Question for Bradshaw

Because my personal motivation for allowing the hunt on my land is that I think it is a good thing for there to be some form of predation pressure on the fox population and in lieu of wolves and lynx this is supplied by the hounds.

I think foxes having predators helps keep the population healthy. Especially as my neighbor shoots about 50 or so foxes a year so we get wounded ones.

I'm not interested in them taking out all the foxes because I don't run a shoot or keep a lot of lambs.
 
It's interesting how you read my responses and then derive a completely different argument from them that they actually make.

It's a highly ignorant and dishonest way to argue and does not portray you in a good light at all in my opinion.

Like asking me about my activities on exmoor and then repeatedly saying that what I had said about them (as misrepresented in any case by you) was said about what I do in my woods.

I really don't know why you do that. It's pathetic. Admittedly it makes me laugh but that is about all.

Can't you at least muster a bit of self respect man?
 
For the sake of argument let's assume the Hunting Act 2004 doesn't exist. Would you consider your use of dogs to scare deer away from your land to be hunting?
 
I think it can be but isn't necesarily. Like anything that causes suffering to animals.

I would define cruelty as unnecessary suffering so it really depends on the circumstances.

I think it would be cruel for me to get the hunt to dig out foxes on my land which is why I tell them not to.

If you asked me if I thought hunting was cruel I would give broadly the same answer. It can be but isn't necesarily.

That's why I am in favour of a law with a test of cruelty and one which covers all activities which cause animal suffering.

Cruelty is cruelty no matter how it is caused.
 
no

I think that weighing up the benefits of people being allowed access to exmoor and experiencing the wildlife against the disturbance they cause to the deer on exmoor the benefits outweigh the disturbance.

I could go to huge lengths to avoid scaring the deer and still have access such as wearing camoflague and crawling around on my tummy but I really don't think it is worth it.

I am aware that my dogs scare wildlife and it doesn't stop me taking them out into the countryside. By the time we become aware of deer they have almost always spotted us and are scarpering anyhow.

What do you think?
 
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Hunting Act 2004 doesn't exist, do you consider your use of dogs to scare away deer from your copse to be hunting?
 
I consider it to be just what it is searching for flushing out and chasing deer with dogs.

If a dog chases a deer then it is clearly hunting it in my view.

Do you think that flushing wild mammals out of cover is exempt hunting under the hunting act?
 
So you're saying that, even if the Hunting Act 2004 didn't exist (and let me stress that assumption), you'd consider yourself to be "hunting" when you use dogs to scare deer away from your copse? Is that your position?
 
Yeah I get the dogs to remove the deer from the wood by hunting them.

One of the meanings of the word hunt is to chase.

According to Defra dispersal of deer counts as hunting too.

I am pretty convinced by their argument that to chase a deer with a dog is hunting. Just as hare coursing is a form of hunting.
 
"when you use dogs to scare deer away from your copse?"

why do you keep using the words 'scare' and 'shoo'

have you got some sort of writing based speech impediment that stops you using the words 'flush out' and 'chase'?

I have no idea about 'scaring away' but flushing out and chasing a deer is to hunt it in my book.
 
I'd like you to forget just for a moment what other people think and say. All I'm interested in what YOU think, Giles. When you use your dogs to scare deer away from your copse, you would consider yourself to be "hunting", and you would do so based entirely on the meaning you alone assign to the verb "to hunt". Is that correct?
 
When I use them to FLUSH OUT and CHASE deer in my woods I am using the dogs to HUNT the deer. because to deliberatley CHASE a deer with dogs is to HUNT it.
 
From the dictionary:

1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.
2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
4. To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict.
5. To seek out; search for.
6. To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away
 
Mind you if flushing out and chasing wild mammals with dogs isn't hunting for the purposes of the hunting act then the law would be completely and utterly useless.

so much the better :)
 
Do you intend to kill the deer when you shoo it away?
Click to expand...

No but unfortunately there need be no intent to kill under the law. If the were the law would be completely unenforceable and the hunts could chase deer and foxes as much as they like :)

That would be fine by me :)
 
Ok, so even though you don't intend to kill the deer, and irrespective of any legislation, you consider that when you use dogs to scare deer away from your copse you're "hunting".

Why don't you think you're hunting when you scare deer on Exmoor? You've already said that you actively follow and flush them with your dogs.
 
you managed FLUSH!!!! well done!!

can you do

"FLUSH OUT OF COVER" :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
 
So you're saying that not all flushing of deer is hunting? Is that it? I thought you believed that all flushing of deer was in fact hunting.
 
Flushing deer out of cover with dogs is classed as exempt hunting under the hunting act unless five conditions are satisfied.

If I deliberately used my dogs to chase deer on exmoor I would be breaking the law because the deliberate use of dogs to pursue deer is illegal.

If it isn't then so much the better!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top