Question for ZigZag

[Hebegebe]

Now that you have acknowledged that in your opinion it is legal for people to take dogs out, deliberately flush out wild animals with them and then use the dogs to chase the wild animals do you think the Hunting Act is a well thought out and effective piece of legislation?

 

[zigzagzig]

For the umpteenth time...

1. Whether an activity contravenes the Hunting Act depends on the circumstances.

2. If the Quorn used two hounds to flush out a fox and then tried to shoot it, I think a judge would consider this to be "hunting" and would therefore examine whether the hunt had complied with the legislation.

3. In your situation, where you use a dog or dogs to scare away a deer from your copse, I don't think a judge would consider this to be hunting and therefore the Act would not apply.

4. Even you don't consider this to be hunting, though you claim that others do, amongst whom Defra, whose opinion, you say, is "not relevant" anyway.

 

[Hebegebe]

"If the Quorn used two hounds to flush out a fox and then tried to shoot it"

So if the Quorn flushed out a deer with more than two dogs and then just chased it would it be legal or illegal?

ps glad to see you voted no lol

doesn't say much for our political system does it after 700 hours they come up with this crap

 

[zigzagzig]

I haven't, alas, voted, Giles.

You're all over the place with your increasingly manic questions, but I'll try to answer them patiently.

So we've established that what you do isn't hunting.

If the Quorn used more than two dogs to flush out a fox that would contravene the Hunting Act.

Like you, I disagree with the present legislation.

 

[Bunce]

This is getting completely ridiculous. The Hunting Act is clear and well thought out legislation.

It makes it illegal to deliberately chase wild mammals with dogs for whatever reason.

zigzagzig is clearly a pro hunt troll.

 

[Hebegebe]

so what you are saying is that if the Quorn used more than two dogs to flush out and chase away a deer then it would be illegal; whereas if someone else does the same thing it would be legal?

Where does it say that?

And if it isn't hunting to flush out and chase deer then why would it be illegal for the quorn to do it?

 

[Bunce]

It is illegal for anybody to flush out a deer with more than two dogs.

There is not doubt about that. The law is perfectly clear and enforceable.

 

[zigzagzig]

Each case depends on the circumstances, Giles.

In the case of the Quorn, a high-profile hunt, I think it would be easy to establish that their staff were hunting for the purposes of the Act. Besides, hunts aren't trying to hide the fact that they're hunting foxes, they just want to persuade people that they're doing so within the law.

In your case, I don't consider what you do to be hunting and therefore the Act doesn't apply.

I don't really see how I can make this any clearer for you.

 

[Hebegebe]

So under what circumstances is it legal to deliberately flush out and chase deer with more than two dogs?

Surely there must be some difference. If we both do it in the same manner and for the same reason then how do the circumstances differ.

I am genuinely interested.

You see the law says its illegal so I am trying to get my head round it.

 

[combat_claire]

2. If the Quorn used two hounds to flush out a fox and then tried to shoot it, I think a judge would consider this to be "hunting" and would therefore examine whether the hunt had complied with the legislation.

Why?? Two hounds are the maximum you can use for flushing activity, thus if they used two they would be within the law. Have you actually read the Hunting Act??

 

[Hebegebe]

No Zigzag says you can use more than two dogs to flush out deer.

 

[combat_claire]

This is getting completely ridiculous. The Hunting Act is clear and well thought out legislation.

It makes it illegal to deliberately chase wild mammals with dogs for whatever reason.

You are utterly priceless, that is the best laugh I have had this week.

Clear and well thought out legislation, have you actually read the wording of the Act??

You don't even have to buy a copy, it is available free of charge from the OPSI website. If you are too lazy to do so, here are some of the salient points which completely debunk your assertion that it is clear and well thought out:

'The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds' - so why are game birds so deserving of protection that livestock are not entitled to.

'The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.' - who picked this arbitrary figure - either flushing out with dogs causes trauma or it doesn't. Plucking a figure out of the air is a ridiculous way to form legislation.

'The hunting of rats is exempt' & 'The hunting of rabbits is exempt' - what have they done to be singled out so specifically as not deserving the protection offered to hares, foxes etc

'The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt' - so it is okay to shoot it first and wound it, then I can hunt it with beagles

'Flushing a wild mammal from cover is exempt hunting if undertaken for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal' - whoops someone realised that the falconers would get a bit grouchy.

These are just a few of the points picked out of Schedule One, which show just how ridiculous your statement is. 700 hours and this confused and bungled piece of legislation is all they have to show for it. It most definitely doesn't state that chasing of wild mammals is illegal in every case, as you so confidently assert.

 

[Hebegebe]

Ah according to ZagZig it also says:

'The sixth condition is it depends on who is doing the flushing out. If it is the Quorn then it is illegal. If it is anyone else then none of the above conditions apply and they can flush out the animal and chase it as much as they like.'

I think the ink ran out and that one got missed off the bottom

 

[combat_claire]

Maybe that part is in the Guidance Notes...I've only got the Act itself...

 

[wurzel]

It is illegal for anybody to flush out a deer with more than two dogs.

There is not doubt about that. The law is perfectly clear and enforceable.

Any idea why it is not enforced?

 

[Bunce]

It is well known that the police in the Westcountry are avidly pro hunt and that they are allowing people to continue chasing deer.

 

[combat_claire]

Perhaps they are fed up with people calling 999 following the anti-hunting advertising campaign which encouraged them to call the emergency number every time they saw members of a hunt engaged in legal activity.

 

[wurzel]

It is well known that the police in the Westcountry are avidly pro hunt and that they are allowing people to continue chasing deer.

Well that is good news at least !!

Got any evidence though?

 

[Smartpony]

Clear and well thought out legislation.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

That's what happens when townies try to make a countryside law!