'Pre-beating' tactic is just hypocritical
IT is the dawn of a crisp autumn day in the English countryside. All is peaceful in the woodland. A vixen brings a rabbit back to her cubs and a small herd of deer browse in the undergrowth.
Suddenly the long, baleful sound of a hunting horn breaks the silence. A gang has entered the woodland. Sticks beat the undergrowth and horrid yells shatter the idyllic peace. The deer flee their home in headlong panic, running in fear of their lives. The foxes hang on, reluctant to break out into open ground but eventually are also flushed out.
The gang who are flushing these animals are doing so illegally. They are also trespassing and the landowner very much resents their presence on his property. They however consider they have a God-given right to break the law of the land and look down on those who disagree with an arrogant sense of moral superiority.
Who is this? Is it the Exmoor Foxhounds, or perhaps the South Devon Hunt. No. These are members of the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the practice is known as 'pre-beating' and is recommended by their 'tactics book' available on the internet.
One can argue about the rights and wrongs of illegally terrorising our native wildlife in the manner advocated by the HSA. However what makes their position so hypocritical is that while they advocate such illegal activities they also lambast the hunts for allegedly breaking the law.
Under the Hunting Act it is legal for me to use my dogs to flush out wildlife on my own land. However, the Act stipulates that the flushed-out animals must then be killed. What I do causes far less disturbance to wildlife than the HSA's pre-beating and it is absurd that I should then have to kill it.
If the law required the HSA to shoot all the animals they flush out I wonder if they would obey it.
The condition that wildlife be killed has no place in the Hunting Act and should be removed.
Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash, South Molton
6 Comments
View all
by Madnil, Exeter
Monday, November 02 2009, 6:25PM
“George you are right in a sense. No one is saying he has to shoot the deer, only that if he flushes the deer then his flushing will be illegal if he doesn't shoot them.
At the end of the day he chooses to flush the deer. If he doesn't want to shoot them then he doesn't have to flush them.
That being said his point about the sabs also flushing deer is a good one.
The sabs should not lecture about people obeying the law if they themselves break it in a very similar way.”
by Madnil, Exeter
Monday, November 02 2009, 6:22PM
“Unfortunately Giles Bradshaw is correct as far as the actual wording of the Act is concerned. It does state that flushing out of cover with dogs is only legal if the flushed out animal is shot.
However it should be borne in mind that this is an extremely badly worded law and furthermore the flushing out exemption was smuggled in at the last minute by the Pro hunters in the Lords and was not properly scrutinised in all the confusion.
No one actually wants flushed out animals to have to be shot and I am quite sure the Government, LACS etc would dearly love to change this clause. However this is simply not possible until we have an elected House or lords.
This is the next step. However fist of all we must defend the law in its current form because of we admit flaws in the law then we hand an advantage to the Tories who will repeal it.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Monday, November 02 2009, 6:03PM
“The law says that flushing out is exempt hunting if certain conditions are met. These include the use of no more than two dogs. The protection of crops etc and that the flushed out animals are shot.
If I use three dogs to flush (which I do) I am breaking the law because the limit is two.
If I am not protecting crops etc (which I am) I am breaking the law because it says I have to be protecting crops &c for my flushing out to be exempt.
If I do not shoot the animal then I am breaking the law because it says that shooting the animal is a condition for flushing out to be exempt.
George as your argument goes I can flush out of cover with a whole pack, not shoot the deer and do it purely for fun.
What would the point of all the conditions in the law for flushing out to be exempt be if they did not have to be met?”
by George Dixon, Wirral
Monday, November 02 2009, 5:34PM
“But it doesn't say you HAVE to shoot it. The exemption is only applicable if you WANT to use dogs to flush to guns - nobody is forcing you to. I need a driving licence if I want to drive my car but nobody says I MUST drive my car today. See?”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Monday, November 02 2009, 9:03AM
“Unfortunatly this is not what the law says George. It says that flushing out is exempt hunting and only legal if five conditions are met. The fifth being that reasonable steps are taken by a competent marksman to shoot the flushed out animal.”