Question for Bradshaw

Yes, yes, let's leave aside the exempt hunting aspect for the moment. I just want to know this: are you saying that you don't consider all flushing of deer, irrespective of the legislation, to be "hunting"?
 
The deliberate use of dogs to pursue a wild mammal is hunting it yes.

I'm not sure what flushing is that's a bit too technical
 
If you ask about flushing out. I would suspect it probably depends on why you flush them out. If you flush them out to chase them with dogs then yes it's hunting.
 
So you personally consider all flushing (or flushing out if you prefer) to be hunting, irrespective of the legislation?

Furthermore, in your personal opinion just to use dogs to pursue a wild animal is hunting, again leaving aside what legislation says on the matter?
 
Can't you read the post i just made?

It gets tiresome repeating myself and you don;t seem to have a handle on what i am saying.
 
I just want to make sure I understand you.

1. You personally consider ALL flushing to be hunting, irrespective of what legislation says; and

2. You personally consider the use of a dog to pursue a wild mammel to be hunting, irrespective of what legislation says.

Is that correct?
 
The deliberate use of dogs to pursue a wild mammal is hunting it yes.

If you flush them out to chase them with dogs then yes it's hunting.
 
But if you don't flush a deer out to chase it then it's not hunting, in your opinion. Yes? So you don't think all flushing out is hunting. Correct?
 
Hebegebe

You do repeat yourself but I too dont really understand what your trying to say.
I think your trying to be clever or trying to mislead people.
If all you do is use your dogs to move deer then I dont think thats a problem. Unless the local ploice hang around on your property I would'nt worry to much if you dont shoot them.
Most hunts dont seem to care about the current law so why should you.Out of interest do your dogs ever catch the deer, maybe a sick or young one.
 
But if you don't flush a deer out to chase it then it's not hunting, in your opinion. Yes? So you don't think all flushing out is hunting. Correct?
Click to expand...

I have no idea and couldn't really care. I'm mainly concerned with what I do.
 
We're talking about what you do, so you should be concerned.

Why are you clamming up when I ask you simple questions?

Here's another. You say that you personally consider you're hunting - irrespective of what the law says - if you use a dog to pursue a wild mammel. You've also said that you personally don't consider what you do in Exmoor when you follow deer with your dogs to be "hunting" - again, without considering current legislation. I don't understand this. In Exmoor you're clearly pursuing a wild mammel with your dog. This is what you said:

"I have to admit I have flushed deer on Exmoor when out with my dogs. When I come across a large herd we generally make them move away. I enjoy tracking them and catching up with them later where upon they move away again."

Why don't you think you're hunting here?
 
What's the significance of that 'March for Snaring' badge?
Click to expand...

I seem to have missed the only bit of interest in this endless spiral of b/s and rat spewings.

What 'March for Snaring' badge?
 
Yes, that post must have been removed - not sure why - presumably the poster had written something offensive. I think it was part of Zigzag's signature, and it was a countryside march badge reconfigured to read 'March for Snaring'. A bit weird really, but I never got an answer to my question, so the mystery remains......
 
You said earlier in this thread that when you flush the deer away from your land you subsequently use your dogs to chase them. However, when describing in detail on the labourspace site what you do, you say:

"I feel a great affinity towards these deer especially the red deer. My control methods are extremely gentle. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEER EVEN TO BE CHASED [my caps]. It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland."
http://reformthehuntingact.labourspace.com/view_campaign?CampaignId=93

Without a shadow of a doubt, in light of the DPP v. Wright ruling, what you do does not constitute hunting. Congratulations!
 
There is no need for animals to be chased in order for them to be flushed. The RSPCA have confirmed that chasing and flushing are distinct. Flushing out of cover is exempt hunting providing five conditions are met. That's what the law says.

However the courts have ruled that the flushing can include a chase. Which is cool :) However only if the animals are subsequently shot. Like with stag hunting. However the hunt is not allowed just to shoot one of the deer it must shoot the lot.

Tony wright got off because even though he was flushing foxes he took reasonable steps to shoot them.

yes searching for deer in order to flush them in accordance with the Hunting Act is legal.

Your point is?
 
I'm making three points:

1. Not all flushing is "hunting" within the meaning of the Hunting Act 2004. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. When it is, the conditions stated in the Act have to be satisifed.

2. We now have some guidance from the courts about what sort of flushing ISN'T hunting. Justice Maddison said that SIMPLY searching for a wild animal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it was not "hunting a wild mammal with a dog" for the purposes of section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004.

This is the exact scenario described by yourself in your labourspace link:

" For many years now I have regularly taken my dogs through my woodland. When ANY [my caps] deer in the woods become aware of us they are flushed out."

As you are very careful to make clear, you do not subsequently chase the deer once you've located them:

"My control methods are extremely gentle. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEER EVEN TO BE CHASED [my caps]. It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland."

3. Since the flushing you specifically engage in is not "hunting", the Hunting Act 2004 does not apply.
 
But searching for a wild mammal to flush it isn't flushing either. So your point is?

The judge was saying that until there is a specific wild mammal or mammal in the frame then no law is broken. Once the animal is flushed then there is.

If you are right then great hunts can still flush and chase deer with more than two dogs brilliant.
 


The starting point isn't flushing or shooting or jumping up and down on a pogo stick. It's whether you are hunting or not. The judge in the Wright case was careful not to define what hunting was because it depends on the specifics of each case. What he did say, though, that if you simply search for a wild animal for the purpose of stalking or flushing this was not "hunting a wild mammal with a dog" for the purposes of section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004.

This is precisely what you do. Your purpose extends no further than flushing any deer away. You stated quite clearly that you have no intention to chase the deer at all.

"If you are right then great hunts can still flush and chase deer with more than two dogs brilliant. "

A non-sequitur. Yes, I am right, but this doesn't mean hunts can flush and chase deer with more than two dogs. The hunt in your example is chasing a specific deer after it's been flushed and therefore this is probably "hunting" and the conditions within the Act consequently have to be satisfied.
 
Do you think searching for a deer to kill is the same as killing it?

The judge was pointing out that it isn't illegal to search for a wild mammal in order to flush it out within the exemption. That's what Wright was doing. He was searching for a fox in order to flush it out with two dogs and shoot it as soon as possible.

Where do I state I have no intention to chase the deer?
 

"The judge was pointing out that it isn't illegal to search for a wild mammal in order to flush it out within the exemption."


No no no! This is why you're getting confused. If you're not hunting the exemptions within the Hunting Act are completely irrelevant. The judge specifically ruled that "the term "hunt" a wild mammal with a dog used in section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004" DID NOT include the activity of simply searching for a wild animal for the purpose of stalking or flushing it.

Do you understand now?
 
yes I know it doesn't include searching for a wild mammal.

But that isn't all that I do.

Are you saying that searching for a wild mammal is the same as flushing it out and chasing it?
 
Let's just get this clear.

Your saying that the judges ruling means that hunts can flush out and chase wild mammals with packs of hounds from woodland legally?
 
"Are you saying that searching for a wild mammal is the same as flushing it out and chasing it?"

Did you lie on the labourspace site when you claimed you didn't chase the deer?
 
"Let's just get this clear.

Your saying that the judges ruling means that hunts can flush out and chase wild mammals with packs of hounds from woodland legally? "

No.
 
"Are you saying that searching for a wild mammal is the same as flushing it out and chasing it?"

Did you lie on the labourspace site when you claimed you didn't chase the deer?
Click to expand...

Where did I claim that?

I said there is no NEED for the deer to be chased to flush them out.

Do you not understand English?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top