Question for endy

[Ereiam_jh]

Endy, you've got me really confused now. Regarding my walking my dogs round my land and scaring the deer out of the woodland you wrote:

"I believe deer need to be controlled. They need to go somewhere. If the population is high and they are scared to come on your land, they will be on someone elses land."

Do you mean that I shouldn't even scare deer? That seems a bit strong.

Regarding them 'needing to be controlled'. Surely that doesn't mean I have to? My neighbour isn't bothered by the deer so why shouldn't I scare them onto his land.

Isn't it part and parcel of being a wild deer that they can cross the boundary between people's land at will.

What sholuld I do to stop these deer wandering onto my neighbours land?

My only problem with them is that they stop my trees regenerating. If I walk my dogs round the wood then they go away. Problem solved as far as i am concerned.

What exactly do you have against what i do?

 

[wurzel]

Endy has taken a poorly earned break from answering real life questions !!!!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Yes it seems most un toward. I mean it's fair enough that I should have a right to kill the deer on my land but to be legally obliged to, and be told by a 'hunt sab' that I should is just ridiculous.

 

[endymion]

This is my stance on deer for the first and last time.

Deer, as prey animals, have always been subject to population control by predators. In this country it was wolves, bears and lynx. In the absence of these predators deer need to be controlled as, unlike foxes, there is no natural means by which they can control their own populations and they will quickly proliferate and may be prove a threat to regenerating forest or existing coppice (as you will be aware Giles, coppicing is a vital part of our woodland environment that is sadly practiced too seldom).

THEREFORE.......in many areas I think is in the best interests of animal and evironmental welfare to carry out responsible culling by shooting. This is necessary to keep a sustainable population that will not pressurise the environment, will not create welfare problems for the herd by comsuming to many resources and there-by creating food or space shortages and not force young (as is often the case esp with Roe) into dispersing into urban areas.

I do not support hunting with hounds as a means of pest control as I find it ineffective both in the small amount of deer which are taken (not enough to control a population) and in the method with which the control is carried out. Culling should be done as quickly and effectively as possible.

I do not support shooting for sport. I am dis-heartened to hear of deer problems in estates where the deer have been introduced for shooting interests and have subsequently increased in number (the Scottish Highlands have immense problems with regenerating pine forest for this reason).

Giles, I do not know your area and I do not know your deer numbers but if you have a high population of deer that are bothering you chasing them off your land with dogs is not addressing the problem.

I am not reffering to the hunt bill, this is my own opinion. I am not saying you HAVE to shoot the deer.

.....and Thomas, I will soon be going to Scotland for xmas with my family. I don't have a computer up there. If you're lucky I may pop into an internet cafe once or twice over the next few weeks but in general your gonna have to learn to live without me for a while.... :grin:

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Giles, I do not know your area and I do not know your deer numbers but if you have a high population of deer that are bothering you chasing them off your land with dogs is not addressing the problem. "

But with respect that is crap. The problem I have is that they destroy a small area of growing willow coppice. Regularly walkiing my dogs round it addresses the problem perfectly. The dogs chase any deer out of the coppice that are in there and discourage ohters from being there. If I walk my dogs round the coppice it keeps the deer out and I get firewood. If I don't then I don't get firewood.

Flushing out, chasing and driving away deer with dogs is a good way of keeping them out of a small area where they are causing damage. Much in the same way that a bird scarer protects crops. It's absurd that it should be illegal as the government insist.

The idea that I shouldn't do this because it makes them go somewhere else, which is what you said before is ridiculous.

You are quite simply wrong.

 

[endymion]

I said I wasnt addressing the hunting act.

I also said that I didnt know your situation BUT if you were having problems as the result of a high deer population then culling would be the best option.

If you dont have a high population and you are having problems with a small herd and you find scaring them with dogs works then I have no problem with that as long as the chase is not prolonged and stressful.

If you actually paid attention to any of what I have been saying you would see that I was under the assumption that your deer numbers were high.

