Complete confusion over hunting law
JOHN Phelps, who from his many letters appears to be some kind of expert on the law surrounding hunting, has recently declared that the Hunting Act does not in fact ban hunting with hounds, but merely hunting with dogs for sport, Misunderstanding of Hunting Act, Letters, November 2.
If he is right, hunts around the country will be jubilant because they would still be able to offer a pest control service to farmers using packs of dogs.
The problem is that I have read many opinions held in good faith about what the hunting act bans. My MP, Nick Harvey, says it only bans killing and chasing would be legal. The League Against Cruel Sports says flushing is legal but chasing is illegal. The Countryside Alliance says both are illegal unless exempt, and the Government admits it does not know.
In the light of such a level of confusion over a badly drafted law. I feel no compunction at continuing to set my three dogs after wild deer on my land. It's good wildlife management and great sport, and no-one can say for sure if chasing wild mammals with dogs is illegal or not.
Giles Bradshaw
North Devon







Comments
by Lynsey, Copplestone
Thursday, November 04 2010, 8:11PM
“I completely agree with you Giles. The law is dreadful. It contains more loopholes than one of my granny's jumpers. Such little clarity gives rise to cases falling down all the time, and considering Tony Blair's wife is a Barrister it seemingly was purposely drafted ths way.
It needs to be completely ovehauled so the perverted few who get their kicks out of the suffering of others can be brought to justice.
How many other laws contain "lack of intention" as a get out clause? "I didn't mean it your honour". "Ok, case dismissed."”