Question for LACS

As the Act is drafted the notion of what is and what isn't "hunting" is left open. It isn't defined. I repeat: if you manage to find yourself in front of a judge I doubt whether he'll interpret what you're doing as "hunting". This is one of the roles of a court: to interpret the law and make judgments. A court recently decided that Tony Wright was a criminal.
 
There are a number of exemptions to hunting with hounds in the Act. However, you only have to worry about these once the Act has been "activated", and this happens when someone hunts with hounds. If you're not hunting with hounds, then you don't have to worry about the exemptions. I have now said this several times. Please don't make me repeat it.
 
So then, to summarise:

A man on horseback using two hounds to flush a non exempt quarry species towards guns is a criminal.

A bloke on foot who uses 4 dogs and fully intends to flush a non exempt quarry species towards no guns is not.

Is that what you are saying?

What a well considered piece of legislation!
 
I will say this once more and then must leave you for a while. Clear your mind of everything else and just ask yourself this: is X "hunting with dogs"? If X is walking along and his dogs sniff a deer and start barking, I very much doubt whether that is hunting. You therefore don't have to worry about flushing and exemptions and all of this detritus.
 
But AA sets out on his walk to deliberately use his 4 dog sto flush deer from his woods. That is not exempt hunting.

Why are the authorities not doing something to stop this flagrant breach of the law?
 
Flushing is an exempt form of hunting as defined in Schedule 1 of the hunting Act providing that set criteria are met.

Why no prosecution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top