Labour sets out £4.5m funding boost to fight hare coursing, fox hunting and other wildlife crimes in support of ambitious animal welfare manifesto
Tomorrow (Tuesday), Labour will announce additional police resources to support plans laid out in the most radical animal welfare plan anywhere in the world.
The plans will double the number of police officers tasked to prosecute wildlife crimes from the current 88 to 170, increasing the capability of rural crime units to prosecute wildlife crime. The new wildlife crime officers will not reduce allocations to frontline policing.
Wildlife offences include hare coursing, which has emerged as a significant problem across farmlands, and acts outlawed by Labour’s 2004 Hunting Act, like fox hunting and stag hunting. Other wildlife crime offences include badger and raptor baiting. Prosecutions in England and Wales for crimes like baiting, poaching and hunting have plummeted by a third since 2016.
Working in partnership with regional organised crime units, the additional officers will also act as the eyes and ears of other crimes including animal welfare crimes taking place in rural areas, like livestock theft and dog fighting, which are often linked to serious organised crime.
Labour’s commitment to increase wildlife crime policing will enable more effective actions against existing crime and will ensure police forces are ready to enforce planned new offences and stricter rules.
Labour’s animal welfare manifesto includes additional plans to:
· Close loopholes in the 2004 Hunting Act that allow in practice the continuation of illegal hunting of foxes, deer and hares.
· Introduce a ‘recklessness’ clause to the Act, to prevent trail hunts being used as cover for the illegal hunting of wild mammals.
· Remove the exemption for ‘research and observation’ hunting.
· Remove the exemption for ‘use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting’.
· Review the penalties available under the Hunting Act 2004.
· Consult on the introduction of custodial sentences for illegal hunting, bringing it in line with the penalties for other wildlife crimes.
Sue Hayman, Labour’s Shadow Environment Secretary, said:
‘Labour’s animal welfare manifesto is the most radical animal welfare plan anywhere in the world.
While the Tories continue with their mass slaughter of badgers and flip flop on bringing back fox hunting, Labour is determined to bring animal welfare policy into the 21st Century, based on the latest science and understanding.
We are calling time on those who have been allowed to get away with illegally hunting, maiming and killing wild animals such as deer, hen harriers, foxes and hares.
By increasing the number of wildlife and rural police forces across the country we will help protect both wild animals and property in rural communities, and ensure a crackdown on the types of crimes against animals that this Tory government has turned a blind eye to.
Labour is the true party of real change when it comes to animal welfare.‘.
Ends
Mark writes: pretty good, but I hope there is more to come on nature conservation. The mention of Hen Harrier shows that someone has been listening – what odds that this species will be mentioned in any other political press release this general election campaign (unless of course the Tories say ‘We still don’t care about Hen Harriers and their widespread illegal destruction on grouse moors’)?
[registration_form]
Excellent. I wonder if the other (non Tory) manifestos are committed to print yet.
So if I refuse to senselessly slaughter the wildlife I disturb with my dog I could go to jail. Such a threat is counter to my human right to peaceful enjoyment of my property. Shooting wildlife can cause immense pain, a risk to the public and lead pollution – using dog without guns can be more humane, safer and less polluting. If merely using dogs to stalk and flush deer out fo cover really is illegal hunting then the law is an ass and the police are quite right to let people carry on in spite of it.
giles – yes, back to jail.
Unlikely though as the police do nothing to make me comply with the law. Double the officers won’t make any difference – I’ve already made my local wildlife crime officer aware of how I break it.
The use of the term ‘raptor baiting’ is a bit odd and suggests that they have not really understood the nature of the problem with birds of prey. They are clearly looking at it simply as an animal welfare issue. I welcome the fact that they are serious about animal welfare but would like to see much more about nature conservation.
Jonathan – I agree, maybe we will, maybe we won’t.
The world under Labour…..Mrs Miggins was taking Fido for a walk, Fido is a rescue Greyhound as Labour has banned Greyhound racing because as they promised this to get more votes. Harry the Hare is sitting eating the farmers crops when Fido suddenly runs off and chases Harry all over the farmers land until eventually Fido catches Harry and [Censored as Labour has banned the publication of what happens in the natural world for fear it might upset Vegans and people who watch Disney.]. Unfortunately, under the new strengthened Hunting Act 2004, which Labour promised to get more votes, Mrs Miggins was acting recklessly as she didn’t have Fido on a lead or under close control. Mrs Miggins gets 5 years in prison and death threats from animal rights angels [used to be called extremists when conservatives were in power but the term was banned under Labour]. Labour decided to ban all dogs capable of running down foxes, hares and deer which meant only Pugs and Miniature Dachshunds are legal now. Welcome to Great Britain!
