lurcherboy Posted October 9, 2006 Report Share Posted October 9, 2006 Lifted from a ferret site. We spoke earlier this week about the Hunting Act 2004, and I promised to e-mail you to explain in more detail what activities remain legal. The Hunting Act came into effect in February 2005. It makes the hunting with dogs of all wild mammals an offence, and also completely bans hare coursing. There are a few tightly-drawn exemptions set out in the Act, which allow essential activities such as pest control, to continue, subject to strict conditions. With regards to hare coursing, a person commits an offence under the Act ifhe: (a) participates in a hare coursing event, ( attends a hare coursing event, © knowingly facilitates a hare coursing event, or (d) permits land which belongs to him to be used for a hare coursing event. Furthermore, if a person (a) enters a dog in a hare coursing event, ( permits a dog to be entered in a hare coursing event or © controls or handles a dog in the course of or for the purpose of the hare coursing event, he is committing an offence under the Hunting Act 2004. For the purposes of the Act, a "hare coursing event" is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares. The hunting of hares which does not fall within the definition of hare coursing above may be legal, provided it falls within one of the exemptions in the Act. Exempt hunting is defined in Schedule 1 of the Act and consists of 9 exemptions (acts which remain legal). The exemptions which are probably most of interest to you are those concerning rats and rabbits, and the retrieval of hares. The Hunting Act allows the hunting of rats and rabbits, provided the hunting takes place on land which either belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. The Act also allows the retrieval of a hare which has been shot, provided this hunting takes place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting hares by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. he Hunting Act allows the rescue of a wild mammal using dogs, but is subject to 7 conditions. Taken in order, these are: (1) the hunter must reasonably believe that the wild mammal is or may be injured; (2) the hunting must be undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal's suffering; (3) the hunting must not involve the use of more than 2 dogs; (4) the hunting must not involve the use of a dog below ground; (5) the hunting must take place either on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, or with the authority of a constable; (6) reasonable steps must be taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found, appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and in particular, each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct this; and (7) the wild mammal must not have been harmed for the purpose of enabling it to be hunted under this exemption. One other exemption which may be of interest to you is the stalking and flushing out exemption, which allows up to 2 dogs to be used to stalk a wild mammal, or flush it out of cover. This exemption can only be used in limited circumstances, such as preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause to livestock. As with the other exemptions, the stalking or flushing out must take place on land which either belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out or which he has been given permission to use for this purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. As a condition of this exemption, reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out, the wild mammal must be shot dead by a competent person, and each dog used in the stalking or flushing out must be kept under sufficient control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct this. The stalking and flushing out exemption must not involve the use of a dog below ground unless the stalking or flushing out is undertaken to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot. Only one dog may be used below ground at any one time, and the manner in which the dog is used must comply with the Code of Practice published by the BASC - www.basc.org.uk There is a useful summary of the Hunting Act at http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/summary.htm I hope this is useful, but if you need me to check over anything, or if anything is unclear, please contact me as below. Regards Jackie Rawlings Rural Stakeholder Relations Team Defra Area 2D Ergon House Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AL 07770 828043 LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonrms Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 This should be pinned up or made into a sticky until further changes...... which will no doubt happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 That article seems to clarify that it is illegal under any circumstances to course hares, however you may use dogs to flush hares to guns and also to retrieve a wounded, or dead hare. Its also permissable for the hunting of rats and rabbits with dogs, provided the hunting takes place on land which either belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose of hunting by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. The Hunting Act 2004 is here; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040037.htm Its worth reading the excemptions in Schedule 1, referred to in the article, they are not as "generous" as you might imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiercel Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 That article seems to clarify that it is illegal under any circumstances to course hares [/quote) I was wondering about that, but, having read all the relevant documents, I can only find reference to Hare coursing events. I cannot find any reference to a single dog coursing a Hare. (as in not a competition ) All it seems to say is that you are not allowed to course Hares in a Hare coursing event. Tiercel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The wording of the article is rather obtuse and has missed the chance of clarity. It states, "and also completely bans hare coursing.", then goes on to give definitions of, "hare coursing events". Why is that necessary, if "hare coursing" is completely banned, then by definition "hare coursing events" are banned. If you read Schedule 1 of the Act, where the excemptions are listed, there is no mention of coursing a hare with a single dog, unless you stretch the imagination and claim that the single dog is flushing it to a gun. I think the article was designed to clarify that in certain circumstances, hunting rats and rabbits with dogs is permitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiercel Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The wording of the article is rather obtuse and has missed the chance of clarity. It states, "and also completely bans hare coursing.", then goes on to give definitions of, "hare coursing events". Why is that necessary, if "hare coursing" is completely banned, then by definition "hare coursing events" are banned. I may be wrong here, (usually am ) but I think that those quotes that you have given are there merely to define "Coursing" as opposed to