Question for LACS

[Ereiam_jh]

In a post below you btrand my suggestion for a law that would give equal protection to ALL animals against cruelty as lunatic.

Could you explain why you are so opposed to such legislation?

 

[LACS]

I'm not going to take any lessons from a person who doesn't consider this cruel:

http://home.btclick.com/lacs1/video_mpeg/clip7.MPG

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So you actually oppose a law against cruelty to animals.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think LACS silence speaks volumes. He is completely against a comprehensive law against cruelty. No doubt he supports the anti hunting MPs who voted against such a law.

 

[LACS]

No, I'm not "completely against a comprehensive law against cruelty", but I'd be very wary of supporting any such law which has your support, since you approve of activities like staghunting which are clearly cruel.

Now I've answered your question, answer mine: do you think what is happening to the stag in the video clip I link to above is cruel or not?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

If hounds are to be used to hunt stags I don't think they should bring down the stag so yes I don't think they should be allowed to do that. It's causing unnescessary siffering.

Do you think I am being cruel when I allow my dogs to flush out deer? They don't attack the stag. They arte collies.

 

[LACS]

"Cruel" would be too strong a word. I think you're being obsessive and not really contributing much to the hunting debate. There's also the issue of handling your dogs in a responsible manner, especially in sheep country. Perhaps you should swap them for cats or a pet pig.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I always keep my dogs under sufficient control. I have sheep and cattle. They are sheep dogs.

So you accept that flushing out deer is not of itsel cruel.

Do you think what I do should be illegal?

Do you think the deer I flush out would benefit from being shot? LACS says a line or line of guns should be employed to shoot flushed out animals. How many guns would you like me to use? Currently I use none.

What about when I go out with my dogs and search for wild mammals to observe them. Do you think that is cruel? Do you think it should be illegal?

 

[LACS]

I have a funny feeling you've asked these questions before. But never let it be said that I've failed to answer a question...

I think flushing out deer, if done just for the hell of it, is irresponsible. I suppose it could be cruel depending on the circumstances but probably isn't in your case.

Why do you think what you do falls within the Hunting Act 2004? Talk me through it.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I flush out deer from my woodland with four dogs in order to stop them causing damage to the growing trees which I coppice.

I generally stop the dogs from chasing the deer. As you'll no doubt know the judge in the wright case made it clear that flushing out is distinct from chasing) . Obviously my dogs do sometimnes chase deer but they are only collies and the deer always escape.

From what I understand of the law I can flush out with up to two dogs to protect crops. However I must then shoot the deer as soon as possible.

 

[LACS]

I don't think you need to worry. The Act does not define "hunting with dogs". DEFRA says the term should be understood "in its ordinary English meaning". If you were taken to court I suspect the judge would decide that you're not hunting and therefore there's no need to look at the exemptions. Instead he'd probably make you go on a dog-handling course to make you a more responsible owner.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So what you're saying is that flushing out wild mammals with as many dogs as I like is still legal?

Is flushing out not within the ordinary english meaning of hunting.

It's funny because defra insist iI AM breaking the law.

 

[Hercules]

LACS,

The Act defines very little. By purposefully allowing his dogs to flush deer from cover and by not shooting them as soon as possible, A-A is clearly breaking the law as it stands.

What is it that you do not understand about that?

2 dogs OK if you shoot the quarry, 3 dogs bad. Another victory for common sense.

If it was rabbits, however he would be operating legally. But not mice, but rats, but not squirrels.... Utter madness.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

It seems quite clear to me that if I can carry on flushing out deer with four dogs then so can the hunt, indeed with the whole pack. Or should the law not apply equally to nveryone.

I really don't want to have to shoot the deer. It would be such a bother.

It's nothing to do with the dogs being out of control. How on eart would I NOT flush the deer out.

 

[LACS]

The Hunting Act doesn't apply: you're not hunting with dogs "in its ordinary English meaning".

 

[Hercules]

LACS,

Please explain. What does ''in its ordinary English form?'' actually mean. Does it apply to Welshmen?