Meanwhile in a parallel universe “Bozza” has secured a majority in Parliament and has also succeeded in purging all dissent from within his party, freeing him to set about the implementation of his radical agenda to create a low regulation Britain that is ‘open for business’. The recently en-nobled Lord Farage is appointed as Ambassador to the US with a brief to solicit for business with US corporations.
Mrs Miggins unfortunately falls ill with a potentially treatable cancer but discovers that the basic health insurance that is all she can afford does not give her access to the expensive therapy required to treat her disease. She is sent home with some aspirin and told she has perhaps twelve months to live.
Seeking solace from nature Mrs Miggins goes to her local woods to sit and listen to the bird song and watch the butterflies dancing in the sunlight but when she gets there she finds that the new streamlined planning system has come into operation and the woods have been bulldozed to make way for the new hypermarket. All across the country wildlife is being pushed out of the way by aggressive development policies and intensive farming but the grouse moors are somehow spared. Here the gamekeepers have been given a boost by the the final shutting down of Natural England and the removal of legal protection for a whole list of species including all birds of prey. The last Hen Harrier in England is shot by a gamekeeper called Doug who proudly poses on the local tv news with the bird’s dead body… Welcome to Britain.
Said like a true animal rights ‘angel’ 🙂
Yes a recklessness clause would criminalise most dog walkers – however one has to ask ‘so what’? The way it works is that is termed a ‘technical’ crime which means the authorities allow people to commit it. And of course one can always feign ignorance – ignorance of the law is an excuse where that law is never enforced because no one can be certain what it even is.
The police know when a law is a bad law. As they are currently and quite rightly allowing people to deliberately break the Hunting Act with impunity then I am sure Mrs Muggins is safe breaking it accidentally
If they really do make it illegal for someone with a dog to accidentally cause a squirrel, rabbit deer etc to be chased people are just going to ignore the law – and quite right too. I can’t see any anti hunters with dogs suddenly stopping taking them into the countryside and giving them a good run a round where they are inevitably going to encounter the odd wild mammal.
to be honest you can flush deer with pretty much any sort of dog, my neighbour’s jack russell is a deer flushing superstar.
The document I saw also said Labour would ban snares.
Fen traps need banning as well.
S for stupid’s been reading the Daily Mosely again.
Raptor baiting! What do they mean? If it is persecution, then well done them (but say so), if more sinister then I think we need an explanation. It is rather predictable to lump the countryside together in one miserable mass when you never leave Whitehall. I sometimes wonder if Labour sees those who live off a bus route as a natural enemy in need of ‘baitng’.
With so many police officers (if they bother to turn up) seeming to support hunts and ignore breaches of both the Hunting Act and the Road Traffic Act by hunt support this will only work if the additional officers are unbiased and know the law.
As for dogs being under close control, read the Countryside Code –
Keep dogs under effective control
When you take your dog into the outdoors, always ensure it does not disturb wildlife, farm animals, horses or other people by keeping it under effective control. This means that you:
keep your dog on a lead, or
keep it in sight at all times, be aware of what it’s doing and be confident it will return to you promptly on command
ensure it does not stray off the path or area where you have a right of access
Special dog rules may apply in particular situations, so always look out for local signs – for example:
dogs may be banned from certain areas that people use, or there may be restrictions, byelaws or control orders limiting where they can go
the access rights that normally apply to open country and registered common land (known as ‘open access’ land) require dogs to be kept on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July, to help protect ground nesting birds, and all year round near farm animals
at the coast, there may also be some local restrictions to require dogs to be kept on a short lead during the bird breeding season, and to prevent disturbance to flocks of resting and feeding birds during other times of year
It’s always good practice (and a legal requirement on ‘open access’ land) to keep your dog on a lead around farm animals and horses, for your own safety and for the welfare of the animals. A farmer may shoot a dog which is attacking or chasing farm animals without being liable to compensate the dog’s owner.