I can't really be bothered getting into one of your silly, pedantic arguments today, I'm rather busy!

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So you disagree with the government that deer can only be intentionally flushed out to protect crops if they are then shot?

This part of the Hunting Act is wrong then or at least the Government and courts are wrong to interpret it like that, is that your position?

 

[endymion]

Giles I know what you want me to say. The fact is there are many parts of the hunting act that I would like to have amended and that particular part is down the bottom of the list. It is a small legal anomally. It is badly thought out and worded and if possible should be looked at.

In reality no-one will ever be prosecuted for not shooting a deer.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

A legal anomaly, does that mean it is wrong?

Do you think the Government are wasting your money arguing before the law lords that it is right and that they have a right to make me shoot deer in these circumstances?

Or do you think they should admit it is an 'anomally'?

They say it is exactly what parliament intended.

 

[endymion]

Do they? I haven't heard anyone give it that much notice apart from you.

Did you know:

It's against the law to catch fish with your bare hands in Kansas

In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school or place of worship

In Texas, it's illegal to milk another person's cow.

Do you think taxpayers time and money should be wasted ironing out strange laws and quirks within laws that no intelligent person with common sense would pay the slightest attention to in order to satisfy the demands of the self-serving few?

Giles you have latched to this because you see it as a way of dis-crediting the hunting bill as a whole. It's obvious for all to see and the reason why I avoid discussing it with you as much as possible.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

But precisely this anomally has been used to mount prosecutions under the hunting act.

Hardly some strange quirk.

The reason you try to avoid discussing it with me is that you don't want to accept that the flushing exemption is ridiculous and that it is fine for people to use more than two dogs to flush out and chase wild mammals without shooting them.

If you think the law is wrong then just break it. Who actually cares anyway?

Couldn't agree more.

 

[endymion]

Who has been prosecuted using this particular part of this act?

I believe that if a law is considered unjust then everyone has a right to break it as long as:

1. It is done without violence.
2. It is done openly.

This applies to many things in life, including the hunting act although hunting animals in order to break it is considered violent in my opinion. It also applies to laws which affect sabs, such as trespass.

If you are breaking the law by chasing deer but you are not harming them I would consider it to be an open, non-violent way of breaking the law and would support your right to do so.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Tony Wright was prosecuted for failing to take reasonable steps to shoot the fox that he had flushed out.

LACS prosecuted him for failing to provide (an I quote) 'a line or lines of guns' to make sure that all flushed out foxes were shot.

 

[endymion]

I believe the conviction was made on the basis that he intended to kill the fox. As such he failed to use the legal method of guns and instead chased the fox with a pack of hounds.

I can see your point of view concerning the chasing of deer with a small amount of collies. However, this is incomparable to the Wright case.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No it wasn't made on the basis that he intended to kill the fox.

There was no need at all to prove that he intended to kill the fox with dogs. It didn't even come up in the trial. No one asserted that he intended to use the dogs to kill the fox. You don't have to have intent to kill to be guilty of hunting.

If you did then people could chase wild mammals as much as they could and as far as they want with dogs, for sport.

I chased deer with four dogs , wright chased a fox with two dogs. He was prosecuted for failing to take reasonable steps to shoot them.

People should be prosecuted on the basis of cruelty not whether they complied with anomolous legal exemptions.

 

[endymion]

aye, right enough Giles.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I've always thought that uderneath it all we agreed.

I can chase deer foxes etc with as many dogs as I like much as I like.

As long as I'm not being cruel, you support my right to do so.

And who's to decide what is and isn't cruel?

Me of course.

Unless of course an organisation like LACS decides to attack someone who represents something it doesn't like. In that case it can use the law against him.

I'll choose which laws I obey and they will choose which ones to enforce.

Great.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Ooh another one on the NELS message board:

"So if the law requires non-injured deer to be killed, then Giles might have a point."

mmmm maybe I do...

http://pub32.bravenet.com/guestbook/2727728196