wurzel
Well-Known Member
Where in the act does it say that flushing out deer is illegal ?
Thread for last rebel
- Thread starter Hebegebe
- Start date
Where in the act does it say that flushing out deer is illegal ?
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Where on earth did you get that little gem!! David Cameron wasn't even an MP then - he had jumped out of the Conservative Research Department to various jobs helping Ministers with media appearances - researching questions likely to be asked, writing speeches etc. His degree (1st class) was in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, but he had NO role in the decisions leading up to Black Wednesday and it can't in ANY way be pinned on him - he wasn't an 'economics guru' and he had no decision making power!
And - looking back - even Normal Lamont was not responsible for Black Wednesday. Joining the ERM might have made political sense at the time but it wasn't Lamont's decision and he was pretty ambivalent about it. But it DID mean that we HAD to follow German interest rates, and Germany needed tighter monetary policy than Britain at the time. Major & Lamont's decision to leave the ERM when we did had short term pain but much longer term gain! And the recession surrounding Black Wednesday was nowhere NEAR the scale of the current one which is the worst in living memory.
But don't let facts get in the way, will you!
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I personally wouldn't vote tory or at least I doubt I would if that helps.
Generally I vote liberal
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"Where on earth did you get that little gem!!"
Answer:
"Treasury confirmed that David Cameron was appointed as a special adviser to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14 May 1992. He worked here until June 1993."
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/foi_cameron_recruitment_2005.htm
Black Wednesday took place on 16 September 1992, when Cameron was in place, using his expertise to advise the Chancellor.
But don't let facts get in the way, will you!
Maybe Black Wednesday was inevitable and wasn't ultimately Lamont's fault. But he certainly expedited the crisis. His conduct at the informal meeting of finance ministers at Bath in September 1992 was cantankerous and aggressive and the markets learned about this. The dealers basically didn't have faith in his declaration that there could be no "scintilla of doubt" in the Government's determination to keep parity with the Mark, took huge positions to that effect, and took billions of pounds of profit straight out of British taxpayers' hands as a result. George Soros alone landed £1bn. Cameron was the guy advising Lamont through all this, with his first in PPE from Oxford.
I like Lamont. He seems like a fun guy. I don't mind Cameron either. I wouldn't, however, like him to be at the helm in the present crisis because I think he's a light-weight bullshitter. He's a Tony Blair wannabe, without the latter's canny knack of persuasion. What I find ironic in all this is that Janet & co are so keen to see Cameron elected - obviously because he says he'll repeal the Hunting Act - when who was it who urged his party to rise to their feet to give our Tone, the author of the ban, a standing ovation at his last PMQs in the House?
Answer:
"Treasury confirmed that David Cameron was appointed as a special adviser to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 14 May 1992. He worked here until June 1993."
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/foi_cameron_recruitment_2005.htm
Black Wednesday took place on 16 September 1992, when Cameron was in place, using his expertise to advise the Chancellor.
But don't let facts get in the way, will you!
Maybe Black Wednesday was inevitable and wasn't ultimately Lamont's fault. But he certainly expedited the crisis. His conduct at the informal meeting of finance ministers at Bath in September 1992 was cantankerous and aggressive and the markets learned about this. The dealers basically didn't have faith in his declaration that there could be no "scintilla of doubt" in the Government's determination to keep parity with the Mark, took huge positions to that effect, and took billions of pounds of profit straight out of British taxpayers' hands as a result. George Soros alone landed £1bn. Cameron was the guy advising Lamont through all this, with his first in PPE from Oxford.
I like Lamont. He seems like a fun guy. I don't mind Cameron either. I wouldn't, however, like him to be at the helm in the present crisis because I think he's a light-weight bullshitter. He's a Tony Blair wannabe, without the latter's canny knack of persuasion. What I find ironic in all this is that Janet & co are so keen to see Cameron elected - obviously because he says he'll repeal the Hunting Act - when who was it who urged his party to rise to their feet to give our Tone, the author of the ban, a standing ovation at his last PMQs in the House?
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
are you saying that Cameron had responsibility for black wednesday?
I mean wouldn't that depend on what advice he gave?
I mean wouldn't that depend on what advice he gave?
JanetGeorge
Well-Known Member
Poor old zigzag obviously doesn't understand the role of special advisers (also known as Spads.) They are politically partisan appointments who are employed as temporary civil servants. Their role is primarily political/PR related - as they ARE partisan - unlike the various experts within the Civil Service who are expected to be totally politically neutral.
