Reginald

[antihunt]

I strongly suspect that you are either a pro masquerading as an anti or an anti who is having seconds thoughts about the Hunting Act.

You've claimed several times that flushing deer out of woods by using dogs to chase them is not illegal as it is merely 'scaring away'. You've also claimed that this is the advise of the Government.

Can you point to where the Government has given this advise.

The Hunting Act states that flushing out is illegal. Chasing deer with dogs is also illegal. If it had to be proved that people intended to kill the deer that they were chasing it would make the offense almost impossible to prosecute and would also mean that people could still legally use dogs to flush out and chase deer.

Why are you attemptoing to water down the law to make it inneffective?

 

[antihunt]

I can only assume that you have not read the appendix to the act which makes it quite clear that flushing out is hunting and is illegal.


1 (1) Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of—
(a) preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause—
(i) to livestock,
(ii) to game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)),
(iii) to food for livestock,
(iv) to crops (including vegetables and fruit),
(v) to growing timber,
(vi) to fisheries,
(vii) to other property, or
(viii) to the biological diversity of an area (within the meaning of the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992),
(b) obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption, or
(c) participation in a field trial.

(3) In subparagraph (2)(c) “field trial” means a competition (other than a hare coursing event within the meaning of section 5) in which dogs—
(a) flush animals out of cover or retrieve animals that have been shot (or both), and
(b) are assessed as to their likely usefulness in connection with shooting.

(4) The second condition is that the stalking or flushing out takes place on land—
(a) which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out, or
(b) which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs.

(5) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.

(6) The fourth condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 2 below.

(7) The fifth condition is that—
(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person, and
(b) in particular, each dog used in the stalking or flushing out is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (a).

 

[Reginald]

I suspect you're an ok guy, but with a particular obsession. I've addressed this point many times now. Try to relax over Christmas and leave this to one side for a while. I wish you and your fellow pros everything good for 2008.

 

[JessDoesItBetter]

Ok "anti hunt" are you a pro or an anti? Your cirtainly very odd...

 

[antiantianti]

I suspect you're an ok guy, but with a particular obsession. I've addressed this point many times now. Try to relax over Christmas and leave this to one side for a while. I wish you and your fellow pros everything good for 2008.

Flushing out wild deer is illegal unless the deer are then shot.

Thre are some antis who are against this aspect of the Hunting Act which is why Reginald refuses to accept that flushing out deer is against the law. He is basically embarrassed abiut the Hunting Act which is why he lies about advice given by the Government.

Generally killing animals is wrong. The only exeption to this is when a herd of deer is flushed out of a wood by a dog. In this instance a line of armed men should be present to gun them down.

It's the law and it should be obeyed and enforced. The police have a duty to enforcve the law and people have a duty to obey it.

It is an absolute disgrace that people are being allowed to openly flout the law just because they and the police think it is ridiculous.

 

[antiantianti]

Ok "anti hunt" are you a pro or an anti? Your cirtainly very odd...

Do you support the Hunting Act?

 

[antihunt]

Reginald.

In the event of someone flushing out a deer with a dog do you agree that it should be shot?

 

[Reginald]

On 18th December under your guise as "Bob" you said:

"Anyhow I thought Giles didn't hunt. Isn't that the whole point?Why are you referring to him as a hunter?"

On this occasion, at least, you were correct. As you've endlessly stated, you're simply using your dogs to scare away the deer.

Now let's look at the Crown Prosecution Service's guide to the Hunting Act 2004:

"Hunting is an intentional activity and there can be no such thing as unintentional hunting."

You say you're not hunting, you are indeed not hunting, therefore the Hunting Act 2004 does not apply.

 

[antihunt]

Giles doesn't go fox or stag hunting.

The Hunting Act 2004 makes it illegal for someone to deliberatly flush out a wild mammal with a dog unless various strict conditions are met.

Giles deliberately flushes out deer with dogs and his actions do not meet the following conditions specified by the law:

(5) The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.


(7) The fifth condition is that—
(a) reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person

 

[antiantianti]

"As you've endlessly stated, you're simply using your dogs to scare away the deer. "

Giles endlessly states that he uses four dogs to search for, flush out and chase deer.

Your claim that flushing out is not hunting is nonsense.

The Government advise that flushing out is huniting and the Hunting Acxt states that for the purposes of the act it is hunting albeit in certain circumstances exempt.

The Government argued in court with specific reference to Giles' activities that what he does is illegal. This is because he uses more than two dogs to flush out the deer which he then refuses to kill.

 

[Reginald]

Your initial story was that you used your dogs to scare away deer from your property because they were harming the treess etc. This isn't illegal because you're not hunting.

You now seem to be saying that you intentionally set your dogs on deer not in order to scare them away but just so the dogs can chase them. Why do you do this? Why worry the deer in this way? If you're not trying to scare the deer away and they're doing no harm why don't you just leave them alone?

 

[antiantianti]

Flushing out deer with dogs is illegal. Deer are flushed out of cover because the dogs scare them.

 

[antiantianti]

My understanding is that he chases the deer with dogs for the following reasons

. in order to get them away from his woods
. for fun
. because he thinks that chasing them with his collies is less cruel than shooting them

 

[Reginald]

Why do you deliberately get your dogs to chase deer, not just to scare them away from your property?

 

[antiantianti]

Chasing deer with dogs does scare them away from his property.

When a deer runs away from a dog it does so because it is scared.

Rreginald could yo add your voice in support of the hunting act to the poll above this thread. You do support this law don't you?

 

[antihunt]

"Your initial story was that you used your dogs to scare away deer from your property because they were harming the treess etc. This isn't illegal because you're not hunting."

Reginald. Flushing out is the process whereby an animal is forced out of cover by being scared. Flushing out with a dog is the use of a dog to scare an animal out of cover and into the open.

The law states that it is illegal to flush an animal out of cover unless it is to be shot or pecked apart by a bird.

Do you support the law?

You could indicate that you do by voting yes in the poll above.

 

[Reginald]

If you're just scaring the deer away, as I've said many times, you're not breaking the law.

 

[antihunt]

Why does the law say that flushing out is against the law if it isn't?

I'm not a legal expert but I'd have thought that if the law says that something is illegal then it is. Surely the whole legal system would break down if what laws say is illegal isn't.