Who are the real countryside terrorists?

[Ereiam_jh]

The League Against Cruel Sports, an organisation supposedly dedicated to animal rights regularly cull the deer on their sancturies by shooting them. There indeed have been past allegations that they do this illegally by driving vehicles at them from which they then shoot them.

I am convinced that my method of deer control is far better than that employed by LACS. I simply flush them out and chase them away using dogs. Unlike LACS I have never felt the need to kill a single deer. Every year I also invite the hunt onto my land in the knowledge that a full pack of hunting hounds will do a far better job of dispersing the deer than I can acheive with my collies.

Why cannot LACS adopt my welfare freindly methods? The sanctuaries manager keeps a fine hunting hound. Why can he not just wander round his sanctuary with his dog off the lead? The hound would know exactly what to do when it came across a deer.

Even better why don't LACS invite the hunt onto their land? Their over crowding problems could easily be solved without any deer having to suffer.

No doubt this year shots will again be ringing out over the LACS sanctuaries as they slaughter the deer they claim to be protecting. These deer have to die in part because of their absurd obsession with chasing deer with dogs.

I, in the meantime will continue my now illegal practice of chasing the deer away with my dogs. Unlike LACS I have never killed a single deer.

How ironic that I am made a criminal by the law that they are so desperate to enforce.

Photographs taken of me by LACS staff are now appearing on extremist websites with the cross hairs from a telescopic sight super immposed. The websites label me 'Hunt Scum' and a 'countryside terrorist'. Why are LACS so keen to denigrate someone who, unlike them refuses to kill kill wild animals on his land?

 

[AlanE]

Concisely put, AA...but you're preaching to the converted here! We all know that a stance against hunting with hounds, such as that adopted by LACS and other extremist organizations, funded by the wealth of the more 'moderate' supposedly-welfare, groups, is a ridiculous perversion. There is no justification for their argument, and it can only be supported by people who are natural hypocrits who continue to delude themselves.

 

[endymion]

If you are chasing mammals but not killing them then you are not breaking the law. The act states very cleary that a person must be 'hunting' wild mammals with dogs which implies intention to kill or maim.


If you are simply using dogs to scare deer away and (as you claim) this is a succesful means of protection from the damage they do then you have actually shown stag hunting to be unneccessary.

Personally I feel there is a need to control deer and I support shooting by a skilled marksman with the presence of a couple of hounds to track any injured escapees!

 

[Peta]

"Photographs taken of me by LACS staff are now appearing on extremist websites with the cross hairs from a telescopic sight super immposed."

I´m genuinely surprised and sickened by this, to be honest. I´m not your greatest fan but this is a vile thing to do.

 

[endymion]

Yeah but you know he likes it really. Martyr to his cause, he really is

 

[Ereiam_jh]

This is the whole argument that I have been having with defra Endymion and thank you for your support.

Of course the Hunts should still be allowed to chase wild mammals for sport. Maybe you are right and they can still legally do so. What a turn up for the books that would be.

Unfortunately Defra's view is that the word hunt should be understood in the ordinary English sense which obviously includes 'chase' and even 'search'.

Ludicrously Defra also claim that the law defines even flushing out and stalking is hunting. I think this is on the preposterous grounds that it says that flushing out and stalking are exempt hunting. What a monstrous approach to the law, thinking that the words that it is written in have any effect on it's meaning.

The government even rely on the partial defineition in the Act of hunting meaning to pursue.

So far up to the court of appeal the courts have backed the position of the Government, LACS and the RSPCA that the law bans the flushing out and chasing of wild mammals with dogs.

In fact the Government have gone so far as to claim in court that simply dispersing deer with dogs is also hunting.

The judge in the Tony wright case has also defined flushing out as not even needing a chase.

I'm glad you support my position Endymion. I hope you wish me luck.

Let's hope we can get back to the state of affairs where packs of dogs can be legally used to chase wild mammals as soon as possible.

 

[Peta]

True, but it´s still a sick thing to do. He´s a plonker but a harmless one.

 

[endymion]

I dont want to get bogged down by terminology....but.....surely if you wanted to scare deer off your land there would be no need for stalking?

...and I dont think it's acceptable to chase deer with packs of dogs for sport. Any prolonged chase causes distress and often injury.

I support the right of a man to use his dogs (no more than a couple mind) to chase deer away from new wood/plant growth areas if the chase is short and direct. That is, he is not deliberatly prolonging the chase for his own amusement.

The rub lies in the fact that I wouldn't trust any of your lot as far as I could throw them. And thats trying to throw the whole hunt, horses, riders and hounds not just a single man!