Their role has been beefed up a bit under this Government, but that's irrelevent to Cameron as a Spad. Hell - most of his time was spent writing speeches!
As it happens, I wouldn't have chosen David C. as Tory leader - although I like him and have a lot of respect for him. He's made mincemeat of Brown at the Despatch Box over and over again (hell, I think the only reason Brown brought Mandy back was to help the poor bloke cope!) And the only other GOOD candidates for the job were unlikely to unite the Party - a fairly critical part of the job and one which Brown has failed totally at!
You're not suggesting the ovation was a response to the ban, are you? That would be somewhat potty. Or are you suggesting that the ONLY noteworthy thing Blair did in 10 years was to ban hunting? I suspect history will show Blair to be rather more competent (and likeable) than Brown.
It's not so much that I want the Tories elected as that I want Labour out! This is undoubtedly the most incompetent, spendthrift, sleaze-ridden Government of the last 50 years (at least!!)
Their role has been beefed up a bit under this Government, but that's irrelevent to Cameron as a Spad. Hell - most of his time was spent writing speeches!
As it happens, I wouldn't have chosen David C. as Tory leader - although I like him and have a lot of respect for him. He's made mincemeat of Brown at the Despatch Box over and over again (hell, I think the only reason Brown brought Mandy back was to help the poor bloke cope!) And the only other GOOD candidates for the job were unlikely to unite the Party - a fairly critical part of the job and one which Brown has failed totally at!
You're not suggesting the ovation was a response to the ban, are you? That would be somewhat potty. Or are you suggesting that the ONLY noteworthy thing Blair did in 10 years was to ban hunting? I suspect history will show Blair to be rather more competent (and likeable) than Brown.
It's not so much that I want the Tories elected as that I want Labour out! This is undoubtedly the most incompetent, spendthrift, sleaze-ridden Government of the last 50 years (at least!!)
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I would certaibly agree with that sentiment janet as I think would a lot of people
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"Poor old zigzag obviously doesn't understand the role of special advisers (also known as Spads.) [...] Their role is primarily political/PR related. [...] Hell - most of his time was spent writing speeches!"
I'm sorry, but he was Lamont's special adviser during this monumental cock-up. Given that Lamont was Chancellor of the Exchequor and Cameron was advising him don't you think there's a chance that some of his advice at least was economic in nature? When Lamont announced to the press that the UK was leaving the ERM Cameron wasn't in a room scribbling away at a speech, he standing next to him. And can I remind you that when Lamont gave this announcement he'd spent billions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying and failing to prop up the pound, and interest rates were at 15%. The current rate is 0.5%.
Even in the highly unlikely event that Cameron's role was purely "political/PR related", do you think he did a good job? In political and PR terms was Black Wednesday a good or bad thing?
"You're not suggesting the ovation was a response to the ban, are you?"
No, I'm not. I think it the acknowledgement by a PR amateur of Blair's outstanding talent for PR and spin. My point was that the sight of tories applauding Blair must have stuck in the crawl of hunters, many of whom are as blinkered as their horses (cf Otis) and view Blair as the devil incarnate.
"As it happens, I wouldn't have chosen David C. as Tory leader - although I like him and have a lot of respect for him."
I like him too, and felt tremendous sympathy when his son died. I just think he has no substance. He's a politician in Blair's mould, but he hasn't got Blair's charm or gift for PR. More importantly I don't think he's competent. This off wikipedia:
"Senior Daily Telegraph journalist Jeff Randall [who worked with him] said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money" and that he "never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative", while Sun business editor Ian King described him as a "poisonous, slippery individual"."
I'm sorry, but he was Lamont's special adviser during this monumental cock-up. Given that Lamont was Chancellor of the Exchequor and Cameron was advising him don't you think there's a chance that some of his advice at least was economic in nature? When Lamont announced to the press that the UK was leaving the ERM Cameron wasn't in a room scribbling away at a speech, he standing next to him. And can I remind you that when Lamont gave this announcement he'd spent billions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying and failing to prop up the pound, and interest rates were at 15%. The current rate is 0.5%.
Even in the highly unlikely event that Cameron's role was purely "political/PR related", do you think he did a good job? In political and PR terms was Black Wednesday a good or bad thing?
"You're not suggesting the ovation was a response to the ban, are you?"
No, I'm not. I think it the acknowledgement by a PR amateur of Blair's outstanding talent for PR and spin. My point was that the sight of tories applauding Blair must have stuck in the crawl of hunters, many of whom are as blinkered as their horses (cf Otis) and view Blair as the devil incarnate.
