Thread for last rebel

[lastrebel]

well we still dont know what you do, your quite cagey.

I suppose I get some pleasure from what I do, at the time I feel nervous, and sometimes guilty or even scared.
however afterwards I feel quite good about it.
I feel though I'm justified in my actions as I have stopped someone hunting even if only for a short while.

 

[Hebegebe]

well we still dont know what you do, your quite cagey.

Not trying to be. I flush out deer with my dogs and thyen don;t shoot them. There's not much else to it really.

I take the dogs into my woods, if we ncome across a deer then we flush it out.

No big shakes.,

I have to admit I do enjoy the bit where I don't kill it, even though it is illegal.

 

[endymion]

Giles?!

 

[Hebegebe]

hello sweetie!

 

[peakpark]

well we still dont know what you do, your quite cagey.

I suppose I get some pleasure from what I do, at the time I feel nervous, and sometimes guilty or even scared.
however afterwards I feel quite good about it.
I feel though I'm justified in my actions as I have stopped someone hunting even if only for a short while.

Why do you feel guilty?

 

[zigzagzig]

"He flushes deer out of woodland - with dogs - to encourage them to disperse. He SHOULD - by law - shoot all the deer he disperses in this way! In hebegebe's opinion - and mine - and I would hope yours - it would be immoral to shoot 20+ deer dead JUST to comply with a stupid law - when dispersing them prevents them doing too much damage in one area."

WRONG AGAIN!

The nice people at DEFRA have explained that the word 'hunting' "has its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them for the purpose of catching or killing them". Simply flushing deer out of woodland is therefore not hunting and consequently the Hunting Act 2004 does not apply.

If, in the example you gave, you shot "20+ deer dead", you wouldn't be complying with a "stupid law", you would be stupidly misapplying a law which does not in fact exist.

knife blunt drawer...

 

[Hebegebe]

Why does the law say it is illegal to flush out deer unless only two dogs are used and the deer are then shot?

 

[Hebegebe]

Are you seriously suggesting that when defra wrote to me saying I had to shoot the deer if I flushed them out they were just lying?

and when they asserted this was the law in the human rights case which went up to the house of lords they were lying too?

Surely not?

 

[Hebegebe]

Of course lets not forget thet the nice people of defra were wrong about that as merely hunting for deer is NOT illegal as has been shown by the Tony Wright appeal.

However flushing out deer has been shown to be illegal in the courts unless guns are emplyed to shoot them all.

This is what Defra ACTUALLY say about flushing out:


"Stalking and flushing out

Up to 2 dogs may be used to stalk or flush out a wild mammal if:

* the stalking or flushing out is carried out for one of the following purposes:
o preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause to livestock; to birds or other property; or to the biological diversity of an area;
+ participation in a field trial in which dogs are assessed for their likely usefulness in connection with shooting;
* the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground (unless the requirements of the ‘gamekeepers’ exemption’ are complied with); and
* reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person.
"

 

[lastrebel]

hebegebe

just out of interest what are your thoughts on hunting deer with dogs, from what you have implied you would not agree with it.
but if the law was repealed............

 

[Hebegebe]

Stag hunting? As in flushing out deer which are later shot?

I am against having to shoot the deer I flush out but not against other people doing it.

Personally I think that hunting can be cruel but is not necessarily cruel but then again all sorts of other things can be cruel too.

The best approach would be to update our cruelty laws to prohibit deliberate cruelty to wild animals howsoever caused.

However to police such a law effectively you would need additional resources and also buy in from the sections of the community that engage in activities which fall under the legislation.

That is a sensible and rational basis for the regulation of human activity.

What we have is an unworkable divisive piece of legislation which has no support or buy in from the section of the community that it effects and which is policed by a bunch of obsessive hate filled political activists.

It's a recipe for disaster.

 

[lastrebel]

I cant argue with that.
except the last bit of course, is a bit harsh.

 

[zigzagzig]

For good or bad, the Act does not define "hunting" or "flushing out". It is therefore up to the police and ultimately the courts to define these terms.

Here's what I think would happen in the highly unlikely event that someone was prosecuted for using his dog to shoo away a deer from a copse etc. without subsequently shooting that deer.

The court would ask itself whether this constituted hunting
under the Hunting Act 2004. In my opinion, this clearly isn't hunting, especially given DEFRA's guideline that "the word 'hunting' has its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING OR KILLING THEM" (my emphasis). At this point the judge would throw the case out. In doing so he might point out that in any event the flushing out in the case clearly wasn't the type of flushing out contemplated in the Act since it does not involve hunting.