 

[Hercules]

''The act states very cleary that a person must be 'hunting' wild mammals with dogs which implies intention to kill or maim.''

Wrong. The killing of the animal is not a crime, the intention to chase the animal is.

 

[endymion]

Yeah, its not to my taste really but he does like to antagonise as many people as poss.

If I had my piccy up on the net as an "anti hall of fame' I'd go ballistic. I know many people have my face on camera as I go out in the field a lot but putting it on the net is out of order.

 

[endymion]

The killing is a crime and so is chasing with intent. Pulling a fox out a hole and throwing to the hounds is just as illegal as chasing it with intent to kill.

 

[Peta]

What a dummy!

 

[Hercules]

Killing the animal is not a crime, that's why you have to use guns after the flush. Hounds accidentally killing a fox is not a crime. The intent to chase/hunt is the crime. Hunt/chase does not necessarily mean to kill.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I use four dogs to flush deer out from my woodland, niot two.

I then chase them.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

The picture was taken by Paul Tilsley the LACS sanctuaries manager.

 

[Hercules]

A-A,

At least you can be proud that you do not hide yourself behind a balaclava, unlike the LACS weirdoes and cowards.

 

[severnmiles]

Illegal it may be but is it inhumane?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Illegal it may be but is it inhumane?

That, IMO, is the rub.

 

[endymion]

Killing with GUNS is not a crime. Intentionally killing with hounds is.

 

[endymion]

Well as long as its not a pack its ok is I suppose.

Again it would depend on how long you chased them for and if it was really neccessary.

 

[endymion]

I dont blame him for taking yer picture. God knows if u'd harrased me as much I'd want to know what you looked like, hehe!

Its the peeps that put it on the net that are to blame and i dont think thats anything to do with LACS, although one could question how they got your picture.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Again it would depend on how long you chased them for and if it was really neccessary. "

But it DOESN'T depend on any of those things. You're postulating about what WOULD be a reasonable law.

The law we have is the Hunting Act and it makes ALL chasing of wild mammals with dogs illegal and ALL flushing out of wild mammals (without shooting them) illegal.

I don't agree with the law so I will not obey it. I'll carry on openly chasing deer with my four dogs where ever, whenever, for however long and for whatever reason I choose to.

There is NOTHING any one can do to stop me breaking the Hunting Act because it is a thoroughly bad and absurd law.

 

[endymion]

I'm not postulating about anything, I was merely giving my own personal opinion.

As far as the bill is concerned I for one think it's very clear cut and the pathetic attempts by you and others like you to try and make a mockery of it by, lets face it, blatantly lying are hilarious.

AA you DO intentionally kill wild mammals with dogs and all this stuff about liking to chase them a wee bit without hurting them is a load of B-S. Of course I dont know and cant prove it but I'd bet a lot of money on me being right here. If I had a lot of money that is.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No I don't kill wild mammals with dogs.

I own four collies. I'm not sure what I could kill with them and how. I don't own a gun so quite how I could be killing deer I don't know. I wouldn't be able to catch a hare with them and I wouldn't particularily want to confront them with a fox. When they chase my cats if the cats turn and face them they back off.

It's a shame that you have to start insulting me. Why do all the antis on this site feel the need to do that?

I've still gone out with a local hunt now and again but only as a moinitor and not since last year.

 

[endymion]

I didnt insult you darling, wouldnt hear of it!

I was insulting what I percieve to be intenional bending of the truth on your part.

If you're not killing animals then I have no problem with you. But it begs the question on why you want the law changed to aid those that do want to kill animals with dogs.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

So you acknowledge that what I do, or at least what I claim to do should be legal.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I take an accusation of lying as an insult.

Mind you you've got a lot further than many antis on this site.

At least you've listened to and accepted the validity of a lot of what I am saying, others just keep referring to me as various body parts.

 

[Hercules]

Killing with GUNS is not a crime. Intentionally killing with hounds is.

Unless more than 2 dogs are used to flush.

Intentionally chasing the fox with hounds is the crime. The kill is not. The fox can be chased and escape, yet a crime has been committed. The fox can be killed without a chase and no crime has been committed.

I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the Hunting Act. Once you have, I bet that you will be really pleased that the law which you and your type campaigned for is so clear and sensible!!

Still hunting, still laughing. How about you?

 

[leanne123]

city folk

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"surely if you wanted to scare deer off your land there would be no need for stalking?"

I'll give you that one.

I stalk them for fun.