"As it happens, I wouldn't have chosen David C. as Tory leader - although I like him and have a lot of respect for him."
I like him too, and felt tremendous sympathy when his son died. I just think he has no substance. He's a politician in Blair's mould, but he hasn't got Blair's charm or gift for PR. More importantly I don't think he's competent. This off wikipedia:
"Senior Daily Telegraph journalist Jeff Randall [who worked with him] said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money" and that he "never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative", while Sun business editor Ian King described him as a "poisonous, slippery individual"."
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
It mnight have been, it might not have been. I think you would have to know what the advice and if Lamont followed it to make any sensible judgement.
If he made lamont do something through is advice that caused black wednesday which he wouldn't otherwise have done then you might have a point.
Did he do this?
If he made lamont do something through is advice that caused black wednesday which he wouldn't otherwise have done then you might have a point.
Did he do this?
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I suspect not.
And I also suspect not as much as the collapse of all pending CPS cases against hunts and the impending lifting of the ban sticks in the crawl of you.
Hunts are bouyant and people are enjoying the slow painful death of the Hunting Act.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"And I also suspect not as much as the collapse of all pending CPS cases against hunts and the impending lifting of the ban sticks in the crawl of you."
Not in the slightest. I dislike hunting but disagree with the ban. I'd like to see animal welfare improved in the UK, not just for hunted animals but for farmed animals and pets.
Fanatics can be dangerous and scary, but they can also be the source of almost endless amusement. I laugh openly at the exploits of potty fanatics like yourself and Otis, not to mention the weirdos in the anti ranks.
Not in the slightest. I dislike hunting but disagree with the ban. I'd like to see animal welfare improved in the UK, not just for hunted animals but for farmed animals and pets.
Fanatics can be dangerous and scary, but they can also be the source of almost endless amusement. I laugh openly at the exploits of potty fanatics like yourself and Otis, not to mention the weirdos in the anti ranks.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Ah well our views are broadly similar then Zigzag.
I have long campai9gned for better welfare laws for wild animals.
Why does that make me a potty fanatic?
I have written many letters to newspapers calling for the bans replacement with a law against cruelty to wild animals.
If you want to campaign against a law you have to seek publicity about its shortcomings. There's nothing wrong with dong that.
I have long campai9gned for better welfare laws for wild animals.
Why does that make me a potty fanatic?
I have written many letters to newspapers calling for the bans replacement with a law against cruelty to wild animals.
If you want to campaign against a law you have to seek publicity about its shortcomings. There's nothing wrong with dong that.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
I argue with you here not to wind you up, but because I genuinely think you've misinterpreted the law on flushing, but let's agree to disagree.
I think you're a fanatic because of the extraordinary lengths you go to to publicise your obsession with flushing out. I think I'm right in saying you've tried turning yourself in at your local police station, and you've also contacted the LACS to warn them that you're going to try to flush out deer on their sanctuary on a specific time and date so they can video you. This would be slightly less strange if you were a committed hunter, but you're not.
I also think your insistence that Chernobyl was a "godsend" for the environment is potty.
Finally, I don't think you're entirely honest. You claim to want an animal welfare law, but when challenged directly about your views on activities such as hunting deer with hounds or digging out you clam up. Disingenuous.
Apart from that, I think you're a fine fellow and wish you well.
I think you're a fanatic because of the extraordinary lengths you go to to publicise your obsession with flushing out. I think I'm right in saying you've tried turning yourself in at your local police station, and you've also contacted the LACS to warn them that you're going to try to flush out deer on their sanctuary on a specific time and date so they can video you. This would be slightly less strange if you were a committed hunter, but you're not.
I also think your insistence that Chernobyl was a "godsend" for the environment is potty.
Finally, I don't think you're entirely honest. You claim to want an animal welfare law, but when challenged directly about your views on activities such as hunting deer with hounds or digging out you clam up. Disingenuous.
Apart from that, I think you're a fine fellow and wish you well.
the watcher
Well-Known Member
I suspect not.
And I also suspect not as much as the collapse of all pending CPS cases against hunts and the impending lifting of the ban sticks in the crawl of you.
Hunts are bouyant and people are enjoying the slow painful death of the Hunting Act.
It is CRAW
Blimey - if we are going to use animal examples let's at least get them right !
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
OH shut your gab
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
"I also think your insistence that Chernobyl was a "godsend" for the environment is potty."
