“I can't believe you all take this nerd seriously. The man is quite clearly an idiot and loves publicity.”

“Go for it Giles it is perfectly legal!”

“one more thuing - what defra think is irrelevant - what is important is what the police and the rspca think and if they have no objection which it very much appears they won;t then there will be nothing to stop the hunts carrying on.”

“Rich we do plan to adhere to the hunting act however the question is what the Hunting Act is which unfortunately no one knows because it is such a monstrously bad law.

Contrary to what you say Defra have in fact claimed that it is illegal to use more than two dogs to flush deer out of cover. However they now admit that they don;t know.

The RSPCA say it is unlikely to be illegal.

If no one objects to this it will clearly be possible for hunts to flush wild mammals from cover with the entire pack.

This is a good thing because it is far more welfare friendly than gunning the entire herd down as the judge in the Quantock Staghounds case ruled the hunt had to attempt to do to comply with the absurd exemption.

From what I understand the hunt are rather excited about this new form of legal welfare friendly hunting.

Ps I am aware UFD is just a group of which you are a member.”

“I see that Giles Bradshaw has copied part of a discussion I was having on a FaceBook page and posted it here almost as if it were a response to his letter on this page. My comment makes up almost the entirety of his post ... save for his erroneous disclaimer at the top, you'd almost have thought I'd sent it in myself!

Now I really don't want to get involved in anything of a long running exchange here ... I know how these things, particularly on such a contentious issue as blood sports, have a tendency to run on and on!

However I just wanted to make a few things clear. Firstly, I am just an individual with a FaceBook account, I'm not a spokesperson for 'Urban fox Defenders' which actually is not an organisation, it is simply a FaceBook group which I comment on as I do many others on all sorts of issues.

Regarding Giles bradshaw's 'flushing' activities, I think it's clear from my copied post that as I understand it, DEFRA do not consider this to be hunting, particularly as Bradshaw has made it clear himself, and in his own words, that his methods are 'non-lethal' and as he says, he does not kill deer or foxes. Certainly the police who Bradshaw has provocatively contacted many times inviting them to prosecute him, have shown no interest in him, they clearly hold the same view as DEFRA and do not consider his activities in 'flushing' deer out of his coppices as hunting.

It would appear that Giles Bradshaw having failed to provoke any reaction to his personal 'non-lethal flushing' now intends to 'raise the stakes' by inviting at some stage his local hunt and pack of stag hounds to 'allegedly' continue with the same 'flushing' activities. This is his 'threat' and he's now asking for people to either object or not object. Now personally, I would do neither, as it's not my place to comment on such things. This too is where Bradshaw makes his erroneous claim, as I can tell you that the FaceBook group 'Urban Fox Defenders' have most certainly not offered any advice on this and are not 'urging people not to object' as Bradshaw puts it. In fact most people on the FaceBook group won't know anything about this letter and don't even know who Giles Bradshaw is!

For what it's worth though, I'll offer my own personal opinion. Contrary to his 'flushing' activities over the last few years Bradshaw now wants to invite, actually employ, a professional hunt to come onto his land complete with trained hunting dogs ... (staghounds to be precise) to apparently 'flush' deer from his coppices. It's not for me to ultimately judge these things, but to me this sounds like a pretty provocative attempt at challenging the exempt rule on hunting. My own impression is that employing a hunt rather than using your own dogs shows an implicit intent to hunt. It is the 'intent' that is key here; an intent to hunt would mean that the Hunting Act would come into play, therefore Bradshaw's hired 'hunt' would be required to adhere to the Hunting Act. So I really can't accept that DEFRA would consider Bradshaw's hired hunt as a 'non-lethal' form of merely 'flushing' deer from his coppices. That though is for DEFRA to make a decision upon!

That's all I'm going to say on the matter!”

“Giles is right that it is not illegal for the hunt to flush deer out of cover if they do not then intend to pursue kill or otherwise hunt the deer.

