Question for Bradshaw

"But you accept that hunts can flush out deer with more than two dogs?

Afterall his judgment was applied to a hunt."

No, I don't. People who hunt must do so within the terms of the Hunting Act 2004 or potentially face the consequences. People like you, who adnit openly that they don't consider what they do to be hunting, can flush away.
 
I don't get what you are saying. What he was doing was exempt because he only used two dogs and took steps to shoot the foxes. Are you saying if like me he had used three dogs and chased the foxes without shooting he wouldn't have broken the law either?


Your basis for this seems to be that he just says oh I thought it was ok officer!

Just to get this straight someone CAN use more than two dogs to flush out and chase deer and it's fine under the law. Is that what you are saying?

All this is in the judgement that searching for a fox is legal?
 
Are you lying here where you say you chase deer after flushing them, or on labourspace where you say you don't?

I can't help thinking that since the Wright decision you've had to alter your story of flushing deer to include chasing because otherwise you've no hope of persuading people you're "hunting" within the Hunting Act.
 
Where do I say on Labourspace that I don't?

Point out where I say I don't chase deer please.

No there are numerous statements by me that I chase deer right back to 2004.

Everything you say is bollox.

What it says on Labourspace is that there is no NEED to chase deer. It doesn't say I don't.

I don't always chase deer but somnetimes I do. Depends what mood I am in.

Do you have a problem with that?

Are you saying that it is not illegal for hunts to flush out deer with packs of dogs?
 
The best thing would be to get some hunt monitors to film the deer being chased and hand it in to the police.

Then they could decide whether to prosecute me or not.

If they did then I would shoot them all.

If you agree so much woith this law and are so keen to see all these deer shot in accordance to it then why don't you come down and film the deer being chased?

LACS don't want to for some reason.

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
 
Do you honestly think when I am on my own in woods with five excitable dogs off the lead and they put up a deer it DOESN'T get chased? :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

What planet are you on?

Dogs chase deer al;l the time every day all over the place.

You really thinki I stop my dogs chasing them?

That's ridiculous.


They have the free run of my farm.

PS they've chased foxes badgers and hares too.

What is the problem with that?

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
 
"Where do I say on Labourspace that I don't?"

Here:

"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."

Everyone reading this would assume that you don't chase the deer you flush. You're either lying by creating a false assumption on labourspace, or lying now by claiming you chase deer when in fact you don't. In either case, you're having to resort to dishonesty. Add to this your dishonest claims that I support the practice of driving herds of deer to guns and I think we have a pretty good idea of what sort of person you are.

I much prefer a real hunter who says: "This is what I do. You may not agree with it but it's my choice and my moral decision so leave me alone." In your case, you're not even a hunter and have to stoop to lies and falsehoods in your posts. It's all rather sad.
 
I think anyone reading this, which you posted on the labourspace site, would think that you didn't chase the deer you shoo away:

"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

If in fact you do chase the deer, why not say so clearly? Not to do so is dishonest.
 
In the Wright case 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. So if you're not hunting, you can flush out animals.

However, on the labourspace site you say:

"Whether my dogs chase the deer or not is irrelevant. The law states it's illegal just to flush them out."

1. But in your posts here, Giles, you argue that chasing makes all the difference. Is it irrelevant or not? Are you wrong here, or on the labourspace site?

2. The ruling in the Wright case means that you're mistaken to say that it's illegal just to flush deer out. It's only potentially illegal if you're hunting, and indeed only then if you don't satisfy the exemption conditions in the act.
 
Ypu've accused me of lying. I've asked you to provide evidence of that and you have not done so.

It very much appears to me that you are deliberately making false allegations.

I suggest that the honorable thing to do would be to retract your allegation of lying and apologise.

I realise that this is entirely up to you but if you are not able to debate in an adult mature manner then if you do not mind I will just ignore you.

There is no need to chase deer in order to flush them out. The information I have from defra is that they consider dispersal of wild mammals using dogs to be hunting unless exempt.

However it is certainly more effective if the dogs chase the deer because they disperse them further.

Anyone with half a brain will realise that if you go into a wood with five dogs off the lead and leave them to their own devices that when they flush out a deer they will chase it.

No one seriously thinks this should be illegal. Even Protect Our Wild Animals accept that what I do is harmless and the law is an anomaly.

Last comment to you I am afraid Zigzag unless you are either back up your allegation that I claimed I do not chase deer on Labourspace or withdraw them.

I expect minimum standards pof people I interact with on here.
 
The issue in the Wright case was whether the flushing out took place in accordance with the conditions required to make it exempt hunting. These included the use of no more than two dogs and reasonable steps being taken to shoot the flushed out animal etc.

It was found that these conditions were met and hence he was not prosecuted.

During the appeal the court was asked to rule on whether Wright's use of the dogs to SEARCH for the fox in order to flush it out constituted illegal hunting. The court found that it did not.

This does NOT mean that Wright is excused from having to meet the conditions set down in the law to make flushing out a wild mammal with dogs exempt hunting. These conditions include the use of no more than two dogs.

If Wright had used three dogs to flush out the fox he would have been guilty under the act irrespective of the courts ruling on the legality of searching for a fox.
 
No one seriously thinks this should be illegal. Even Protect Our Wild Animals accept that what I do is harmless and the law is an anomaly.
Click to expand...

We acknowledge that there is an anomaly in the law because what you do does no harm and you do not wish to kill the deer so should not be required to.

We have publicly stated this.

However it is important that the offence of hunting does not require intent to kill on the part of the hunter. If it did then it would be extremely hard to prove guilt and hunts could simply change to flushing out foxes without intending to kill them.
 
I get you so you think I shouldn't be prosecuted because I don't intend to kill the deer?

Basically to be hunting requires intent to kill. But that would mean it would be hard to prove someone was hunting so you don't think the offense should require intent to kill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top