Hunting letter is yet another red herring
THE letter from hunt supporter Giles Bradshaw, Groups should back new legislation, July 8, must not be taken too seriously.
The heading to the letter is unfortunate, as there is no new legislation.
Lord Donoughue may present to Parliament his Bill to protect wild mammals with the objective of replacing the Hunting Act 2004, but this tactic will probably not succeed.
Mr Bradshaw must be well aware that we already have the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 on the statute book designed to protect wild animals from deliberate acts of cruelty. The maximum penalty for this can be a fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment for each offence.
Mr Bradshaw also mentions the Hunt Regulatory Authority. The objective of the HRA is 'a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004, and a swift return to hunting in its natural format...' For further information please see their website.
Your correspondent concludes his letter by saying no one can argue they should have the right to be cruel, but it appears to me that is exactly the objective of the HRA.
Hunting with dogs for sport is obviously cruel and, for that reason, the proposed HRA is unworthy of serious consideration or statutory recognition.
Furthermore, Mr Bradshaw has written to the Echo complaining that the Hunting Act requires him to shoot dead any deer he flushes out (July 12, Red deer are worth a visit to my land.) A few days earlier he wrote saying: "Defra have insisted that the exemption of such flushing out from the Hunting Act is conditional on the deer being shot." (July 7, Deer ruling makes no sense at all.)
If Mr Bradshaw visits the website of Defra he will see, under the Wildlife heading, a section dealing with Questions and Answers. One question reads: 'Doesn't the Act require that any mammal flushed out must be shot?'
It will be seen that the Answer on the website is 'No'. Following the word 'No' is a comprehensive legal explanation, but as this runs into several hundred words I feel sure the Editor would not allow me to reproduce the text in this letter.
I am well aware that Mr Bradshaw feels so strongly about this matter that two or three years ago he attempted to hand himself in at his local police station but they, quite rightly, refused to arrest him as he had no case to answer. His motivation is difficult to understand, but he is clearly intent on discrediting the Hunting Act 2004, presumably with a view to having the legislation repealed.
What is needed, of course, is for the Act to be strengthened. Once those opposed to hunting with dogs for sport have achieved that objective perhaps Mr Bradshaw would kindly make another attempt to hand himself in to his local cop-shop.
John Phelps
Argyll Road, Exeter
11 Comments
View all
by mhayworth
Sunday, June 05 2011, 7:30PM
“Giles has done everything possible to discredit the hunting act but only continues to convince us that the hunting act needs to be strengthened and enforced. Following the worst government this country has ever seen, the Tories still only managed to gain power by grovelling to the Lib Dems. Overturn the hunting act and they will certainly never see office again.
Giles and his throwbacks to the 1800s need to wake up to the fact that their appalling idea of a sport is well past its time. There is nothing humane in prolonging the suffering of an animal just to make the ride more exciting for these thugs. Drag hunting preserves the pageantry, the sense of community, and the dignity of all involved.”
by hc1234
Sunday, June 05 2011, 7:19PM
“In response to Alan, Around & About, you are talking absolute nonsense.
Quarry animals have the same central nervous system as us, humans, and therefore being ripped apart, limb from limb by a pack of dogs is painful and can never be called humane. No matter how you try to spin it the animal does not die immediately. Dogs do not break necks like lions, they rip into the quarry and pull-therefore the animal feels every single rip. I am not being hyperbolic I am being truthful. I have seen the wanton cruelty of hunting and can only ever call it cruel.
I support the Hunting Act entirely, I wish it to be strengthened. Not becauseI am prejudiced and jealous of those who hunt but because I believe that we should never encourage cruelty in whatever form and should only encourage respect for our environment and wildlife.
As someone who has grown up around hunting I can only say that hunts are nothing but nuisances: they trample land, they trespass, they are rude and obnoxious and they treat villagers like feudal overlords who can't get over the fact that we simpletons are now using our brains to realise the cruelty of hunting.”
by GLWoollard
Sunday, June 05 2011, 7:02PM
“Lord Donoughue must be taken seriously. A possible ploy by him using the unelected Lords may be on the cards. If so, everybody (especially those like me who are country people born and bred) who opposes the un-banning of the so-called 'sports' of fox hunting, hare coursing, stag hunting, etc., must ready themselves for the battle ahead. This man must not get away with it. We need to make progress in our regard for wild animals. We must not go backwards to a new dark age.”
by roy bean, planet earth
Thursday, July 15 2010, 10:56AM
“Mr Phelps, you state not to take what Mr Giles Bradshaw takes too seriously, I think it is time folk like you got real and start taking the opinion of "joe public" more seriously as you will find that there are loads more "Giles Bradshaw"'s in the UK who are sick and tired of dictatorship who will when the time comes take the law into their own hands.”
by Maggie, Taunton
Wednesday, July 14 2010, 8:17PM
“LACS response shows what a mess this law is. Defra say the deer don't have to be shot and LACS say it is only legal if they are.
Surely what was meant to be banned was flushing out at the start of a Stag hunt and they just didn't think about flushing out to simply move the animal on.
A bad law but who could blame Giles for obeying it and shooting the deer? On the other had who could blame him for not obeying it?”
by Alan, Around &about
Wednesday, July 14 2010, 7:47PM
“Oh, come ON, people! We ALL know that the Hunting Act was a piece of prejudiced nonsense which was the work of a failed and corrupt government. We all know - at least the countrymen and women - that hunting with hounds is not cruel, and that animals are killed cleanly and quickly or not at all. We all know that hunting is one of the most humane and natural ways of control. And we all know the hypocrisy of the anti-hunting faction who close their eyes to the demonstrable fact that the Hunting Act has resulted in crueller methods of fox and deer control being used. Repeal the Act and lets get commonsense into government again.”
by giles, Rose Ash
Wednesday, July 14 2010, 4:30PM
“I copied this letter to LACS. The reply from Douglas Batchelor is:
"You cannot safely ignore the law. If you intentionally use your dogs to flush out deer you are hunting with dogs. One exemption that could apply is that you are flushing to guns. In the absence of guns clearly that exemption is not being complied with and you could be found to be hunting illegally."
As LACS have a legal objection I will with great regret arrange for the deer to be shot in order to comply with the law.”
by giles, Rose ash
Tuesday, July 13 2010, 12:50PM
“@Dontyouwish... That is indeed precisely the point - to get to the situation where no one objects to the hunts using dogs to flush out wild deer without having to obey the conditions ins the Hunting Act.
John Phelps letter is very welcome as it is a step towards this goal.”
by Ed, Exeter
Tuesday, July 13 2010, 12:41PM
“Mr.Phelps. Mr. Bradshaw is able to run rings round your arguments because the Hunting Act is bad law; badly drafted and designed. It is unworkable and uneforceable just as the Poll Tax was in the 1990's.”
by Dontchawishyourgirlfriendwashotlikeme, Taunton
Tuesday, July 13 2010, 12:14PM
“The problem with John Phelps argument is that it plays right into Giles' hands.
If John is right and the shooting condition does not have to be met then the other conditions cannot apply either.
This would mean that hunts can in fact legally use their dogs to flush deer out of cover without limiting the number of dogs they use to two or killing the deer.
This is precisely what Giles wants them to do.”