chancing
Well-Known Member
Have I heard these whispers right? could there be a chance of repeal being as soon as next season?
Have I heard Right? Repeal? Might Be Back To 'Proper' Hunting Next Season?
- Thread starter chancing
- Start date
Ahunter
Member
Certainly the anti hunt Brigade think something is going down thats why Binkle has shown up.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
I'll vote for that!
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
If its rumour/whispers time...then have you heard the one about the Troll who shot itself in the foot with a shotgun and then got caught in a snare of its own devising!
houndsplease
Well-Known Member
like button needed
rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
PMSL- Very good Fiagai-
JenHunt
Well-Known Member
ditto!
Judgemental
Well-Known Member
I have been too busy recently and not really followed all the various threads.
Have I winded some who are not with us, posting on this forum?
Perhaps the 'old hinds' would be kind enough to identify those who need to be ..........*#* now wounded /z/
..................= line of shotgun pellets!
Shooting on a hunting forum, well I suppose we could put a wire or two down, perish the thought that they are hunted, that would be far too cruel.
Have I winded some who are not with us, posting on this forum?
Perhaps the 'old hinds' would be kind enough to identify those who need to be ..........*#* now wounded /z/
..................= line of shotgun pellets!
Shooting on a hunting forum, well I suppose we could put a wire or two down, perish the thought that they are hunted, that would be far too cruel.
Last edited:
Giles
Well-Known Member
From what I understand there is a proposal for a much wider ranging anti cruelty law. This would make all cruelty (defined as undue or unnecessary suffering) to any wild mammal illegal however it was caused. Once this law is on place there will be a much stronger case for repeal of the Hunting Act.
Needless to say LACS &c are vehemently opposed to cruelty per se being made illegal so there could be quite a fight over it.
Needless to say LACS &c are vehemently opposed to cruelty per se being made illegal so there could be quite a fight over it.
Giles
Well-Known Member
As far as proper hunting is concerned hunting would be treated in the same way as any other activity. If a hunt could be shown to be being cruel it would be liable to prosecution.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
"As far as proper hunting is concerned hunting would be treated in the same way as any other activity. If a hunt could be shown to be being cruel it would be liable to prosecution."
Can you help me understand this proposed new anti cruelty law please Giles. At present the hunting ban makes it illegal to chase and kill with dogs because it is deemed cruel. If the new cruelty law is brought in then chasing and killing with dogs would no longer be deemed cruel so would be legal. Is that correct?
If so then are LACS against a general cruelty law as you are suggesting or against a law for the sole reason that it would make chasing and killing with dogs legal again?
i.e If the new cruelty law also deemed chasing and killing with dogs cruel to start with and only addressed other cruelty issues would LACS support it 100% perhaps?
Thankyou in advance for your help.
Can you help me understand this proposed new anti cruelty law please Giles. At present the hunting ban makes it illegal to chase and kill with dogs because it is deemed cruel. If the new cruelty law is brought in then chasing and killing with dogs would no longer be deemed cruel so would be legal. Is that correct?
If so then are LACS against a general cruelty law as you are suggesting or against a law for the sole reason that it would make chasing and killing with dogs legal again?
i.e If the new cruelty law also deemed chasing and killing with dogs cruel to start with and only addressed other cruelty issues would LACS support it 100% perhaps?
Thankyou in advance for your help.
Herne
Well-Known Member
An "anti-cruelty" Law would be a very bad idea, because cruelty is an abstract concept. It is impossible to quantify and very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
Much more sensible to use words that are specific and quantifiable.
Much more sensible to use words that are specific and quantifiable.
Lizzie66
Well-Known Member
Binkle: The anti hunting legislation currently in place has absolutely nothing to do with cruelty. The government commissioned report into hunting found that hunting foxes with hounds was one of the least "cruel" methods available.
However despite this an overwhelming number of backbench Labour MPs voted to pass the the current law banning hunting with hounds. They voted based upon their own misconceptions, due to being totally blinkered to the facts and the perception that they were getting one over on the "toffs".
With any luck this Law will shortly be repealed and we will be able to get back to humanely despatching foxes with hounds.
However despite this an overwhelming number of backbench Labour MPs voted to pass the the current law banning hunting with hounds. They voted based upon their own misconceptions, due to being totally blinkered to the facts and the perception that they were getting one over on the "toffs".
With any luck this Law will shortly be repealed and we will be able to get back to humanely despatching foxes with hounds.
EAST KENT
Well-Known Member
Not forgetting the generous amounts Labour recieved from Lacs and the bloody RSPCA!!
Giles
Well-Known Member
The law would not deem chasing and/or killing with dogs cruel or uncruel. It would provide a legal definition of cruelty and ban any activity which a court found as causing cruelty. All wild mammals would be protected from all actions which could be found to be cruel.
LACS oppose this because in instances where people were not being cruel they could not prosecute them. They've gone on record as saying that.
Giles
Well-Known Member
I can find the LACS quote fro you if you want Binkle in case you are confused as to why you should oppose all deliberate cruelty to wild mammals being made illegal.
rosie fronfelen
Well-Known Member
IMO i dont think hunting will ever be the same again, if there is repeal i think there will be reams of licences and heaven knows what rules and regulations, never mind the Sabs.I hate to say it but i am not at all optimistic.
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
Thankyou Giles for your intial post. Reference above no I dont need the quote from LACS thanks as their stance does not influence me either way. I fully support any law that deals with those who are deliberately cruel to animals as I am sure we all are. What I dont get is the need for a new law unless our current laws do not deal with these individuals at present
Binkle&Flip
Well-Known Member
To be fair I cannot speak nor can anybody else for the individual MP's and their reasons for voting in this ban. Some most probably as you say voted to get one over on the "toffs". Similarly there will no doubt be many pro repeal MP's who take that stance due to class/political belief, knowing little themselves about hunting. That is really the politics of life.