one dog "Chasing a Hare". It seems as if one dog chasing a Hare is not “coursing†as defined by their definition of coursing. This really puzzles me. 4 Hunting: defence It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 in respect of hunting to show that he reasonably believed that the hunting was exempt. We have all been taught that ignorance is no defence. Yet here it is in law, that it is. Could this be a cop out clause. Tiercel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The wording of the article is rather obtuse and has missed the chance of clarity. It states, "and also completely bans hare coursing.", then goes on to give definitions of, "hare coursing events". Why is that necessary, if "hare coursing" is completely banned, then by definition "hare coursing events" are banned. I may be wrong here, (usually am ) but I think that those quotes that you have given are there merely to define "Coursing" as opposed to one dog "Chasing a Hare". It seems as if one dog chasing a Hare is not “coursing†as defined by their definition of coursing. This really puzzles me. 4 Hunting: defence It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 in respect of hunting to show that he reasonably believed that the hunting was exempt. [/i] We have all been taught that ignorance is no defence. Yet here it is in law, that it is. Could this be a cop out clause. Tiercel I would disagree (as I usually do ), I interpreted the article to say, that "a hare coursing event" is a competition between dogs using live hares to adjudge which dog is the most skilful.....this is illegal. It also states that "hare coursing is illegal", a Dictionary definition of "coursing" is, "to hunt (game) with dogs by sight rather than by scent". I intepret this to mean that hunting hares with any number of dogs, in competition, or not, is illegal. I remember reading a newspaper or magazine article when the Act was being dissected, when it first came out and this clause was said to cover members of the public whose dogs inadvertently chased something. It does seem like a loophole, although I suspect if you had a couple of long dogs, slipping leads and were somewhere you were not supposed to be, it may not help too much. What is really interesting, is that an article that is supposed to clarify a situation, seems to just muddy the waters a bit more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 All the wording regarding 'coursing' allways uses the plural, dogs, not dog. So I will be testing the law and putting NTTF firmly in the frame should it all go tits up LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 LB, is it your interpretation of that article, that you are permitted to run down a hare (course it), using one dog ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkshire Pudding Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 My interpretation of defra's clearly written statement is ... Two dogs NO , single dog YES . Does'nt bother me either way . I have told the Lemmy not to chase Hares and foxes , but the boys thick . He pays no attention to me . I figure it's the Saluki in him , beening an Arab , he does not understand English .... Now whats Arabic for stop chasing that hare ? all the best yis yp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 LB, is it your interpretation of that article, that you are permitted to run down a hare (course it), using one dog ? Yes Cranfield. I have been watching all the legal pitches over this since the ban and I think I have the loophole. Time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Thats interesting, because if that is a general interpretation, it won't be long before someone tests it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted October 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 My interpretation of defra's clearly written statement is ... Two dogs NO , single dog YES . Does'nt bother me either way . I have told the Lemmy not to chase Hares and foxes , but the boys thick . He pays no attention to me . I figure it's the Saluki in him , beening an Arab , he does not understand English .... Now whats Arabic for stop chasing that hare ? all the best yis yp Lemmy has got issues. You own him, so he is boloxed Luckily he has been near to Allah and judging by the pics is up for pussy :( Let me know when he can deliver a 3.5 Kilo furry thing LB Thats interesting, because if that is a general interpretation, it won't be long before someone tests it. On or after the 17th October Cranfield. LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new to the flock Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 All the wording regarding 'coursing' allways uses the plural, dogs, not dog. So I will be testing the law and putting NTTF firmly in the frame should it all go tits up LB Cranfield, If you recieve a call during the wee hours.......... PLEASE COME AND POST MY BAIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Master Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 My interpretation of defra's clearly written statement is ... Two dogs NO , single dog YES . Does'nt bother me either way . I have told the Lemmy not to chase Hares and foxes , but the boys thick . He pays no attention to me . I figure it's the Saluki in him , beening an Arab , he does not understand English .... Now whats Arabic for stop chasing that hare ? all the best yis yp "Honest guv, the dog doesn't understand English". LB, is it your interpretation of that article, that you are permitted to run down a hare (course it), using one dog ? Yes Cranfield. I have been watching all the legal pitches over this since the ban and I think I have the loophole. Time will tell My interpretation of defra's clearly written statement is ... Two dogs NO , single dog YES . Does'nt bother me either way . I have told the Lemmy not to chase Hares and foxes , but the boys thick . He pays no attention to me . I figure it's the Saluki in him , beening an Arab , he does not understand English .... Now whats Arabic for stop chasing that hare ? all the best yis yp Lemmy has got issues. You own him, so he is boloxed :( Luckily he has been near to Allah and judging by the pics is up for pussy Let me know when he can deliver a 3.5 Kilo furry thing LB Thats interesting, because if that is a general interpretation, it won't be long before someone tests it. On or after the 17th October Cranfield. LB All the wording regarding 'coursing' allways uses the plural, dogs, not dog. So I will be testing the law and putting NTTF firmly in the frame should it all go tits up LB Cranfield, If you recieve a call during the wee hours.......... PLEASE COME AND POST MY BAIL I'm sure if you and LB go to court we could organise a little Pigeon Watch members protest outside the court to show support for our dodgey long dog running members. :o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 NTTF, if you can't run fast enough, thats not my problem. :yp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new to the flock Posted October 11, 2006 Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 NTTF, if you can't run fast enough, thats not my problem. :yp: :yp: :yp: :o NTTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.