Media opportunity for LACS

[Ereiam_jh]

I've had a chat with some pals of mine about your assertion that more than two dogs can still legally be used to flush out wild mammals and they were most interested.

Especially because you have such an important position in an international AR organisation.

The implications for the staghounds especially are obvious. I've been trying to persuade them to use the whole pack to flush deer and NOT shoot it for some time, but they insist it's illegal and the deer have to be shot.

Do your views on the Hunting Act reflect those of your organisation?

Could you maybe PM me with the details of your organisation and I could maybe arrange an interview.

 

[LACS]

"I've had a chat with some pals of mine about your assertion that more than two dogs can still legally be used to flush out wild mammals"

What I've said repeatedly is that if you're not hunting with dogs, you're not hunting with dogs. Therefore the Hunting Act 2004 - which prohibits hunting with dogs - doesn't apply.

Stag hunts do hunt with dogs. Therefore the Act applies.

"Especially because you have such an important position in an international AR organisation."

For a joke, I said I was a PR person in an international AW organisation because someone (I think Nigel) suggested that I was. I don't believe in animal rights.

 

[Hercules]

LACS,

It comes as no surprise that you are a liar. It must be awful to lead such a dull and meaningless life that you have to pretend to be something/someone that you are not.

How incredibly sad.

Oh well.

Cheers.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Do you think searching for wild mammals is a form of hunting?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

It seems to me that we broadly agree, I used to insist that the law was wrong to ban me from flushing out and chasing away deer because what I was doing isn't hunting.

It's the Government who insist it is so I go along with them.

I think the horrible truth is that the law bans things that aren't really hunting. Probably because it's hard to prove soimeone is hunting, just as it's hard to prove someone is being cruel. So the law neatly sidesteps this inconvenience of actually having to prove someone is doing something wrong.