However, if cattle or horses chase you and your dog, it is safer to let your dog off the lead – don’t risk getting hurt by trying to protect it. Your dog will be much safer if you let it run away from a farm animal in these circumstances and so will you.
Everyone knows how unpleasant dog mess is and it can cause infections, so always clean up after your dog and get rid of the mess responsibly – ‘bag it and bin it’. Make sure your dog is wormed regularly to protect it, other animals and people.
I’ve flushed wild deer for miles across Exmoor with dogs under close control. What happens is that as soon as the deer are aware of you they move off but they keep you in sight, so the herd basically travels before you. They do this because they see you as a possible threat and want to know where you are.
I note they don’t want to address the flushing and stalking exemption. So they are going to go to great lengths to close the research one but leave the exemption in place so stag hounds can still be used to hunt deer with dogs. I wonder why that is?
Not some headlong chase then? Just the deer moving ahead of you and keeping you in their sight. This seems perfectly normal to me. I really don’t think it was the intention of the Hunting Act to ban this kind of thing. The purpose of the law was to ban organised hunting packs being used to tear wildlife apart.
Fido should have been under Mrs Miggins control, and then Harry would still be alive today for Blackadder, Baldrick and even Pitt the Younger (new Tory) to look at.
Mrs Miggins deserves 5 years for having less than 2 brain cells.
Fido deserved a more responsible master.
Harry had the right to live.
As we are writing period pieces – perhaps it’s about time for the revolution to begin?
Hats off to Labour for all of this, well done to them. It would be good if the Lib Dem’s could say something similar, but I have some doubts on this. They seem to miss the boat so often on animal welfare and wildlife protection. They often disappoint on this. .
As far as the Tories are concerned it is entirely possible that they will move in the opposite direction ie less wildlife protection. They are a complete lost cause. They have so many vested interests in such cruel “sports” as hunting with dogs and driven grouse shooting which maims and kills so much wildlife in addition to Hen harriers.
People should absolutely control their dogs to avoid them killing animals but dispersal especially without chasing is a completely different matter. It’s inevitably going to occur if people take dogs out even to an extent of the dog is on a lead. A good law on animal welfare would draw a sensible and clear line between what is and is not cruel. Making ‘reckless’ ‘hunting’ (whatever that is) makes it even more important to do this because it brings many many people within the remit of the law. I suspect most people are blissfully unaware that merely dispersing a deer in a park might get them jailed for up to five years unless they then shoot it.
I’m wondering if the future will be a complete ban on hound packs with the exclusion of Bloodhounds for drag hunting
Also from the countryside code:
“Dogs love to have a great run around in the woods and across fields. With lots of different smells and places to explore your dog will get loads of mental stimulation and physical exercise making them a happier and healthier companion.”
unfortunately this is not entirely compatible with not disturbing wildlife. It’s inevitable that wildlife will to an extent be disturbed by free ranging dogs. The truth is that compromise is needed. Keeping the dog under control so there is not some long chase or worse is sufficient as well as taking extra care wrt nesting birds etc.
Wild mammals will often become aware of the dogs from a fair distance and be “flushed”. This is perfectly natural and humane. If the dogs are under control those animals can simply move away without any harm being done. It’s also something that can be used to gently deter deer from certain areas – for example where trees have been coppiced.
The use of dogs in this way should be allowed without having to comply with the flushing exemption of the Hunting Act. This is because the flushing exemption requires the flushed wildlife to be shot ASAP. Rather than banning them being hunted it requires them to be hunted and killed potentially causing them huge pain.
The Hunting Act – in this respect – is so absurd that no matter what jail sentences are available or how many resources are thrown at it the police are always going to allow people to continue to flout it.
So true, most Police think its a complete farce (same reaction they gave when I asked several forces during the WJ caused general licence revocation)….that’s why so many animal rights angels accuse the Police of bias or being bribed. The entire focus here is on hatred against people (or a type of person) and rarely about the welfare of animals (those which hunt naturally and those which are hunted naturally). Lets stick one up at the toffs is the general sentiment, I bet poor old Mrs Miggins wasn’t a toff, a long time Labour supporter, she now is accused of having two brain cells and lives in a cell 🙁
1) Mrs Miggins isn’t real “S”. She is a figment of your imagination.
