If

[antiantianti]

My answer is that the official defra guidance that accompanies the hunting act
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/default.htm
has said from the outset that accidentally flushed animals do not have to be shot.

That doesn't answer the question at all. The question is do you think flushed out animals should be shot dead or not?

Parliament clearly thinkis there is some welfare benefit to killing flushed out animals rather than letting them run off.

What do you think?

 

[southgate1975]

My answer is that the official defra guidance that accompanies the hunting act
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/default.htm
has said from the outset that accidentally flushed animals do not have to be shot.

That doesn't answer the question at all. The question is do you think flushed out animals should be shot dead or not?

Parliament clearly thinkis there is some welfare benefit to killing flushed out animals rather than letting them run off.

What do you think?

I think we've had this same discussion a long time ago.

 

[antiantianti]

I think that you think they shouldn't be shot but feel that you cannot say so.

 

[antihunt]

Flushed out wild mammals should be shot dead. Parliament has looked at this matter and concluded that killing the animals is good for their welfare.

Obviously if they are flushed out accidently then this might not be possible. However anyone with an ounce of common sense going out with a dog would realise that it is highly probable that wild mammals might well be disturbed and hence flushed out. The responsible thing to do would be to take an appropriate weapon along in order to put any flushed out animals out of their misery.

If shooting flushed out mammals were not necessary for the welfare of those animals then the law would not require it.

It's perfectly simple.

 

[jessop]

It's totally wrong that flushed out mammals should have to be shot in any circumstances. They have clearly made a mistake in drafting this law and people should not obey it. I'm quite sure it will not be enforced.

I would never shoot an animal just because of some cocked up law.

 

[jessop]

The requirement of flushed out animals to be shot although anomalous is an important tool in our campaign to stop hunts killing animals. There has already been a successful prosecution of a stag hunt which was found not to have taken sufficient steps to kill an entire herd of deer.

This is complete madness!!!! Why prosecute hunts that refuse to kill animals in order to make them stop killing animals?

 

[southgate1975]

It's totally wrong that flushed out mammals should have to be shot in any circumstances. They have clearly made a mistake in drafting this law and people should not obey it. I'm quite sure it will not be enforced.

I would never shoot an animal just because of some cocked up law.

As I said earlier, this is not what the law demands.

 

[antiantianti]

The law requires people to stop there dogs hunting animals does it not?

Do you think it would be better not to shoot flushed out deer?

Don't worry it's the fact that you can't answer that question that shows your position has no integrity.

 

[Bunce]

As I have already made clear we would only seek to prosecute hunts for failing to kill deer and foxes they flush out so the question is irrelevant.

Hunts have to stop their dogs flushing out deer, other people don't.

We are responsible for monitoring the law so we decide how it will be applied and who has to obey it.

 

[Bunce]

Don't worry it's the fact that you can't answer that question that shows your position has no integrity.

I will answer the question. It is better for the animal not to be killed. However the requirement to shoot animals is an important tool enabling us to prosecute hunts as it can be easily determined if they have enough guns present to shoot all flushed out animals.

The point is to get hunts prosecuted. That is our aim.

 

[antiantianti]

Just to clarify then.

You don't want animals to be killed so you are prepared to prosecute hunts under an anomalous law that requires them to kill animals for not killing animals in order to stop them killing animals.

And you feel your position makes sense?

 

[Bunce]

All prosecutions of hunts have hinged on the question as to whether they too adequate steps to kill enough animals.

 

[antiantianti]

And as someone who wants them not to kill animals how do you feel about that?

 

[winterhorse]

Hunts have to stop their dogs flushing out deer, other people don't.

can you tell me how????????????? our country is rife with deer, you can bearly move without putting up deer and we are a drag pack. does that mean we can start shooting them???????? venison for tea.

 

[the watcher]

We are responsible for monitoring the law so we decide how it will be applied and who has to obey it.

Worth remembering that this is a self appointed role, a choice, not a responsibility.

You are not public servants, you are private individuals following your own private agenda.

 

[antiantianti]

It strikes me that the law is just too plain stupid for the police to enforce it fully so we are left with vigilantes to enforce it partially against people they dislike for political reasons.

Wether you are actually breaking or obeying the law is largely irrelevant.

 

[Bunce]

Hunts have to stop their dogs flushing out deer, other people don't.

can you tell me how????????????? our country is rife with deer, you can bearly move without putting up deer and we are a drag pack. does that mean we can start shooting them???????? venison for tea.

You are clearly continuing in an activity which you are aware causes wild mammals to be flushed out. Flushing out is classed as hunting.

Could you post or PM me details of the hunt concerned.