 

[LACS]

It means, I suppose, that the courts should use common sense when deciding whether someone has been hunting. Yes, it applies to Welshmen.

 

[Hercules]

It means, I suppose, that the courts should use common sense when deciding whether someone has been hunting. Yes, it applies to Welshmen.

So you don't really know then!! Common sense is not applicable when dealing with Courts of Law. They deal with facts, definitions and clearly defined rules and regulations (Laws).

According to the Hunting Act, A-A is breaking the Law by allowing his dogs to flush deer and then refusing to shoot them.

Why don't they arrest him? Probably because they can't be arsed. Not because it is A-A, but because no-one in a position to influence a prosecution really cares about doing so.

 

[LACS]

You don't know how courts work then. Judges routinely interpret laws. Not everything is defined - and even if something is, that definition is open to interpretation.

The Hunting Act 2004 doesn't apply to what Giles is doing, although the relevant dog-handling legislation may.

 

[Hercules]

''The Hunting Act 2004 doesn't apply to what Giles is doing, although the relevant dog-handling legislation may. ''

Aside from the fact that A-A is using 4 dogs not 2 (in itself a crime)not riding a horse, not wearing a redcoat, not blowing a horn and point blank refusing to shoot the quarry species which he is flushing, how do his actions differ to those of Mr Tony Wright?

A-As dogs are under control, they are just doing as he tells them - to flush out a quarry species - on his own land, therefore in breach of no Dog Ownership legislation.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

According to Defra the 'ordinary English Meaning' of the word hunt includes searching for deer and dispersal. They also say that flushing out with more than two dogs is illegal.

I search for, flush out and disperse deer with dogs.

The Act explicitly defines flushing out as hunting.

Tricky LACS, you're wriggling on a pin because you know the law is absurd.

If I can flush out deer then Tony Wright can flush out foxes.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Could you explain what is missing from my activity to make it NOT hunting.

Is it the intention to catch and kill?

 

[LACS]

"how do his actions differ to those of Mr Tony Wright?"

Tony was hunting.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What is good to know is that you completely agree with me. What I do shouldn't be against the Hunting Act. It shouldn't be illegal to flush out wild mammals.

Searching for, Flushing out and dispersing wild mammals with dogs isn't hunting. It also isn't cruel.

The law is wrong to define flushing out as hunting.

If Defra and the courts are right that these things are illega, and it has been accepted that they are in the human rights case. Then the law is unjustified in making them illegal.

You agree with all this don't you LACS?

 

[Hercules]

"how do his actions differ to those of Mr Tony Wright?"

Tony was hunting.

How does flushing and hunting differ? Where does it state that the end result of 'hunting' is the death of the quarry.

 

[LACS]

"If a dog runs off after a squirrel in the park, the person accompanying the dog would not be guilty of unlawful hunting."

You're not hunting, Giles. All of your stunts have been for nothing.

If you want to become a hunting martyr, perhaps you should join the saddos with far too much time on their hands who hang out in Connaught Square trying to hunt squirrels.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Thanks LACS so I can let my dogs hunt wild deer.

You say that you always answer questions.

What is lacking in my activities to stop them being hunting?

Is searching hunting?

Is flushing hunting?

Is dispersing hunting?

The government say all these things are hunting.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"If a dog runs off after a squirrel in the park, the person accompanying the dog would not be guilty of unlawful hunting."

Don't I have to stop my dogs chasing wild mammals then?

 

[Hercules]

"If a dog runs off after a squirrel in the park, the person accompanying the dog would not be guilty of unlawful hunting."

Unless you direct your dog/dogs to chase those squirrels. If you did, you would be demonstrating intent and therefore breaking the law.

This is what A-A is doing. Why is that not classed as law breaking and how does it differ from Mr Tony Wright's case?

You continue to squirm and fail to provide solid answers to a set of simple questions. You must work harder, if you know the meaning of the word.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I do indeed deliberately flush out deer wioth my four dogs.