2) You are attacking straw men with your assertion that this is about going after a certain type of person – “toffs” – and ‘rarely about the welfare of animals’. Please note that Labour’s press release also addresses badger baiting, hare-coursing and dog-fighting, none of which are traditionally associated with “toffs”. I don’t see posts or comments on this blog going after Henley Regatta; I do see many posts addressing the conflicts between shooting and nature conservation – primarily with respect to driven grouse shooting where the very intensive nature of the management of grouse moors has particularly serious impacts on other wildlife.
Jonathan..
1. Thanks for confirming that
2. I was specifically referring to the proposed strengthening of the Hunting Act which, when it was rolled out, was aimed primarily at stopping then legal Fox Hunting, Hare Coursing and Stag Hunting…all of which were very much associated with toffs.
1) No problem – you seemed to have convinced yourself she was real.
2) So by specifically disregarding examples where people (and the Labour Party) object to animal cruelty that is not normally associated with “toffs”, you permit yourself to conclude that people who object to gratuitous cruelty to animals are motivated by class hatred and not by genuine concern for animal welfare. I hope you can see the flaw in your reasoning.
I believe it was blood sports aficionado, patron of the Waterloo Cup and convicted hare courser Mark Prescott who described hare coursers as “90% yobs, 10% nobs”.
Of course it’s unfair to suggest that only “toffs” enjoy hunting with dogs; scum from all walks of life are responsible.
I fully agree that there can be a conflict between shooting and nature conservation – that’s why I refuse to shoot the deer I flush – as far as I am concerned there is no need for it – by mimicking the action of wolves on the deer (in a sublimated manner – without killing or long chases) – the deer carrying capacity of the land is reduced – this is the essence of control and is backed up by scientific research – see the book ‘free ranging dogs and wildlife conservation).
The law is an ass. When it was being debated in 2004 we were constantly told it would not affect dog walkers because hunting was an intentional activity and there has to be intent. Now they are removing the requirement for intent – meaning according to their own argument dog walkers whose dogs ‘hunt’ (whatever that can mean in the context of the law which is in itself highly uncertain) are affected.
What I very much hope is that all the many additional people now to be affected by these changes just ignore them and carry on as usual.
Walking a dog through a wood is a perfect sufficient means of ‘flushing out’ deer. This happens all over the country – its not cruel and people should carry on regardless.
Killing all the wildlife that we encounter prevents it simply moving away – the basic reason the deer move away from my dogs is to avoid being killed – it is perverse for me to have to shoot them in these circumstances. Killing the deer would cause lead pollution, it would potentially put the public at risk and it is against my human right to peacefully enjoy my property. It might well also cause huge animal suffering.
“Walking a dog through a wood is a perfect sufficient means of ‘flushing out’ deer. This happens all over the country – its not cruel and people should carry on regardless.”
Of course they should and I am sure they will! 😉 😉
So the police have advised you that you MUST shoot the deer you encounter?
There’s a balance though isn’t there? Some disturbance of wildlife is inevitable if dogs are walked in the countryside. But generally if dogs are kept under control such disturbance can be limited. In most circumstances I’d have thought such limited disturbance is preferable from a deer’s point of view than being shot dead.
Ach well, does not really matter. Tories are in line for a substantial majority and then hopefully we will get the long awaited repeal of the absurd hunting act.. Corbyn is disliked by so many life long labour voters that they are now depending on the votes of the very young, but they in general cannot be bothered to vote.
Bad luck….
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-conservatives-set-to-ditch-fox-hunting-pledge-in-manifesto-11864897
@coop To be honest it’s more fun if it’s illegal and because the law isn’t enforced due to its idiocy then one isn’t guilty of any crime even if one breaks the law.
I can see why you enjoy it Giles – nothing wrong with getting pleasure out of nature providing you are’t harming it or causing cruelty which you clearly aren’t. Rather than all this mudslinging I’d like to see someone actually explaining why they are so keen on you having to kill wildlife.