 

[winterhorse]

we are a registered drag pack, isn't that what you people wanted?????????? to stop fox hunting and get people to go drag hunting?????????? this pack never has, never will hunt a fox/deer, so what are we doing wrong?????????? can't help it if we have a lot of deer in our country, like i said we are not interested in them, but with what you are saying we should start shooting them, that makes sense, getting a drag pack to start killing, i've heard it all now!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[antiantianti]

Just write to LACS vand the police and tell them that the law is an ass, flushing out deer isn't cruel and you are going to carry on. They won't stop you breaking the law. They know it is stupid

 

[IANB]

Bunce,you obviously know nothing about the the countryside or hunting,you would be better off being employed as a politician because they fall into the same category as you,iggnorant !!

F*** the Scum

 

[Bunce]

What I may or may not know about the countryside or hunting is irrelevant.

The fact is that hunts are no longer permitted to flush out wild mammals. This is because Parliament has decided that flushing out wild mammals with dogs is cruel.

Winterhorse continues his/her activity with the full knowledge that deer will be flushed out.

That is a criminal offense.

 

[jessop]

As Winterhorse says one could hardly take a pack of hounds through the countryside without flushing out animals.

I had no idea that the Hunting Act was this stupid.

Is it illegal to walk dogs if you know they will flush out animals?

 

[Bunce]

As I have explained before people who break the law but are not members of a hunt have nothing to fear. We decide how the law is applied and we are not targeting them.

 

[the watcher]

. We decide how the law is applied and we are not targeting them.

To come back to my earlier point, which you seem to have ignored. Who are you to choose which part of the law will be applied, and to whom, and which will not?

The law is the law, and in this case it is a very badly written one.

 

[IANB]

Bunce,as i said in my pevios post ,you are iggnorant,if you insist on publicly prooving it by posting such nonsense on this forum so be it.If I were you i would go back into your little hole and die.

 

[the watcher]

Bunce,as i said in my pevios post ,you are iggnorant,if you insist on publicly prooving it by posting such nonsense on this forum so be it.If I were you i would go back into your little hole and die.

No matter what you may think of the individual, or their objectives, the above quote hardly contributes towards any kind of useful debate.

I am still waiting for Bunce to address the points I raised though (maybe they are too difficult and challenging)

 

[winterhorse]

What I may or may not know about the countryside or hunting is irrelevant.

The fact is that hunts are no longer permitted to flush out wild mammals. This is because Parliament has decided that flushing out wild mammals with dogs is cruel.

Winterhorse continues his/her activity with the full knowledge that deer will be flushed out.

That is a criminal offense.

so even when deer appear because the foot follows are wanting a good view, well before hounds arrive, thats illegal too, what tosh. so what if they run out, big deal, they are causing no harm, hounds aren't interested in them, so once the deer realise they are not being followed, they return, otherwise they wouldn't be there the next time we visited. would you like to come and arm all our foot followers, so we can continue.
you would need to ban all people from the countryside to prevent any animal being """flushed out"".

 

[Bunce]

. We decide how the law is applied and we are not targeting them.

To come back to my earlier point, which you seem to have ignored. Who are you to choose which part of the law will be applied, and to whom, and which will not?

The law is the law, and in this case it is a very badly written one.

We monitor the hunts there fore we deciude what evidence goes before the police.

The question is who are the police to decide which part of the law is enforced and which isn't.

I know for a fact for example that they are very wary of enforcing the obligation to shoot animals because they feel it is ridiculous. What right do the police have to refuse to enforce laws they disagree with?

 

[the watcher]

Ah, answer a question with a question - beats a considered answer any day, doesn't it.

surely if you have set your self up as somebody who monitors hunts you should should make any material you collect open to the Police, rather than selected pieces depending on your agenda, in the interests of fair disclosure. In fact, if you fail to do this I imagine your selected clips would be inadmissible anyway.

I think you will have to agree that the Police have a far wider remit, and enforcing the hunting with dogs legislation would form a tiny part of that - I'm not sure it fits into the current objectives of any Police force - they are more concerned with preventing road deaths, burglaries and violent street crime, amongst other things.

 

[Dolcé]

As I have explained before people who break the law but are not members of a hunt have nothing to fear. We decide how the law is applied and we are not targeting them.

what is the problem, hunts just need to stop having members to be able to continue without fear of prosecution by Bunce, who has the power to prosecute. Perhaps then the ex hunt members could all ride out happily together and have a whip round for the organiser of the ride at the end in which everyone gives the equivalent of their ex hunting membership fee! If one of the riders feels like taking their dogs along for exercise too then even better! Sorted!!