I shall carry on with dogs to flush deer
THE Hunting Act defines flushing wild animals out of cover with dogs as exempt hunting if it is done in accordance with strict conditions. These include the use of no more than two dogs, protection of growing crops and that the flushed out animals are shot.
I have long campaigned against this law on the grounds that it is not clear, flushing out is not cruel and there is no need to shoot the flushed out animals.
I recently phoned the RSPCA and explained my activities to them and asked if they thought I should shoot the animals that I used my dogs to flush out.
Given that the RSPCA are avid supporters of the Hunting Act the response that RSPCA inspector John Pollock from West Hatch in Somerset left on my voicemail was somewhat surprising.
He said that because the law was 'ambiguous' he had had to get legal advice. The Government insist it is clear. On the basis of this he advised me that flushing out the deer on my woods with dogs was 'an ideal way to move the deer on'. In his view the deer should not have to be shot.
Most surprisingly he explained that far from being 'exempt hunting' as the law defines it as he felt that flushing animals out of cover was not even hunting.
It is quite clear that banning flushing animals out of cover with dogs makes no sense and I shall therefore continue to do so with three dogs, no shooting and with the support of the RSPCA.
The Government insists that flushed out animals must be shot to prevent them being chased. This is absurd.
Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash, South Molton
2 Comments
by Safewings, Northamptonshire
Monday, November 09 2009, 9:55AM
“To chase any animal or subject it to any form of unnecessary stress contravines the RSPCA`s " DUTY OF CARE" which is now law under the Animal Welfare Act 2007.
So unless there is good reason to put animals under stress then they should be left alone. What if these chased animals injure themselves in the panic ? What if the are killed or injured ? Then the fault lies firmly in the hands of those that instigated the frightened bolt after being chased by dogs.........”
by Andrew Meads, Northants
Monday, November 09 2009, 9:41AM
“I cannot understand to why anyone would want clarification regarding animal welfare of hunting from the rspca. The very same rspca that cannot give even a clear definition of their " Duty of Care " to which is now law.
I have been raising the serious issues relating to the unnecessary effects of neignbourhood fireworks and animals for a number of years and as an invited consultee in the construction of the new Animal Welfare Act 2007 I understood that the "Duty of Care" introduced into the Act at the request of the RSPCA would under its` new legal status see all animals protected from the unnecessary and over use of fireworks in the public domain.
So I had written to the RSPCA, Sec of State, MP`s, the media and the Animal welfare Law to ask the question.
" Under the RSPCA`s " Duty of Care " where it states catecorically that animals must be allowed to display natural behaviour and that animals are protected from unnecessary injury, death or trauma be it mental or physical ? A little too late for the three birds killed in an aviary in 2007 and where the only response from the Police was " Perhaps its` best not to keep birds "
Unbelievably the RSPCA admitted they were ignoring my correspondence and in regard to others I had no response or at best a totally unrelated diatribe regarding decibels.
But finally today I received clarification that our animals are indeed protected under law from the horrendous unnecessary use of fireworks by the public. But not from the rspca, but from DEFRA.
So now as the RSPCA`s " Duty of Care" is seemingly becoming a workable part of the new 2007 Animal Welfare they can now fully respond to people breaking the law pertaining to fireworks and animals.
The rspca need to be seen for what they actually a powerless animal rights charity.”