I think they feel that shooting the deer HAS to be more humane because the Hunting Act. However the fact is it is one of the most humane forms of deer management there is. We have some strongly anti hunt friends who I’ve done it with – we saw a seriously beautiful stag – it was really exciting and yes great fun. Their dogs came along too so we got a bit of a pack together.
giles – are you sure you aren’t talking to yourself? Are Alison and willets real people or are they you…?
pretty sure I’m not Mark – believe it or not but some people do agree with me from both sides of the fence – I sometimes wonder if you secretly sympathise at least in principle with non lethal alternatives to killing wildlife. Have you ever read any Hannah Arendt? Her theory on the banality of Evil is fascinating. Now I’m not suggesting that the killing of wildlife for no good reason apart from a crap law is on a par with the murder of six million jews but there are interesting parallels. I’d like to think I would have stood up against the latter but I will definitely stand up against the former in spite of your insidious suggestion that I might go to jail for it. Do you really think I might by the way? Do you think people are genuinely so against my not killing deer?
I was thinking if you really think I should be jailed for not shooting deer you could – via Wild Justice prosecute me and have me locked up 🙂
giles – you couldn’t, because Wild Justice has other things to do. Prison doesn’t seem to have acted as much of a deterrent for you giles.
I’ve had the opportunity to discuss my Hunt Crime face to face with staff in the Criminal Justice System in Devon and they fully accept I should not be prosecuted for deliberately flouting the law. The comment that stands out for me was from one officer who professed to be ‘anti hunt’ who said it would be ridiculous because her dogs chase rabbits.
So it’s hard to see how non enforcement of a law makes for a deterrent effect – don’t you think?
Of course under these proposals for criminalising reckless hunting she would most definitely be criminalised because she knows her dogs are chasing rabbits – which is the definition of reckless behaviour (and arguably of intentional behaviour).
The police are hardly going to prosecute people for breaking laws they themselves break.
I wouldn’t criticise them too much – Wild Justice may soon be in the same position and probably already are. I’m quite sure that Chris Packham knows that by allowing his dogs off the lead he risks them flushing and possibly chasing wild mammals – which would by definition be ‘reckless’ hunting. But you are hardly going to prosecute him are you?
The guy’s a ‘national treasure’ and has an OBE for God’s sake. Let him take his dogs out – yes wildlife will occasionally be disturbed we all know that but like me he can just control his dogs – let the animals be flushed and prevent the dogs from being cruel.
It’s perfectly possible to take dogs out and flush wildlife without cruelty – it happens all the time – why on earth would anybody want people to be ‘deterred’ from doing that?
That seems like a reasonable compromise – we can all get away with breaking the law. I’m sure Wild Justice have better things to do without worrying about people gently flouting the Hunting Act. The law if fully enforced would be ridiculous. The best thing Wild Justice can do to support wildlife crime is to have ‘better things to do’ than enforcing ridiculous laws.
I live within a few miles of the three staghound packs in the UK – there are also several active unofficial buck hound packs.
The three official packs have adopted different responses to the Hunting Act. One is just carrying on with a full pack, another is using the ‘research and observation’ exemption which allows them to hunt deer which they don’t then have to kill, the other generally uses the flushing and stalking exemption under which everything must be killed.
Current Labour policy is to get rid of the research and observation exemption but maintain the flushing exemption. Presumably this will lead to the research pack moving to the flushing exemption and killing even more deer. They won’t address the flushing exemption because it involves the mass slaughter of flushed wildlife – it’s simply too embarrassing to address.
My impression is that the ‘buckhound’ packs generally operate completely outside the law. One of them was involved in a pitched battle with hunt protestors during which there were several serious injuries. Don’t worry – no charges – this is the countryside.
The Devon and Cornwall Police use their current allotment of wildlife crime officers to ignore all this. There are several senior officers that regularly hunt with stag hound packs as well as senior staff of the CPS. The local police actively support people’s right to break the Hunting Act by not killing wild animals – because they think it’s absurd that people should have to kill wild deer merely because they flush them out. There are several police officers who are keen dog owners. When they flush deer they like me don’t kill them. They don’t see why they should and they think the requirement to kill flushed deer is unjustified and idiotic. They are right.
Meanwhile I regularly and deliberately flout the Hunting Act – no action is taken because there is nothing wrong with me breaking the law.
So now if Labour get into power which is unlikely then they are going to remove the research and observation exemption under which hunts don’t have to kill the deer meaning that if they wish to continue exempt hunting they will have to kill everything. Alternatively they could just transfer to full pack hunting in which case the police will also do nothing which is what they currently do whether people choose to comply or break the law. You can either comply with the aw or break it – the end result is the same in a law enforcement vacuum. Devon is one of the main hunting areas in the country yet we have no prosecutions under the hunting act. Why would there be no convictions in an area with the most hunting? It’s really not rocket science!