Oh FFS all I was pointing out is that the ecology around chernobyl is now much richer because of the accident and people vacating the area. That's not controversial at all.
As for the flushing out thing I happen to be right that what I do should not be illegal. The antis and the government know this but in general cannot admit it. Apart from POWA who I note support me. I get a lot of support from senior people in the CA/middle way group who think it is v useful to getting the ban repealed. You may think I have misinterpreted the law bu neither the Government nor LACS nor the RSPCA do. Read the transcript of the case in the high court in which they all participated if you do not believe me..
The criminal law is an important issue and there is nothing wrong with me complaining because a harmless activity I undertake has been criminalised.
Yes I want an animal welfare law, I think all hunting with dogs can be cruel but isn't necessarily so. I don't particularly like digging out and don't allow it on my land.
Oh FFS all I was pointing out is that the ecology around chernobyl is now much richer because of the accident and people vacating the area. That's not controversial at all.
As for the flushing out thing I happen to be right that what I do should not be illegal. The antis and the government know this but in general cannot admit it. Apart from POWA who I note support me. I get a lot of support from senior people in the CA/middle way group who think it is v useful to getting the ban repealed. You may think I have misinterpreted the law bu neither the Government nor LACS nor the RSPCA do. Read the transcript of the case in the high court in which they all participated if you do not believe me..
The criminal law is an important issue and there is nothing wrong with me complaining because a harmless activity I undertake has been criminalised.
Yes I want an animal welfare law, I think all hunting with dogs can be cruel but isn't necessarily so. I don't particularly like digging out and don't allow it on my land.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I was wondering what a crawl was!
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
To be honest, Giles, I can't be arsed to read through transcripts of court cases. Besides what's discussed in court isn't legally binding, it's the judgment on particular points of law which is. You said that the CA's ludicrous and expensive court case established that your interpretation of the law was correct. This simply isn't true.
Let us - just for the sake of argument - assume that you ARE right, and that if you use your dogs to shoo away a pesky deer from your allotment or whatever you are obliged to shoot it. In practical terms, what difference has this "law" made to people like you who walk their dogs in the country? None at all. How many dog-walkers like you have been charged under the Act? None. How many deer have been shot because a pooch out for a walk with its owner scared it away from a copse? None. Why get so worked up over nothing?
If you really are concerned about animal welfare why not object to the grisly practice of hunting deer with hounds, a "sport" which people like Janet are desperate to see reinstated to its pre-ban glory?
Let us - just for the sake of argument - assume that you ARE right, and that if you use your dogs to shoo away a pesky deer from your allotment or whatever you are obliged to shoot it. In practical terms, what difference has this "law" made to people like you who walk their dogs in the country? None at all. How many dog-walkers like you have been charged under the Act? None. How many deer have been shot because a pooch out for a walk with its owner scared it away from a copse? None. Why get so worked up over nothing?
If you really are concerned about animal welfare why not object to the grisly practice of hunting deer with hounds, a "sport" which people like Janet are desperate to see reinstated to its pre-ban glory?
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I use them to flush deer out Zigzag. It is so funny that you cannot bring your self to use that term
Yes I accept that I can break the law openly because the police won't stop me. But that is a very bad argument for a very bad law.
Accidental flushing out by people out for a walk with their dogs is not illegal.
To say that it doesn't matter making stupid laws because they won';t be enforced is ridiculous.
What we need is good, liberal, enforceable legislation.
Politics is largely about what legislation gets passed. I can't see why you object to me engaging in politics.
Can I ask you a question?
If my interpretation is correct do you believe it should be illegal for me to deliberately flush deer out from my woodland?
Yes I accept that I can break the law openly because the police won't stop me. But that is a very bad argument for a very bad law.
Accidental flushing out by people out for a walk with their dogs is not illegal.
To say that it doesn't matter making stupid laws because they won';t be enforced is ridiculous.
What we need is good, liberal, enforceable legislation.
Politics is largely about what legislation gets passed. I can't see why you object to me engaging in politics.
Can I ask you a question?
If my interpretation is correct do you believe it should be illegal for me to deliberately flush deer out from my woodland?
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
"If my interpretation is correct do you believe it should be illegal for me to deliberately flush deer out from my woodland?"
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
You aren't contravening the Hunting Act if you're not hunting.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
You aren't contravening the Hunting Act if you're not hunting.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
So you won;t answer my question then.
the Government insist that flushing out is exempt hunting if the conditions are met.
I think that is because that is what the law says.
