Legal Beaglese

Tamus

Well-Known Member
Actually the breed "theoretically" in question would be a labrador, in my case. Though, it might be any breed of dog at all.

The legislation that springs to mind is the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act.

So, you maybe go out round the farm and you're exercising your dog at the same time. Dog under control, taking commands, generally being a very good boy.

It's wet going, he maybe gets muddy and you think... Hmm... time for a bit of a swim fella. I'm not taking you back to the house totally clarty.

Anyhoo, putting dog through the pond and out the clean side you perhaps flush a fox from out of the rashes next to the pond. You've no gun with you or made any other provision to despatch a fox so flushed, when it is safe to do so.

Could you have "flushed" a fox in contravention of the terms of the abovementioned act? ..and thereby commited an offence?

I don't know the answer... Do any of you?
 
with one dog no problem,

isnt it 3 or more?
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002

1 Offences
(1)A person who deliberately hunts a wild mammal with a dog commits an offence.


No Bobt I think one dog is enough. I suppose my question really is..... If I don't meet the conditions of the exemptions from the above offence.

What is "delibrately" hunting a wild mammal?

My dog would be being directed at my command and although my intention would be that he just take a bath, one Fox got "hunted". Yes/No?
 
Me an my best mate used to have 17 dogs between us and regularly flushed all manner of creatures when we walked them in our woods was long before all this current nonesense but we have often reflected on how we would have gone on as we were genuinely exercising our dogs.. however it was quite rare not to take out my winchester for it's walkies at the same time :lol:
 
Two hounds/dogs max to flush foxes from cover , one terrier (not a hard type) to flush a fox from an earth into nets or waiting guns , terriers not to be used in earths to kill cubs
 
Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002

1 Offences
(1)A person who deliberately hunts a wild mammal with a dog commits an offence.

My dog would be being directed at my command and although my intention would be that he just take a bath, one Fox got "hunted". Yes/No?

No.

hunt·ing (h
ubreve.gif
n
prime.gif
t
ibreve.gif
ng)n.1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.

You would neither be acting 'deliberately', nor actually 'hunting' the fox.
 
No.

hunt·ing (h
ubreve.gif
n
prime.gif
t
ibreve.gif
ng)n.1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.

You would neither be acting 'deliberately', nor actually 'hunting' the fox.

If I went back to the same place another day, did the same thing and got the same outcome.

What then?
 
You're dog would be even cleaner? :D

Not neccessarily.... but... Even cleaner.. is what he is before he's allowed back in the house.:D

My own conclusion is... if my dog's going to keep flushing foxes, unexpectedly, I'm needing to shoot more foxes. If there are none I can't get into trouble for inadvertently breaking this strange law that may restrict my otherwise lawful activities.
 
Surely this is about intention, your didnt send your dog into the pond with the intention of flushing a fox and were therefore not hunting
 
Last edited:
Surely this is about intention, your didnt send your dog into the pond with the intention of fluching a fox and were therefore not hunting

I'd hope you were right. Who decides what my intentions are?

If I go about my farm and repeatedly do the same things, will others deem what my intent is and perhaps attempt to see prosecution brought because they think I do wrong, or will I always get by if I say my intention is good?
 
You I think are misinterpreting hunting. To disturb is not to hunt. Hunt refers to the dogs being used to chase and kill. Otherwise there would be no difference to flushing a sparrow out the bush instead of a fox. Pheasant shoots could not have dogs. If your lab chased the fox without your command he is not under control.
Jim
 
I would think that to bring about any kind of prosecution and under UK law the burden of proof lies with them. They have to prove your intention and the only way I could see them doing that is to catch you with a dead fox covered in injuries caused by your dog. That is the one of the last vestiges of good in the legal system, burden of proof and the fact that it lies with the prosecution rather than the defence.
 
I would think that to bring about any kind of prosecution and under UK law the burden of proof lies with them. They have to prove your intention and the only way I could see them doing that is to catch you with a dead fox covered in injuries caused by your dog. That is the one of the last vestiges of good in the legal system, burden of proof and the fact that it lies with the prosecution rather than the defence.

Astonishing as it may seem, it's perfectly ok for my dog to catch and kill the fox. So, long as that happens in the course of my seeking to flush said fox to a gun (or guns) such that it will be shot when it is safe to do so.

The problem is, I've got sheep on my land, maybe I'm quite content to see off a fox by any means.

As I suggested earlier, it seems to me that; my only safe recourse if I'm going to be regularly flushing foxes in any manner that may be deemed "delibrate", is..

A) To carry a gun at all times when such an event might occur... and/or..

B) Obliterate, by lawfully killing, all foxes on my land.

I'm sure this isn't what the lawmakers had in mind. Ironic, isn't it?
 
Back
Top