On top of all this we are going to have a lot more officers with which not to enforce the law. This will obviously be welcomed by the police. Hopefully they will find them other things to do alongside non enforcement of the Hunting Act.
Of course none of this is likely to happen because Labour aren’t going to win the next election.
In short it’s a load of bollocks. Continuing to hunt illegally is a human right – that human right is upheld by the police through inaction and whatever happens that situation is going to continue. Passing a law in westminster makes very little difference if it’s not enforced. I am innocent until proven guilty just because I am not complying with the hunting act – I am – in the eyes of the law – innocent of any crime.
The idea that people should have to obey the hunting act is bollocks – anyone who states that I should do so is a pro cruelty and pro animal abuse.
As a landowner it is my right to manage my land using my dogs in a humane manner which does no harm to wildlife. That’s what I have been doing and it’s what I will continue to do regardless of whatever laws the government puts in place. It’s also what the hunts should be doing.
This is simply the way things are it makes no difference who you vote for- it’s the way things will continue to be.
OK boomer
What everyone is forgetting is it is still perfectly legal to kill wild mammal with a bird of prey. So its not ok for a suitably sized hunting dog to kill a fox or hare but its ok for a Golden Eagle to do so. The Acts say you can use dogs to flush “for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal”.
Is the death from a Golden Eagle instantaneous? I doubt it, I’m sure suffering occurs, as it would in the wild.
Also it is still perfectly legal to hunt rabbits and rats with dogs!!
This Hunting Act was driven by Labour’s hatred of Conservatives and its realization that it could gain votes by preying on uninformed people’s emotions.
“To be honest it’s more fun if it’s illegal”
“Fun”. That just about sums up the mentality of these degenerates.
S for stupid’s latest ramble doesn’t really merit reply, considering one of the main points discussed here is the closing of such loopholes that allow the hunts to continue.
As for any political motivation: Even lowest of the low in the tory party appear to have finally realised just how toxic an issue setting dogs on wild animals for entertainment is, and have dumped it accordingly as a vote loser. I personally know many tory voters who rightly view the hunting set for the gutless perverts they are.
Ouch Coop! you go girl! 🙂
@coop I fully admit that I take great pleasure in not killing wildlife and yes the fact sick promoters of animal abuse like you object to that so strongly makes it even more fun.
I have a right to peacefully enjoy my property with friends and family in a humane manner which does not harm wildlife. Having to comply with the absurd Hunting Act would considerably reduce that pleasure – so I will not.
It’s very simple – you have your law – I won’t obey it – there’s nothing you can do to stop me.
The only degeneracy I can see is people like Mr Mark Avery who are so wedded to the idea of destroying the nation’s wildlife that they actually think that people should go ‘back to jail’ because they are willing to conserve it by flouting absurd unenforced legislation.
Not shooting a herd of running deer hurts it them less than shooting them. That’s just common sense.
Heard it all before. Go back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect £100.
Can I ask you whether you have a dog and if so if you took it for a walk and encountered a deer would you shoot the deer for animal welfare reasons?
I don’t think you understand what Giles is saying. He’s talking about walking a dog through woods and then not harming any deer but letting them move naturally away.
I fail to see what that has to do with being a ‘gutless pervert’ – perhaps you could explain the connection?
When I encounter deer I do exactly the same thing as Giles as I am sure would most dog walkers. The idea of these animals having to be killed because of a poorly worded section of the law is surely wrong!
I think the law is at fault here not Giles. This is an opportunity to rectify problems with the Hunting Act so we should look at the law as a whole. Shutting down the research exemption will just lead the hunts to use the flushing exemption instead. In many ways it’s tailor made for stag hunting and the obligation to kill all the deer is not a problem for them because that’s exactly what they want to do.
And another empty, fact-free comment from the plastic “countryside” lobby.
P.S. it’s funny to see that S for stupid has switched from parroting the Daily Mosely, to pinching one-liners from Chat Magazine.
I can assure you I have nothing to do with the “countryside lobby”. Rather than slinging around these tired tropes would it not be more constructive to address the obvious flaws in the law and try to address them? As log as people restrain their dogs and prevent them doing harm their actions should be legal.
And I can assure you, Alison, that my comment isn’t aimed at you, but S for stupid, who regularly trolls this blog with a mixture of laughable ecological ignorance, smears, and downright lies.