If that interpretaion is correct, do you agree with the law?
I can't see why you refuse to answer such a simple question. You've already said you don't support the law.
the Government insist that flushing out is exempt hunting if the conditions are met.
I think that is because that is what the law says.
If that interpretaion is correct, do you agree with the law?
I can't see why you refuse to answer such a simple question. You've already said you don't support the law.
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
Giles, I'm honestly chuckling as I type this. Please don't take this personally but you're bonkers. This may be of interest to you from The Daily Telegraph:
___________________
A farmer has been told by the Government that he will not be breaking the new law that bans hunting if he uses his dogs to "chase away" wild mammals from his land. [...]
Giles Bradshaw, who farms near South Molton, Devon, wrote to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying he used his four collies to frighten but not kill foxes and deer that came on to his land.
He had been using this non-lethal form of pest control for six years to get rid of deer which would otherwise eat the branches of the coppice on his 100-acre farm.
On inquiring if this use of dogs would be illegal, he was told by officials at Defra that the Hunting Act made it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it was "exempt hunting", which permits the flushing of a mammal to guns with a maximum of two dogs.
Mr Bradshaw complained to Defra that this put him in the ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle, which he did not wish to do, and to shoot any animal that was "flushed" by dogs.
Defra officials told Mr Bradshaw that, according to their lawyer, his actions amounted to "chasing away unwanted animals (deer and foxes) from your land".
They told him: "You are not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore you are not committing an offence."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478667/You-cant-hunt.-.-.-but-you-can-chase.html
___________________
A farmer has been told by the Government that he will not be breaking the new law that bans hunting if he uses his dogs to "chase away" wild mammals from his land. [...]
Giles Bradshaw, who farms near South Molton, Devon, wrote to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs saying he used his four collies to frighten but not kill foxes and deer that came on to his land.
He had been using this non-lethal form of pest control for six years to get rid of deer which would otherwise eat the branches of the coppice on his 100-acre farm.
On inquiring if this use of dogs would be illegal, he was told by officials at Defra that the Hunting Act made it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it was "exempt hunting", which permits the flushing of a mammal to guns with a maximum of two dogs.
Mr Bradshaw complained to Defra that this put him in the ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle, which he did not wish to do, and to shoot any animal that was "flushed" by dogs.
Defra officials told Mr Bradshaw that, according to their lawyer, his actions amounted to "chasing away unwanted animals (deer and foxes) from your land".
They told him: "You are not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore you are not committing an offence."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478667/You-cant-hunt.-.-.-but-you-can-chase.html
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Yeah that was what they said at first, then they decided that chasing away was breaking the law.
Keep up!
Keep up!
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Is hunting different from chasing away?
The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to chase wild mammals, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. 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. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/hunting_qa_a.htm
The Act deliberately does not define hunting with dogs because the term should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes using dogs to chase wild mammals, or pursue them with the intention of catching or killing them. 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. This may include the wilful failure to prevent dogs from chasing wild mammals.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/hunting_qa_a.htm
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
"Hunting law is clear
THERE'S no loophole that will let riders pursue foxes (Mail).
Deliberately chasing away a wild mammal with any number of dogs will be illegal from February 18. "
THERE'S no loophole that will let riders pursue foxes (Mail).
Deliberately chasing away a wild mammal with any number of dogs will be illegal from February 18. "
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
5. Chasing Away
Initially, DEFRA has stated that a landowner who uses his four dogs to frighten foxes and deer off his land would be committing an offence under the Hunting Act. These animals attack his livestock and damage his woodland and he has been undertaking this effective, but non-lethal, form of pest control for the past six years. However, the Act makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it is exempt hunting (which permits the flushing to guns of an animal by 2 dogs only). This obliged the landowner to use only two of his four dogs at any one time. It also put him in the ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle and to shoot any animal flushed by his dogs.
Faced with the landowners complaint about this ridiculous situation, a DEFRA lawyer then advised that he was merely chasing away unwanted animals from his land and that this was not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore, this was not an offence.
Following numerous media reports on this apparently enormous loophole in the Act, DEFRA officials have changed theirs minds yet again. Despite the landowner clearly stating in numerous e-mails and telephone conversations that his four dogs chase away the foxes and deer, DEFRA have written to him saying that they were under the impression that there was no chase involve and that dogs were only barking at the wild mammals. The landowner is naturally exasperated at this latest view and disputes that DEFRA did not know that his dogs were involved in a chase.
By any normal use of the word chase, one would understand this to mean a pursuit of some kind (dictionary definitions: pursue, run after, hunt, hound, follow, trail, track, look for, search for, go after, go in pursuit of).
http://tinyurl.com/cyyhs3
Initially, DEFRA has stated that a landowner who uses his four dogs to frighten foxes and deer off his land would be committing an offence under the Hunting Act. These animals attack his livestock and damage his woodland and he has been undertaking this effective, but non-lethal, form of pest control for the past six years. However, the Act makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it is exempt hunting (which permits the flushing to guns of an animal by 2 dogs only). This obliged the landowner to use only two of his four dogs at any one time. It also put him in the ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle and to shoot any animal flushed by his dogs.
Faced with the landowners complaint about this ridiculous situation, a DEFRA lawyer then advised that he was merely chasing away unwanted animals from his land and that this was not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore, this was not an offence.
Following numerous media reports on this apparently enormous loophole in the Act, DEFRA officials have changed theirs minds yet again. Despite the landowner clearly stating in numerous e-mails and telephone conversations that his four dogs chase away the foxes and deer, DEFRA have written to him saying that they were under the impression that there was no chase involve and that dogs were only barking at the wild mammals. The landowner is naturally exasperated at this latest view and disputes that DEFRA did not know that his dogs were involved in a chase.
By any normal use of the word chase, one would understand this to mean a pursuit of some kind (dictionary definitions: pursue, run after, hunt, hound, follow, trail, track, look for, search for, go after, go in pursuit of).
http://tinyurl.com/cyyhs3
zigzagzig
Well-Known Member
1. You said earlier in this thread that "Whatever defra say is not especially relevant". Why is it suddenly relevant to you now? Either it is or it isn't relevant.
2. I think we can both agree that DEFRA's guidelines are unclear. In the same link that you provide, they advise:
"Hunting should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes chasing wild mammals, or pursuing them with the intention of catching or killing them."
3. In any case, you're not chasing the deer or foxes. You're using your dogs to frighten foxes and deer off your land.
4. In any case x 2, I agree wholeheartedly with DEFRA when they say:
"It is ultimately for the courts to define what constitutes hunting -whether illegal or exempted under the Act- in the light of cases brought before them."
5. Once again, for the umpteenth time, let me repeat: in my humble opinion a judge would decide that shooing deer away from your copse would not constitute hunting. Therefore you have not contravened the Hunting Act 2004.
2. I think we can both agree that DEFRA's guidelines are unclear. In the same link that you provide, they advise:
"Hunting should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes chasing wild mammals, or pursuing them with the intention of catching or killing them."
3. In any case, you're not chasing the deer or foxes. You're using your dogs to frighten foxes and deer off your land.
4. In any case x 2, I agree wholeheartedly with DEFRA when they say:
"It is ultimately for the courts to define what constitutes hunting -whether illegal or exempted under the Act- in the light of cases brought before them."
5. Once again, for the umpteenth time, let me repeat: in my humble opinion a judge would decide that shooing deer away from your copse would not constitute hunting. Therefore you have not contravened the Hunting Act 2004.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
Well you clearly feel that it is relevant and you keep either misquoting them or quoting out of date advice to try and back up your case. Which is tendentious to say the least.
I am merely correcting your misinterpretation and misinformation.
One thing is clear that in many respects the law is unclear as defra insisted that hunting should be understood in the ordinary english sense of the word. That has been shown to be nonsense as it is not illegal to search for wild mammals.
Secondly they said the law was enforceable which it clearly isn't as the CPS have termed it 'virtually enenforeable' and it is they that decide wether to prosecute.
I am merely correcting your misinterpretation and misinformation.
One thing is clear that in many respects the law is unclear as defra insisted that hunting should be understood in the ordinary english sense of the word. That has been shown to be nonsense as it is not illegal to search for wild mammals.
Secondly they said the law was enforceable which it clearly isn't as the CPS have termed it 'virtually enenforeable' and it is they that decide wether to prosecute.
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
"3. In any case, you're not chasing the deer or foxes. You're using your dogs to frighten foxes and deer off your land."
No the dogs flush the deer out then they chase them away. I've always made that clear.
According to you it is legal for dogs to be used to chase deer lol
No the dogs flush the deer out then they chase them away. I've always made that clear.
According to you it is legal for dogs to be used to chase deer lol
Hebegebe
Well-Known Member
I don;t shoo the deer, I flush them out and give chase to them
according to you hunts can still chase deer away so that's all fine