This would establish a precedent making it clear that the "flush and go" scenario is not proscribed by the Act, and the disappointed wannabe victim would have to find another legal peg on which to hang his particularly bizarre and pointless brand of fanaticism.

 

[Hebegebe]

But that is simply not true. It is illegal to chase foxes with dogs. The law makes not mention whatsoever of catching or killing the foxes. Whatever defra say is not especially relevant.

In actual fact Defra's position is that chasing away wild mammals to disperse them IS illegal.

If the law is as you say it would be the most enormous loophole in the law because hunts could simply convert to chasing wild mammals for sport and could do it as much as they like as long as they had no intention of killing them.

Are you seriously suggesting this is the case?

And why if what you say is true have defra argued in court right up to the House of Lords that my specific activity is illegal unless I shoot the deer?

 

[Hebegebe]

It's fascinating how you misquote defra to say that it is only hunting when there is intention to kill when in fact they say:


"The deliberate use of dogs to chase a wild mammal, even if there is NO INTENTION of catching it, is hunting and as such is prohibited by the Act."

(my caps)

 

[Hebegebe]

Furthermore the defra statement makes no sense. The ordinary English meaning of 'hunt' includes searching however the courts have confirmed that searching is NOT illegal so hunting is NOT to be understood in its ordinary English meaning.

Pretty much everything you come out with is bolloks.

 

[zigzagzig]

"If the law is as you say it would be the most enormous loophole in the law because hunts could simply convert to chasing wild mammals for sport and could do it as much as they like as long as they had no intention of killing them.

Are you seriously suggesting this is the case?"

No, what I'm suggesting is that it is highly unlikely that a judge would decide that shooing a deer away from trees in your garden with a dog constitutes hunting. Therefore the Hunting Act 2004 cannot be invoked. We live in a complicated world, so when you encounter something as painfully simple as this I strongly advise you to embrace it passionately.

 

[Hebegebe]

Not trees in my garden.

So are you saying that the law does not say it is illegal to flush deer out of cover unless it is to protect growing crops timber etc no more than two dogs are used and reasonable steps are taken to shoot he deer?

Can I flush out deer just for fun with more than two dogs and not shoot them then?

 

[zigzagzig]

What I am saying is this: Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt. Since you are not hunting if you use your dog to shoo away a deer, you don't have to worry about "exempt hunting". The Act simply does not apply.

 

[Hebegebe]

So you are saying that it doesn't say that flushing out is exempt hunting?

How can all those judges have been wrong then?

 

[Hebegebe]

So let me get this absolutely right.

The hunts CAN flush nut and chase deer after all?

 

[Hebegebe]

What is the definition of hunting then?

 

[Hebegebe]

and why does the law say flushing out is exempt hunting if it isn't even hunting?

That is plain weird! And why does the Government and LACS etc insist it is?

 

[zigzagzig]

"and why does the law say flushing out is exempt hunting if it isn't even hunting?"

Your question contains a misconception. Not all flushing out is hunting. It would be up to a judge to determine whether it was or not and, if it did, whether it fell within the "exempt hunting" part of the Act.

In the scenario so beloved of yourself, where you are shooing away a deer from a copse using a dog, this in my opinion isn't hunting and therefore we don't have to worry about the exemptions contained in the Act.

By contrast, if a registered fox hunt, which has the self-professed aim of killing foxes, decides to flush out a fox from a copse or wherever, this in my opinion would indeed constitute hunting and the hunt may have to show in court that it had complied with the provisions of the Act.

 

[Hebegebe]

Right so the hunbts can take entire packs of hounds into woods, flush out and chase deer and that's l;egal then?

why does it say that only two dogs can be used if they can use an entire pack?

 

[Hebegebe]

Just to get this absolutely clear what you are saying is I can flush and chase deer out of a wood with as many dogs as I like for fun?

 

[zigzagzig]

At the risk of boring our audience, I'll repeat: it would be up to a judge or I suppose magistrate to determine whether you were hunting. Shooing away a deer with your dog in my opinion isn't hunting and therefore cannot contravene the Hunting Act.

 

[Hebegebe]

Butn they already HAVE ruled that what I do is illegal hunting unless I use only two dogs and shoot the deer.

I really don't get you!

 

[Hebegebe]

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

Yes or no?

 

[zigzagzig]

"So it is legal to flush out and chase deer with more than two dogs?

Yes or no?"

The answer is: it would depend. If you're using a dog to scare away a deer from your trees, I very much doubt whether a judge would consider that hunting. If, on the other hand, a hunt in Devon flushed out a deer and gave chase, in my view a judge would be more likely to consider that hunting.