dogs and deer

[Ereiam_jh]

I have four pet dogs. I'm also fortunate enough to own an area of woodland from which I cut fuel to help heat my home.

The wood is frequented by deer. When I take my dogs through the wood the deer run out.

I find that if I keep walking my dogs in the wood the trees grow better because there are less deer.

I wrote to the Government two years ago about this and they told me that it is now a crime.

It is illegal to flush out deer from woodlands with dogs unless you then shoot them.

I've contacted various 'animal welfare' organsiations such as the RSPCA and LACS but they wholeheartedly back the law.

Indeed LACS have prosecuted a huntsman for failing to shoot foxes in very similar circumstances.

I'm pinning my hopes on a Human Rights case shortly to be heard by the House of Lords.

I feel very strongly that the Government has no right to prevent me walking my dogs on my property simply because doing so causes deer to be flushed out.

I feel even more strongly that they should not have the right to require me to shoot deer against my will.

They, backed up by the RSPCA and LACS insist that because I flush out deer by walking my dogs I now have to shoot them.

This is because otherwise I might let my dogs kill the deer and claim it was an accident.

My dogs have never killed a deer.

They say that what I do counts as 'Hunting with Hounds'.

Surely the Hunting Act was not meant to affect dog walkers in this way.

 

[polaris]

Completely agree and find it rather stupid. However, I should imagine they will come back and say...
1)build a deer proof fence around your land at great personnel expense to you
2)Take your dogs out one by one so it cannot be construed as flushing or hunting with hounds.
It is ridiculous. My sympathies.

 

[carmenlucy123]

i dont uderstand why you wrote to the goverment in the first place?

if you have no intention of killing the deer just keep shooing them off....

i personally would quite enjoy the privalage of seeing some deer its something to look at out of the window..

if you dont want them eating your trees you could always put something yummier down for them

but if you dont want them there at all then youll have to shut them out with a fence which is rubbish unfortunatly for you!

i would have to say enjoy the deer iv never come accross wild deer.... i think its great ill put them in my garden ha ha

 

[endymion]

I think I'm getting Deja vu! :grin:

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Putting something yummier down for them is extremely bad practice. You get over crowding, disease and welfare problems. LACS used to put silage out for the deer in their deer sanctuary. They don't anymore after being severely criticised.

They deal with their overcrowding problem by shooting their deer.

Sorry, but what I do is far more welfare friendly than shooting those deer.

Douglas Batchelor from LACS wrote to me saying I would now have to fence all my land where I walk my dogs. The man is a complete ass.

Oh and doing it with one dog is still illegal as I'm not prepared to shoot the deer.

I think the best all round solution is for everyone to just ignore such a crap law.

 

[Fairynuff]

I have the luck of living in the middle of a wild life refuge where hunting is forbidden. I have 2 ISDS border collies who dont chase the roe deer but try and gather them , the wild boar are given a wide berth by all. Would this be illegal in GB? Mairi.

 

[endymion]

How is it more welfare friendly? You say you don't kill the deer so are you just chasing them on to someone else's land, passing the buck so to speak?

Deer, unlike foxes, need to be controlled and shooting is the most humane method. Chasing them around is pointless.

 

[wurzel]

"Deer, unlike foxes, need to be controlled and shooting is the most humane method."


The government isue fox snaring guidelines.

You know more than everyone Endy !!!!!!

More than generations of farmers !!!!

Even at your most arrogant you must find it a little strange ?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Deer, unlike foxes, need to be controlled and shooting is the most humane method. Chasing them around is pointless. "

I'm not convinced that it's so much the chasing. Rather just the continual presence of dogs in the woodland that tends to keep the deer out. It's not pointless because it lets my trees grow.

Sorry Endy, but you're wrong. What I do IS more welfare friendly than shooting the deer. It hurts less.

Passing the buck? By refusing to shoot the deer? I'm not sure I can see your point there. Anyway male red deer are called stags.

Deer need to be controlled. Yes but that doesn't mean that every land owner has to shoot the bloody things. Nor that I am somehow being irresponsible by not shooting them.

I've got no gun for christ's sake man! What's more I often go out wioth my young children. Do you honestly expect me to have to whip out a rifle and gun everything down I flush out?

I'm surpised at you Endy, slagging me off for not killing the wildlife.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Two of my dogs are border collies, I think they are probably trying to round them up but can't get round the back of them.

In the Human Rights case the Government stated that dispersion with dogs is hunting. Under the hunting act you have to stop your dogs dispersing deer.

So yes if you know that your dogs will disperse deer and fail to stop them then you'd be a criminal over here.

I completely refuse to stop my dogs dispersing deer. I beleive that my human right to peacefull enjoyment of my property comes before any harm caused by the fact that walking my dogs round it makes the deer run off.

 

[endymion]

I believe deer need to be controlled. They need to go somewhere. If the population is high and they are scared to come on your land, they will be on someone elses land.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Well yes endy, all that is true. The question is whether society has the right to make me kill the deer. That is what the Government's case is based on.

Now I could understand if the deer were causing my neighbours a big problem. But they aren't. They don't bother him at all. He's dead keen on shooting, if he had a problem with the deer he'd be only too pleased to shoot them.

The Government say that I must shoot the deer not because of overcrowding, or problems they are causing to other people but in order to prevent my dogs accidently chasing or killing them.

Wouldn't it be better just to require me to stop my dogs chasing any deer they flush out?

They say they are worried that people might deliberately flush out deer and then claim to have accidently killed them. That is ridiculous. Someone could just as easily claim to have accidently flushed the deer out.
They say that flushing deer out is cruel, not cruel enough to ban it outright but cruel enough to mean that flushed out deer must be shot. I really don't think that any trauma they might have suffered at my hands warrants a bullet.

I have a human right to the peaceful enjoyment of my land. In my case this involves walking my dogs round it. The fact that this disturbs deer and other wildlife on it is neither sufficient grounds to require me to stop, not to require me to shoot the wildlife.

It's so blatantly obvious that I am right. This has nothing to do with whether you are pro or anti hunting. Even Peter Bunce from POWA accepts that I am right, the Hunting Act is anomolous and I should not have to obey it.

Where laws are wrong, they deserve to be broken. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with breaking a law.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Can I get this right endy. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to make deer scared to come onto someone's land because it will make them be on someone elses land. Is that why I should have to shoot flushed out deer before they are scared off.

I thought you were anti hunting.

 

[Jerome]

I thought you were in the "theatre of war" polaris...