Why didn't he know hunt was illegal?
I FOUND the letter by P Brown disturbing: Why riverside hunt had to be illegal, June 24.
He is right to say no more than two dogs are permitted to go into a river to hunt mink, but I feel sure he is wrong to say Giles Bradshaw has not read and understood the Hunting Act.
Mr Brown may be unaware that farmer Giles Bradshaw is a regular Echo correspondent who, over recent years, has written numerous letters, many spurious in my opinion, demonstrating a good understanding of the Hunting Act 2004.
Mr Bradshaw's complex legal arguments concerning this legislation would not be possible without him having undertaken a careful study of the text of the Act. Furthermore, he and his friends, together with the Countryside Alliance, were responsible for bringing a very expensive legal action, in the European Court of Human Rights, in an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the validity of the Hunting Act.
It is beyond my understanding, therefore, why Mr Bradshaw failed to realise the illegality of 16 dogs going into a river to hunt mink. He should have been well aware of the unlawfulness of such action.
I thank Mr Brown for his letter and would be interested to read, in due course, any comments Mr Bradshaw may wish to make.
John Phelps,
Argyll Road, Exeter
8 Comments
by Banjo String, Exeter
Tuesday, June 29 2010, 1:00AM
“2 hounds, 4 hounds, 10 hounds ? Who cares ? **** the hounds, **** the wild animals, **** the hunters, they're all gonna die someday, so who gives a flying poontang ?”
by Joanna, d
Monday, June 28 2010, 12:53PM
“Actually there is a 'people' aspect to it. It's really not a good idea to give space to people such as Giles Bradshaw intent on defending their psychopathic tendencies in order to get a 'civilising' Act revoked.”
by Jo, Devon
Monday, June 28 2010, 12:50PM
“No the hunting act is not about the people it is about the protection of the animals. All sorts of people have hunted in the past (and unfortunately still do) from farmhands to total prats who make up the stereotype of the idiotic 'hunting' type. The Act was brought in because most people in this country deplore cruelty, not becaude they are bothered about a group of silly people chasing around making themselves a general nuisance to all. They just regard them as ridiculous and couldn't care less what 'class' they may consider themselves to be from. If they want to dress up in silly clothes and charge around the country then there's drag hunting.”
by Will, Dorset
Monday, June 28 2010, 11:08AM
“Umm, I'm pretty sure that it is legal to use aas many dogs as you want to hunt a rat along a riverbank. Thats why the hunting act is so weird. It targets certain pest species and not others. Why? because the ban is not about the animal but rather the person who hunted it. Prejudice and silly. It makes our legal system a mockery!”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Monday, June 28 2010, 9:11AM
“I have no idea what the hunt was doing in the river.
It maybe they were just having some fun trawling though it with 16 dogs.
In this case even if their actions resulted in Mink being hunted and
killed they would not have been committing any crime. This is because
it is not illegal for dogs to hunt Mink it is only illegal for people to
hunt mink with dogs unless the hunting is exempt.
If they were using the 16 dogs to search for mink they would not have
been committing a crime either. The courts have ruled that their must
be an identified animal being hunted and until an animal is found their
is no possibility of an offence.
If they did search for and find a mink they would have two possible
legal actions to take. They could have flushed the mink out with 16
hounds and not chased or killed it with them. I have checked with the
RSPCA and more than three dogs can be used to flush if the animal is not
then hunted.
Or they could have used two dogs to flush the mink out and then shoot
it. If the other conditions for the exemption of flushing out were also
met.
Given the number of choices available to them I would be very surprised
if they would have chosen to break the law.”
by Sarah, Surrey
Sunday, June 27 2010, 10:30AM
“No, Invigilator, you are definitely wrong about digging out - in fact it is the only part of traditional hunting that is still legal. If a fox is "cold marked", i.e. hounds find it in the hole as opposed to chasing it into a hole, it is legal to dig it out if it is within a certain specified distance of game rearing pens (but not free range chicken pens). This provision was put in at the request of the game rearing industry (free range chicken keepers were slow off the mark)
I also am pretty sure I am right about the number of hounds permitted to be used, my hesitation is only because I can't remember the legal ruling that established this. In effect there is considered to be a difference between using hounds to pursue the quarry and using hounds to generally mooch around looking to see if there is any quarry there in the first place. If those 16 or so hounds mentioned in the letters are prevented from pursuing any mink that they find, then no offence has occurred.
I believe the mink has then to be trapped and shot - I don't know whether the use of terriers is allowed in this case, I suppose it depends on the presence of game rearing pens.”
by The Invigilator, Exeter
Sunday, June 27 2010, 12:21AM
“Sarah, mink hunting (or as you put it, "looking for mink") with a pack of dogs is illegal. Fox hunting with a pack of dogs is also illegal. (Does this take place in Surrey?)
If the hunting is exempt, two dogs only are allowed and the animal should be flushed to guns.
Digging out of foxes is most definitely illegal.”
by Sarah, Surrey
Saturday, June 26 2010, 8:10PM
“I don't think John Phelps is right to say it is illegal to take more than 2 hounds down to the river to look for mink. The "2 hounds only" clause applies to the amount of hounds permitted to actually chase the animal towards guns or birds of prey. It is permissible to use more than 2 hounds to look for an animal which may or may not be there. Then they have to be taken off and not allowed to hunt it. If a foxhound pack finds a fox to ground in this way, terriers can then be used to locate it if it's within a certain distance of game rearing pens, it then must be dug up and shot. In the case of mink hunting I believe the practice is that the hounds are taken off, a trap is laid for the mink at the entrance to its hole and when it enters the trap it is shot with (I think) an air rifle.
The use of more than 2 hounds to discover the presence of a mink or a fox has been established as permissible as this is not hunting. Hunting is when they are used to chase that animal.”