If the dogs are merely used to chase the deer away from an area where they are causing problems then the Hunting Act does not apply.

For this reason the RSPCA, UFD etc will not object.”

“Ah right I see so do you think that the hunt using the pack to flush deer out of cover will be illegal or not?”

“"From what I can tell UFD are urging people not to object".
Giles is paraphrasing and using a fair bit of latitude there. Taking the comments of one member of UFD, out of context of the original conversation and inclusive arguments, in no way devalues our unequivocal view that making sport of tormenting or abusing animals is morally objectionable, This is purely politics and semantics and Giles is exploiting loopholes to put words in our mouths. UFD exists, primarily, to defend the much maligned urban fox but the members have a shared interest in the protection of all wildlife. If anyone would care to visit the page, you will most definitely not find any of the above comments on it. The page is regularly bombarded with individuals using aliases to promote hunting and cruelty and those individuals are" flushed" with the help of the group's very well informed members, who are able to temporarily engage the likes of Mr Bradshaw in the kind of debate he finds agreeable.”

“Just read this statement from a Rich Voysey from "Urban Fox Defenders". From what I can tell UFD are urging people not to object.
"It essentially all comes down to an intent or lack of intent to hunt. Bradshaw constantly taunts of how he only 'flushes' and has no wish to shoot the deer ... however, he's actually hoping it will be a cause célèbre for the hunting lobby and their pathetic attempt to discredit the Hunting Act. DEFRA consider that this scenario of Bradshaw's demonstrates a lack of intent to hunt, ... it therefore sets no precedent in terms of the Hunting Act.

Bradshaw has made it perfectly clear that he only wishes to disperse deer from the coppices on his land. Consequently, he knows as well as anybody that no prosecution is ever going to be brought against him for not shooting the deer he flushes using his own dogs.

However there's a distinct difference between Bradshaw's 'flushing scenario' and the relentless pursuit of deer (or other animals) across-country by professional huntsmen using trained hunting dogs ... a clear intent to hunt is why this hunting scenario is described not surprisingly as hunting! As such the Hunting Act applies, ... meaning that no more than two dogs can be used to pursue the quarry.

There is no specific legal encouragement in the Hunting Act to pointlessly shoot an animal or cause it unnecessary pain or suffering, however, a combination of not shooting the quarry and not calling the dogs off will by definition result in a protracted pursuit of an animal which is deemed to be illegal hunting rather than exempt hunting which allows for an early dispatch of an animal by shooting."”

“Just read this statement from a Rich Voysey from "Urban Fox Defenders". From what I can tell UFD are urging people not to object.


"It essentially all comes down to an intent or lack of intent to hunt. Bradshaw constantly taunts of how he only 'flushes' and has no wish to shoot the deer ... however, he's actually hoping it will be a cause célèbre for the hunting lobby and their pathetic attempt to discredit the Hunting Act. DEFRA consider that this scenario of Bradshaw's demonstrates a lack of intent to hunt, ... it therefore sets no precedent in terms of the Hunting Act.

Bradshaw has made it perfectly clear that he only wishes to disperse deer from the coppices on his land. Consequently, he knows as well as anybody that no prosecution is ever going to be brought against him for not shooting the deer he flushes using his own dogs.

However there's a distinct difference between Bradshaw's 'flushing scenario' and the relentless pursuit of deer (or other animals) across-country by professional huntsmen using trained hunting dogs ... a clear intent to hunt is why this hunting scenario is described not surprisingly as hunting! As such the Hunting Act applies, ... meaning that no more than two dogs can be used to pursue the quarry.

There is no specific legal encouragement in the Hunting Act to pointlessly shoot an animal or cause it unnecessary pain or suffering, however, a combination of not shooting the quarry and not calling the dogs off will by definition result in a protracted pursuit of an animal which is deemed to be illegal hunting rather than exempt hunting which allows for an early dispatch of an animal by shooting."”