Regarding peoples misconceptions or blinkers there is really only so much you can do to change peoples minds. Once all of the sides have given their opinion it has to be left to all to decide how they feel about the humaness of killing with dogs. At some point it may be time to accept most people will never support it being made legal again.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
OK Just to clarify - the 2004 Hunting Act is and I quote "An Act to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes". There is not one mention of "cruelty" in the body of this Act.
The 2004 Act actually enshrines the situations where / how hunters etc can / cannot hunt wild animals with dogs for pest control, reseach, recapture, controling predation of other species. Its defines and specifies the methods how wild animals can be culled / killed for the above reasons from more traditional methods to dispatch by shooting or bird of prey.
"Cruelty" is a subjective term that cannot easily be enshrined within objective legislation. Specific practices that certain groups deem to be cruel may be prohibited by new legislation for ethical or political reasons. When enacted this then becomes the law of the land prohibiting such a practice and becomes enforceable under the remit of the relevant law enforcement authorities.
There are many individuals who deem the slaughter and eating of farmed animals as "cruel". There are those that believe that "owning" pets is a cruel practice. There are people who believe that observed religous methods of animal slaughter where animals bleed out to death are cruel. However it is unlikely that any of these practises are going to be legislated against in the near future.
It remains that there are wild animals that are termed as vermin under existing legislation that are controlled by various means. The definition of "undue or unecessary suffering" is for practical purposes undefinable as it is nearly impossible to measure objectively. Where it is put that a practice is wrong for ethical reasons or political maneuvering and these beliefs gain a majority view, new legislation may then be enacted to prohibit such an existing practice.
Giles
Well-Known Member
So are you saying we should repeal the lawmaking it illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to domestic animals?
Giles
Well-Known Member
Thankyou Giles for your intial post. Reference above no I dont need the quote from LACS thanks as their stance does not influence me either way. I fully support any law that deals with those who are deliberately cruel to animals as I am sure we all are. What I dont get is the need for a new law unless our current laws do not deal with these individuals at present
Hi Binkle there is not law making it illegal to be deliberately cruel to wild mammals. There are only laws proscribing certain specific actions.
This contrasts with domestic animal protection where all cruelty is proscribed.
One has to ask why should it be legal to be cruel to wild mammals in some ways but not in others. And if a court can be convinced that someone is not being cruel then surely they should not be criminally liable.
Under the current law you can only be prosecuted if you cause cruelty by :
mutilating, kicking, beating, nailing or otherwise impaling, stabing, burning, stoning, crushing, drowning, dragging or asphyxiating any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.
or
if you hunt a wild mammal with a dog whether or not it causes cruelty.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
No. Was giving examples showing that current legislation only proscribes certain practises against domestic & farmed animals. Other practises that maybe deemed to be "cruel" are not. Cruely as a concept is nearly impossible to define as an abstract.
Giles
Well-Known Member
That isn't true. The animal welfare act imposes a duty of care to protect domestic animals from suffering. There are plenty of examples of laws defining cruelty both to animals and to people.
Any practice involving a pet animal and found by a court to be cruel is made illegal under the animal welfare act.
Giles
Well-Known Member
Just to avoid any doubt this is what the law says. It proscribes all acts or omissions that cause unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(1)A person commits an offence if
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
Ok I believe we are talking about the same thing here but there is a techical difference between the outlawing of certain practices and making pronouncements about what is deemed "cruel". In law it is certain specific practices that are categorised as causing suffering based on best evidence or ethics. In Law the term "cruelty" therefore can only be only used in the abstract sense relating to a specific practice. Courts cannot make something illegal - courts can only enforce the existing body of law. This is the role of legislation. The provisions of the Animal Welfare Act are already enshrined in law.
Giles
Well-Known Member
The approach suggested is to provide a legal definition of cruelty for example causing undue suffering and then to outlaw any activity which the courts deem cruel according to that definition. This would follow the approach taken by the animal welfare act.
The hunting act proscribes hunting regardless of whether t is cruel. Parliament did however recognise that it is not always cruel. Any sensible person would recognise that hunting CAN be cruel and if they think cruelty should be outlawed would accept that it should be banned insofar as it is.
LACS oppose cruelty to animals being made illegal because such a law would not allow them to prosecute people who were not being cruel.
Fiagai
Well-Known Member
Good we are on level ground I think. Do you have a source for the proposed Cruelty Act and a definition of "cruelty" for further reference by any chance?
As stated the major problem here is to seperate activities or practices that people "believe" to be cruel and a definition of cruelty that stands by itself.
What one person may deem to be cruel another person may not. Unfortuanetly or otherwise the law makes no notice what the "sensible" person believes or thinks.
An example I gave earlier is a case in point where observed religous methods of animal slaughter where animals bleed out may be viewed as cruel. Yet in the UK this is not legislated against under the terms of current Act
The 2004 Hunting Act does not include the term "cruelty" in the Act itself. Similarily neither does the 2006 Animal Welfare Act. The AWA 2006 states that it is...
The focus of the act is to prohibit unnecessary suffering within the terms of the following activities
Meeting the needs of an animal as required by good practice
Mutilation
Docking
Poisoning
Fighting
Selling animals to minors
The courts can only prosecuted those who break existing laws. They are tied by the provisions of enabled legislation such as the AWA 2006 and must decide whether a party or parties have caused unnecessary suffering with regard only to those activities defined within that legislation.
LINK to 2006 Animal Welfare Act
Last edited: