Thread for last rebel

[zigzagzig]

Well I think we're reaching some sort of understanding. Yes, the law is unclear and, in the context of your particular area of obsession, will remain so until a judge determines whether Parliament did indeed intend to criminalise people who shoo away foxes from their flower beds using their pet chihuahua.

If you think the law is "virtually unenforceable" all the less reason to worry about it. It isn't as if the plod is going to leap out of the bushes and collar you whenever you get the urge to scare away a deer.

The only cloud on the horizon now is your continuing assertion that enormous nuclear accidents are beneficial to the environment. Now if you could rid yourself of that silly notion - and I trust most people reading this would consider your view a little bit silly - then we could sit happily together, perhaps with a pint of Tribute, basking in the warm glow of our unison.

 

[Hebegebe]

Not really my attittude.

I think having virtually unenforceable - (CPS words not mine) laws is very damaging to society. Especially where they are intended to resolve areas of great conflict which this one clearly hasn't.

Do you think that chernobyl has significantly harmed the wildlife around the site? If you went there you would see that it is flourishing.

'The environment' is a slightly different concept. I suspect an oil spillage does more damage to wildlife than chernobyl did.

Take a look here - it's a good site http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html
and

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

Other people say otherwise they might be right too. I only pitched it into the forum to get a discussion going

 

[zigzagzig]

There's easily enough evidence on the web to make one at least hesitate before declaring the Chernobyl disaster a "godsend" for the environment, or wildlife, or ecology etc... For example:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/18/2519385.htm

Would you eat a wild boar which had been romping in the area? I think even Asterix would think twice.

As for your point about unenforceable laws, what could be more unenforceable than a law which actually doesn't exist? There's no law against shooing deer away from your buds, so quit worrying.

 

[Hebegebe]

Why do you keep going on about shooing?

Can you not bring yourself to use the words 'flushing out' LOL!!!!

"Would you eat a wild boar which had been romping in the area?" - kind of my point really.

 

[Hebegebe]

But why do Defra say flushing out and chasing away are illegal?

LOL!!!

 

[JanetGeorge]

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?

You're being rather presumptuous! I am DESPERATE to sell some horses, I am DESPERATE to get my paperwork up-to-date and I am DESPERATE to finish my field work.

I would like to see proper stag hunting resumed because I firmly believe it is in the best interests of the deer herds on Exmoor (I didn't ALWAYS feel that way about it until I went down to Exmoor and LEARNED about it first hand.)

And 'grisly'? In several days of following the staghounds I didn't see anything 'grisly' unless you call a stag being shot at point blank range grisly!

 

[Hebegebe]

When I went out with the staghounds they flushed out a stag and shot it nas soon as possible. I thought that is what they were meant to be doing

 

[Scratchline]

I am busy decorating ( bloody hate it!), and sadly dont have the time to join this debate although it is interesting )

One thing does keep catching my eye each time I flick through these threads and you have provided a perfect example in your post..........."I think having virtually unenforceable - (CPS words not mine) laws is very damaging to society."

Many who are against this law use the CPS's lack of prosecutions as an example of this law being unworkable. IMO that is extemely naive. The CPS are a joke, a laughing stock and the reason many, many thousands of obviously guilty people are still walking freely amongst us all having carried out any number of different crimes! The CPS are the reason so many victims of crime are left distraught at no action being taken in there cases and even more worrying the reason so many do not report minor crimes in the first place.

Nothing gets done! The police waste thousands of hours investigating crime only to find that the fecking CPS will not go to court if there is the slightest chance of a not guilty verdict.

The police are fed up. The public are fed up and I honestly believe that some on here who use the CPS as a stck to beat antis with are desperate to prove some point whilst ignoring the reality of the CPS's roll in the lawlessness of this country!

Right. Back to the paint brush. Hope all is well with you hegegebe

 

[zigzagzig]

"When I went out with the staghounds they flushed out a stag and shot it nas soon as possible. I thought that is what they were meant to be doing "

But Janet wants to return to the good old days when the stag was only shot after being chased for three hours, and met its death in front of a pack of baying hounds.

 

[zigzagzig]

"And 'grisly'? In several days of following the staghounds I didn't see anything 'grisly' unless you call a stag being shot at point blank range grisly!"

Yes, I would call it grisly. It's not my idea of fun, but perhaps you don't like drinking in pubs, so horses for courses.

By the way, how's CAN doing? Still going strong, or has it gone the way of the Hounds site?

 

[Hebegebe]

well they have to shoot it as soon as possible. Generally that involves getting it to stand still

 

[zigzagzig]

Why not stalk it and shoot it, like the vast majority of deer were culled in hunting areas pre-ban?

 

[Hebegebe]

Why not stalk it and shoot it, like the vast majority of deer were culled in hunting areas pre-ban?

I have no idea. The law allows them to flush it out then they have to shoot it as soon as reasonably possible. Not only that they have to take steps shoot all the deer that get flushed not just one.

It's basically stag hunting but with two dogs. What a great law!

 

[zigzagzig]

As I said on another thread, it's ultimately the responsibility of the hunter if and how he kills an animal.

People who want to kill deer in Devon and Somerset have a choice: they can carry on hunting the deer with hounds as far as they can under the Hunting Act (or not, when no one's looking), or they can stalk the deer and shoot it, without a chase. It's their choice.

Let's stop blaming everything on the state and take personal responsibility for what we do. Giles, you like to use your dogs for worrying deer and you do it - you're quite open about this - because you think it's fun. Well, that's your choice and on your conscience. But, quite how you can then go on about establishing an animal welfare law is beyond me. I suppose anyone who considers a massive nuclear accident a "godsend" has suspect judgement.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Yes, I would call it grisly. It's not my idea of fun, but perhaps you don't like drinking in pubs, so horses for courses.

Shooting a stag is not fun - it's not MEANT to be. But it IS an essential part of good deer management. The stags that are hunted are selected for culling - but shooting a wily old stag is not THAT easy. You can stalk a stag for several hours in the Highlands before getting into a position where you can take a good shot. But on Exmoor, you have horse riders and walkers who tend to pop up in the wrong places at the wrong time - making stalking much more difficult - particularly if you want to take out a particular stag - rather than just shoot ANY stag! Hunting a stag to a point where it will stand at bay and can be cleanly shot can take anything from 30 minutes upwards - because the stag chooses where to stand at bay (he is preparing for a fight - he hasn't stopped because he's exhausted!!) Often a stag will head for water and stand girth deep in it - because this gives him a tremendous advantage over 'wolves' (in evolutionary terms, all dogs are wolves to a deer!)

Of course the stag thinks he's picked a place to get rid of the wolves - where he has the upper hand in a fight - but he doesn't know a marksman is going to end it before it begins.

By the way, how's CAN doing? Still going strong, or has it gone the way of the Hounds site?

Kind of you to ask. CAN is ticking along quietly - there's not a lot to DO at present and there's not much point running around half-cocked picking a fight over nothing. (Unlike the sabs, we'd rather conserve our energy until there is something to make a song and dance about!)

One of these days I will resurrect Hounds (I still own the domain name.) At the time, I just didn't HAVE the time to keep it updated (still don't!) I have a very successful equestrian site which was demanding more and more time - and there are only so many hours in the night (days are fully occupied looking after more than 50 horses!)

 

[zigzagzig]

"Kind of you to ask. CAN is ticking along quietly - there's not a lot to DO at present and there's not much point running around half-cocked picking a fight over nothing."

Oh I quite agree. It's should be full-cocked or nothing.

 

[Hebegebe]

but i don 't consider a massive nuclear accident a godsend

are you thick or something?

 

[Hebegebe]

TBH the actual worrying of the deer is a very small part of the overall fun. I accept that once the deer become aware of us they will run away. I do like to see the deer, they are beautiful animals and I love having them on the farm.

I also enjoy looking for them and being out with my dogs in the woods and the fields.

I really don't understand what you have against what I do.

 

[zigzagzig]

"but i don 't consider a massive nuclear accident a godsend

are you thick or something? "

______________


No, you are. You've already admitted you said this in this thread, where you said:

"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."

Well, yes it IS controversial. I think your insistence that a major nuclear accident was a godsend is a good example of your weird blinkered fanaticism. The fact that the CA are happy to appear on the same side as you in the House of Lords makes it even weirder. No wonder they lost.

 

[zigzagzig]

"TBH the actual worrying of the deer is a very small part of the overall fun."
___________________

Oh that's OK then. Earlier in this thread you boasted:

"So do you think it is legal to flush out and chase deer with more than for dogs FOR FUN [my caps] or not?There's lots of deer on exmoor I think I might head up there."

The victims of your fanaticism in this instance are the deer. Why not just leave them alone? They're not harming you or your property.

 

[Hebegebe]

They can do considerable damage to my property actually. They prevent my coppice from regenerating which has a negative effect on it and also on it's productivity.

I am very keen to allow the deer into the coppice because they slow down the regeneration and also maintain pathways through it and prevent it becoming inpenetrable.

Slowing down regeneration is very good because it allows time for the lifecycle of woodland butterflies.

However inhibiting regeneration is not a good thing.

I have written to the Government's deer agency about it and they recomend I get them shot.

I use a method which is far kinder and does not hurt the deer.

I happen to enjoy the fact that I don't kill the deer. I like seeing them afterwards healthy and happy grazing on my property and the surrounding countryside.

Why do you object to me doing that? What is wrong with me enjoying the management of my property in a manner which doesn't harm the wildlife.

I really do not get you ZagZig!

 

[Hebegebe]

I have to admit I have flushed deer on Exmoor when out with my dogs. When I come across a large herd we generally make them move away. I enjoy tracking them and catching up with them later where upon they move away again.

I can't see what is so wrong with that. Deer are scared of people and dogs and they run off when they approach.

Dressing that up as some sort of cruelty is just ridiculous.

We've also flushed out hares, pheasants, partridges and even grouse!

 

[zigzagzig]

Do you own the land on which you deliberately worry deer for fun with your dogs in Exmoor?

If the deer are causing such damage on your land why not set off a small nuclear device and reap the ecological harvest of this "godsend"?

 

[Hebegebe]

No I don't own any of exmoor lol

I have to say I'm unkeen on a large scale nuclear accident occurring on my farm. One can take concern for wildlife a little too far don;t you think?

The only benefit that such an accident would have to the deer would be removing all the people so they don';t get shot but that benefit is rather cancelled out as I don't shoot any anyway.

Do you not approve of my deer related activities on exmoor Zaggy Zigger?

 

[zigzagzig]

I think deliberately scaring animals for fun - animals which are doing no harm to you or your property - is cruel.

I think sabs who scare hounds and horses are cruel, and I think people who worry deer in Exmoor for fun are cruel.

What on earth is the CA playing at embracing a fanatic like you?

 

[Hebegebe]

I don;'t deliberately scare them for fun. It goes like this.

I take my dogs out on Exmoor.

We come across a herd of deer, they notice us and run away.

We continue in their direction and an hour or so later hopefully come across them again.

Just because I enjoy seeing deer and tracking them and in the course of that process they get scared of us does not mean I enjoy scaring them for fun.

If they weren't scared of me it would be even more fun because I could walk up to them and stroke them. However this probably wouldn't be in their interests. Also I might get a bit scared, especially of the ones with big antlers

I'm afraid Zag Zig in nature animals like deer are scared of people and dogs. If you go out in nature you have to accept that you will scare animals. That's just normal.

Walk through any wood and you will scare a few animals.

It's not cruel.

Take a look at this one http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/gallery/files/8/2/9/6/RedDeerRut180a.jpg
he's beautiful.

How could it not be fun coming across such an animal when out with the dogs?

I don't get you!

 

[Hebegebe]

"I think deliberately scaring animals for fun - animals which are doing no harm to you or your property - is cruel."

What do you think about deliberately flushing out deer in order to reduce damage to woodland as an alternative to shooting them as recommended by the Government's deer agency.

Do you think that is cruel?

 

[zigzagzig]

Do you "flush out chase deer for fun" on Exmoor or not?

 

[Hebegebe]

Flush them out sometimes yeah.

Then pursue them with the dogs but only at my own pace on foot. I wouldn't just let the dogs bugger off. Normally takes an hour or so to catch up with them again if we manage them. It's great tracking deer with dogs for miles across beautiful countryside. A lovely day out for all concerned.

I can control my dogs to move animals around. They do much the same with cattle and sheep. That's not cruel either.

One of the problems with the flushing out thing is of course that until you have flushed them out they are hiding and once you have flushed them out its too late, the job is done

People flush out animals all the time with dogs. If it was cruel then this would be a major animal welfare issue. However it isn't cruel so it isn't.

Come out sometime I am sure you would enjoy it.

 

[combat_claire]

Deer are scared of people and dogs and they run off when they approach.

I don't currently own a dog, but I do go walking when on holiday. I was recently down in the New Forest and it is a fact of life that walking through woodland causes deer to up sticks and bolt from the woods across the common. I don't think they were particularly traumatised by this encounter, I was pleased to see the fallow and I don't see what I was doing as cruel.

Hebegebe also goes for walks and disturbs deer, but I don't think this has a huge negative impact, which appears to be thriving.

Are you suggesting that people should abandon walking in these places so the deer are not disturbed in any way, shape or form....