weebarney
Well-Known Member
Fighting and guard dogs are born with the instinct to fight or guard, just the same as whippets/greyhounds. So it is not an entirely different situation.
Accidental killing of foxes
- Thread starter Hebegebe
- Start date
Fighting and guard dogs are born with the instinct to fight or guard, just the same as whippets/greyhounds. So it is not an entirely different situation.
silverbreeze
Well-Known Member
The situation would be looked upon differently if the animal was to savage a child as opposed to a rabbit. Instinct and training for different things; one far more severe than the other imho.
It is about being sensible. I wouldn't dream of not letting my springer off the lead; he would become mentally disturbed as he lives to run and chase and fool about. I would class it as cruelty if i couldn't let him off the lead. I know he wouldn't hurt anyone ever and if he ever managed to catch up to a rabbit or squirrel wouldn't have the first idea what to do.. and if he did; i certainly wouldn't use that as grounds to keep him on a lead.
His life revolves around running and if another wild animal gets in the way then it gets in the way, he means nothing by it and I hardly class myself as inflicting animal cruelty by letting him do it.. Quite the opposite. I think this is a case of extremist behaviour running wild, exactly why our country is in the state it is. PC craziness
Rabbits etc are prey animals, this is why they breed like wild fire to combat the fallen ones, just because the predator (lightly used as I know this is about the chase) happens to be a domestic animal.. how is that suddenly wrong to the predator being a fox? And why is it worse because they chase rather than kill?
I appologise if this is already mentioned earlier; I am losing track!
It is about being sensible. I wouldn't dream of not letting my springer off the lead; he would become mentally disturbed as he lives to run and chase and fool about. I would class it as cruelty if i couldn't let him off the lead. I know he wouldn't hurt anyone ever and if he ever managed to catch up to a rabbit or squirrel wouldn't have the first idea what to do.. and if he did; i certainly wouldn't use that as grounds to keep him on a lead.
His life revolves around running and if another wild animal gets in the way then it gets in the way, he means nothing by it and I hardly class myself as inflicting animal cruelty by letting him do it.. Quite the opposite. I think this is a case of extremist behaviour running wild, exactly why our country is in the state it is. PC craziness
Rabbits etc are prey animals, this is why they breed like wild fire to combat the fallen ones, just because the predator (lightly used as I know this is about the chase) happens to be a domestic animal.. how is that suddenly wrong to the predator being a fox? And why is it worse because they chase rather than kill?
I appologise if this is already mentioned earlier; I am losing track!
weebarney
Well-Known Member
My point is not for people to keep thair dog on a lead but to use their own initiative and they shouldnt have a problem. People are always going to come across wild animals while walking their dogs. I would imagine this legislation would be aimed at people who deliberately allow their dogs to chase and kill wild animals and then claim it to be an accident.
silverbreeze
Well-Known Member
Ok.. that I understand but how on earth would they police that? How could they prove it accidental or deliberate? Noone is going to admit they deliberately allow their dog to chase and kill. I don't call my dog away if he is chasing a squirrel as I know he has about as much chance of catching it as I do, would that be classed as deliberate and would I go to court and get a criminal record if someone saw my dog chasing it and I didn't call him off, even if he didn't kill it?
Would it have to be backed up by a kill?
Would the dog be classed as dangerous and put to sleep?
the problem with some laws is that on the face of it they seem like a good idea but they get abused as with everything and it generally appears to be the innocent that suffer...
Would it have to be backed up by a kill?
Would the dog be classed as dangerous and put to sleep?
the problem with some laws is that on the face of it they seem like a good idea but they get abused as with everything and it generally appears to be the innocent that suffer...
weebarney
Well-Known Member
I cant really answer most of your questions, but as far as affecting innocent people go i think a lot of laws affect innocent people just to catch the few bad guys but then what is the alternative?
silverbreeze
Well-Known Member
hmmm, I can think of a few but them in themselves would be illegal 
Is there somewhere where we can view and monitor this proposed law? Don't know where people get the info from...
Is there somewhere where we can view and monitor this proposed law? Don't know where people get the info from...
Bunce
Well-Known Member
There is no chance that the law will target innocent people. It is specifically designed to only apply to organised trail hunts. Other people who merely allow a dog to kill a fox will not be affected.
The current Act is flawed because as hunting is an intentional activity we have to prove that someone is actually hunting in order to prosecute them for hunting. This modification to the law removes that requirement for this proof. It will allow us to prosecute far more hunts without having to prove they are hunting which brings the law in line with its original intention.
Eagle_day
Well-Known Member
So if you can't prove if someone is hunting, but they're still guilty, isn't that exactly targeting the innocent.
You wrote the law, Bunce. You had your chance and you blew it. You won't get another for 20 years.