While you’re at it, ask Giles what he went inside for.
I saw that – sounds like a bit of a put up to me.
I know one thing though a lot of people do NOT like his criticism of the use of dogs to flush deer from woods in order to be shot – which is the very essence of stag hunting. They do NOT like seeing the law criticised in any way – even when it specifically backs a form of stag hunting.
The tragedy of all this is that if Labour do get in and get rid of the R&O exemption stag hunting will continue unabated.
Whatever you think about him Giles Bradshaw has taken a consistent position on the part of the law that is crucial to the continuation of stag hunting on Exmoor.
Flushing herds of deer out of woods bd then gunning them down is stag hunting. Walking through a wood and then not harming deer you disturb is not.
It is crazy that a law meant to be against hunting allows the former but bans the latter.
If you are pro stag hunting fair enough but if you oppose hunting you must see how nonsensical the current position is?
Are you really comfortable with the stag hounds being allowed to act in this manner. Do you not feel that if Labour want to end hunting and close loopholes this should be addressed?
Maybe he does have a point?
Oh, he’s constant alright!
I case anyone else here is in any doubt regarding the events in question.
Dangerous obsessive spring to mind.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/twitter-troll-jailed-after-threatening-2152077
Goodness me Coop, can you present to us what lies and smears I have told/made? I’m expressing an opinion and engaging in debate here, I’m sure that is the intention of being allowed to comment in these blog posts and Mark has the right not to publish my comments; if I was being a ‘troll’ then surely my comments wouldn’t be allowed. I think you are letting your anger get the better of you and you have forgotten how to debate reasonably. In light of this I promise not to reply directly to your messages anymore coops.
S for sorry 🙁
Everyone here is familiar with your lies, S for stupid. Re: the Wild Justice board, the effects of predation, the general licences etc. Like all your type, you live a lie. You masqerade as representing our countryside and rural dwellers. You masquerade as conservationists. You masquerade as authorities. The truth is that everything you stand for is fake, and you and your pals are no longer capable of misleading the public, who see you for what you are.
I see this as good progress but it does not go far enough.
When the Hunting Act was passed it was clear that in many respects it was flawed and needed revision.
Firstly the actual activity ‘Hunting’ is not properly defined. The english term ‘hunt’ can mean a whole number of things – no one knows for sure which are included in the Act because it does not say.
Giles’ “non lethal dispersal” would on the face of it NOT be included in the law. The act does say that hunting INCLUDES “pursuit” – pursuit implies an intention to kill or to catch. By simply walking his dogs through a wood there is clearly no intention on his part to kill or to catch therefore on the face of it he is not “hunting” under the law.
The problem comes with the extraordinarily badly worded exemptions to the law one of which states that “stalking and flushing out” is hunting unless exempt.
On the face of it this seems to mean that “stalking and flushing out” is hunting – however things may not be that simple.
Stalking and flushing out would obviously be hunting were the purpose to be to kill the flushed out deer – either by shooting or with the dogs.
However this is obviously NOT what Giles seeks to achieve. He states that he wishes merely to disperse the deer.
No one really knows whether such dispersal is included under the law.
The problem is that IF dispersal is included then given that dog walkers are BOUND to disperse wildlife they are at risk of having their activities banned.
The ONE thing that it was claimed precludes dog walkers falling foul of the law is the issue of ‘intent’. It was clearly stated that “hunting” HAD to be intentional. If the inevitable dispersal effect of dog walking in the countryside is “accidental” then ordinary dog walkers would be safe – and Giles guilty. Not because of any difference in their activities – indeed the dog walkers may be causing far more cruelty but because of the ‘mental element’ or ‘mens rea’. Put simply Giles’ crime would be due to the fact that he KNOWS that his dog walking will disperse wildlife and INTENDS that to happen.
The technical problem with the recklessness cause is that it removes the requirement for intent. Coupled with mere dispersal counting as hunting this would mean that any dog walker who KNOWS that his dog walking MAY disperse the odd deer becomes a hunt criminal.
The real question should of course be one of cruelty. Is it CRUEL to disperse wild animals. If we decide it is then it follows that dogs should be banned from being walked in areas where wild mammals may become aware of them and move away.
I would argue that deer CAN be dispersed without cruelty so long as there is not an extended chase. It would be quite wrong to ban such an activity whether or not it is intentional UNLESS there is cruelty or some other adverse effect – for example on protected species.
