank-123]

I cannot believe that this incident took place on April 3rd and no one appears to know anything regarding it. Surely this should have been brought to the attention of fanciers through the fancy press so we as fanciers could take the appropriate steps to finance a Q.C. and create a precedence, ie " Protection of our poultry ".

No doubt some reading this will be saying to themselves we dont keep poultry we keep racing pigeons however please bear with me and I will explain in the following which will be posted to Sheriff Craig McSherry c/o Dunfermline Sheriff Court for reference regarding background reports on Mr Andrew Hutchison which I have no doubt will enlighten him on a subject he has absolutely no knowledge off.

 

1) The bird Mr Andrew Hutchison allegedly shot on April 3rd 2011 with an air rifle "no licence required" is not on the protected birds list on the Wildlife & Countryside act 1981 therefore not a protected species.

 

2) In 1981 The British Goverment with D.E.F.R.A. classed racing pigeons as Poultry with all the protection required to protect our flock with the same right's in protecting our stock as the farming community with the proviso of yearly vaccination for Paramyxovirus.

 

3) Mr Ryan Dryburgh was flying "not excersising" a bird trained to kill pigeons on Public Land without permission from the Local Council adjacent to a pigeon loft without seeking or gaining permission or at least warning Racing Pigeon Owners "poultry owners" of his intentions.

 

4) Mr ryan Dryburgh would have observed Mr Andrew Hutchison's pigeons excercising around his loft "Council By-Law, Pigeons must be excercised twice daily"

 

 

5) Mr Ryan Dryburgh stated to the court that a gust of wind blew the bird into a tree in Mr Andrew Hutchison's garden, "The weather forecast for that day according to the Meteorological Office was moderate wind speed" which would make the accuser's evidence doubtful on that point of his evidence.

 

6) Mr Andrew Hutchison was protecting his flock as was his right to do when they were attacked by this bird, killing it as a farmer would a dog worrying his livestock.

 

The only criminal act that day was the removal of property not belonging to him.

 

 

Should any forum members have anything further that I could add to the above I would be most grateful because we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding this case as it was the perfect instrument in getting a precedent set by a Queens Council for the future of our sport. It would appear to me,Mr Hutchison was not legally represented in a prosecution which could cost him £10.000 and his loss of liberty.

Any stupid or infantile remarks from forum members will not be appreciated as I am prepaired to put £100 into a fighting fund

 

 

Great post I also will back this fighting fund £100

 

 

WELL LETS HELP THE MAN OUT AND I AM WILLING TO DONATE 50 POUND TOWARDS HIS FINE SO COME LETS TEST THE WATER AND SO WHO IS WILLING TO HELP THEIR OWN KIND

 

That's us up to £250

[Kyleakin Lofts]

Just watching the Sparrowhawk out hunting in the gale today. It seemed to be managing ok. Didn't seem to be blown off course by the gale force gusts of wind.

What a load of bumkum about this falcon being blown off course.