Flushed-out animal need not be killed
GILES Bradshaw is either trying deliberately to mislead Echo readers or is completely ignorant of the law, 'Pre-beating' tactic is just hypocritical, Letters, October 31.
The Hunting Act does not stipulate that a flushed-out animal must be killed.
It merely says that, if the animal is deliberately flushed with no more than two dogs in order to prevent serious damage to crops or livestock, it must not be chased or killed by the dogs.
If the intention is to kill then it must be done immediately it is flushed, by a competent gunman.
If, on the other hand, the intention is to use dogs to have a jolly good chase of a wild animal and then to let them tear it apart for a bit of fun, that would be illegal and barbaric. Simples!
George Dixon
Wirral, Merseyside
3 Comments
by giles, Rose Ash
Tuesday, June 15 2010, 7:29AM
“People would be well advised to read the actual law rather than rely on letters to the press by anti hunt activists who are embarassed by it.
When I use my three dogs to flush out deer I don't shoot them I chase them. If this is legal then the law is unenforceable.”
by Giles Bradshaw, rose ash
Tuesday, June 15 2010, 7:27AM
“What the law actually says is..
(1)Stalking a wild mammal, or flushing it out of cover, is exempt hunting if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.
(2)The first condition is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of¿
(a)preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause¿
...
(v)to growing timber,
...
(5)The third condition is that the stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.
....
(7)The fifth condition is that¿
(a)reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person,”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Thursday, November 05 2009, 5:40PM
“This is one of many different interpretations of the highly confusing Hunting Act. It is worth going through some of them.
The Government have stated that flushing out merely to chase wild mammals is legal. They then decided it is illegal and Farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick's current position is that the law is uncertain but nonetheless perfectly clear.
The anti hunt group Protect Our Wild Animals have publicly stated that the law on flushing out of cover is 'an anomaly', that flushing out is 'harmless' and people that do it 'should not be prosecuted.'
The League Against Cruel Sports in response to the question 'for the record do you support deliberately flushed out deer having to be shot dead?' replied with a terse 'No' however went on to say that all flushing out should be banned under a five year review but also support their Chairman's view that the law does not need amending.
The RSPCA have backed the Government's then line that it is only legal to flush out deer if they are then shot however their latest advice is that flushing out of cover is 'a good way of moving deer through a wood'. They now advise that while the law is 'ambiguous' flushing out of cover is legal if up to two dogs are used and the shooting condition can be ignored.
Meanwhile the police have confirmed to me that I will not be prosecuted for flushing out and chasing deer with more than two dogs because to do so would 'not be in the public interest'.
Those that claim that this law is a clear and well drafted piece of legislation are talking utter nonsense.
The best thing for me to do is to ignore this incompetent legal mess and continue using my dogs to flush out and chase wild deer.
This law "is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."”