Moreover bringing about a situation where such ‘flushing’ is illegal UNLESS the flushed animals are immediately shot is clearly wrong UNLESS the shooting avoids some worse outcome for the deer.
In most if not all situations this is simply not the case and if people’s dogs are really so dangerous that walking them through a wood requires entire herds of deer to be killed in order to avoid the result that would otherwise ensue I’d suggest those dogs are clearly dangerous and should be muzzled and kept on a lead if not destroyed.
I don’t know what kind of dog Giles has but unless it is some kind of hellhound I would suggest that whole herd slaughter in his case should not be required.
I don’t see anything in what he says which is particularly ‘pro cruelty’ – quite the opposite.
The law clearly does need revision – Labour clearly recognise that and hopefully they will take a holistic approach including looking at all the exemptions and also properly and clearly defining what it is the law bans and what it allows.
Good stuff!
As for the illegality of flushing – I agree I’m not sure it is clear however I have to go on advice I receive from the Government and the Police and from the fact that the Government and the major charities took part in a legal case (the human rights challenge) where they insisted it was illegal.
I have deep concerns about the flushing of deer to guns – especially where the whole herd is meant to be killed as soon as possible. I think it could lead to horrendous cruelty. I have no doubt that some of the stag hound packs will fall back on this exemption if others are removed.
For one thing as well as the obvious cruelty aspect gunning down entire herds in this manner is extremely bad for nature conservation. When the QSH were prosecuted they were told by the judge they would have to have ten plus guns present to wipe out the whole herd. That’s pretty grim in my view.
I’d have thought that if people are against stag hunting which is basically flushing out deer, chasing them and then shooting them – they’d be against the flushing out exemption which allows them to chase deer out of woods and then shoot them.
The current law enables a form of stag hunting and Labour’s proposals effectively support the continuation of stag hunting because they refuse to address a key exemption under which stag hunting is done and will continue to be done.
I also think that the reason the flushing exemption is not being considered by Labour is due to certain political sensitivities around just how badly thought out the current exemption is.
If reckless chasing gets made illegal I will definitely be breaking the Hunting Act because my dogs occasionally chase squirrels. This is by definition hunting – however at the moment it’s only the dogs that hunt the squirrels and not me.
My dogs need healthy off the lead exercise and where I live there are lots of squirrels. As for ‘flushing’ or dispersal – making ‘reckless flushing’ illegal is even more ridiculous.
Is this a problem? That depends on how you look at it. The way things actually work is that lots of people will become in theory law breakers – but this law breaking will be conducted with complete impunity. The police do not have the time nor inclination to arrest people who know their dogs harmlessly chase (or ‘flush’) the odd squirrel. I’m sure quite a few police will find themselves on the wrong side of the law as well as people from all walks of life including anti hunt ‘activists’.
With laws like this we need to shed the old fashioned notion that there is anything necessarily wrong with flouting the law.
The fact is that there will be law breaking by design. It’s the whole point. Make far more people than you want to target be acting outside the law and then target those who you want to pick off.
If I am unable to let my dogs have a romp in my local park without the occasional harmless accidental chase or ‘flush’ making me a criminal the same will apply to hunts.
However the hunts will be prosecuted and I won’t. This is because activists will act as the gatekeepers of law enforcement deciding who’s accidental chasing should be passed to the police and who’s won’t be.
This is absolutely by design.
We see it already with Giles Bradshaw above who is flouting the Hunting Act by walking his dog ‘with intent’ in order to protest against the law allowing stag hunting to continue. Anti hunt activists are hardly going to get an anti hunter who flouts the law by not killing wildlife prosecuted.
All these modest proposals do is allow us to imprison people for hunting a wild mammal with a dog without them having to have actually hunted a wild mammal with a dog. We really need these reforms throughout the legal system and to put the victims first for once. Why for example does someone have to actually committed rape in order to be imprisoned for rape? Or indeed to have persecuted a raptor in order to be imprisoned for raptor persecution? Basically this would streamline the entire legal process and lead to a lot more prosecutions. Ordinary people have nothing to fear – we all know who the enemy are.
For any …. [Mark writes – most of this comment has been removed – it is too offensive]
Riding to hounds or at foot is at an end there is simply no way you can continue.