Uncle Buck
Well-Known Member
Thank you Tamus, it should be CRYSTAL CLEAR to all how we stand. !
Rgds, Buck.
Rgds, Buck.
No... He's not advocating breaking the law... either in Scotland or south of the border.
QUOTE]
Tamus- I am fully aware of the Deer Scotland Act 1996 and based on Widowson's comments in his OP where he stated it was not legal based on his opinion then YES he was advocating breaking the law.
The fact that Section 25 of the Act confers a right in a certain situation is something different.
I contacted Mr Hingston regarding our previous discussion on the ownership of a carcase taken under 25 from ground where you do not have rights to shoot and he kindly responded on the same vein as the letter sent to you. However, I queried how one can have a defence under Section 25 of the said Act to shoot the deer, but then you have to apply Common Law to recover the carcase. As you are no doubt aware Statute takes precedent over Common Law and Section 17(2) subject to Section 25 merely states that you do not commit an offence under the Act by removing it, it does not say that you can! Whereas Section 17 confers the right to 'take' on the person who has the shooting rights on that ground. I await his response.
The other interesting scenario is that you shoot a deer on your own ground and it walks onto an adjacent ground within full view of you, you wait the obligatory 10 mins and see that it is dead as there is no movement! Are you protected under Section 25 to enter and prevent suffering? Not if the deer is dead as your action is not to prevent suffering!
As someone else has said, if you use the Act for one action (Shooting) and then the Common law for another action (removal of carcase) on ground where you do not have rights, then it is essentially a 'Get out Jail card'! Can't have it both ways.
No... He's not advocating breaking the law... either in Scotland or south of the border.
QUOTE]
Tamus- I am fully aware of the Deer Scotland Act 1996 and based on Widowson's comments in his OP where he stated it was not legal based on his opinion then YES he was advocating breaking the law.
The fact that Section 25 of the Act confers a right in a ceratin situation is something different.
I contacted Mr Hingston regarding our previous discussion on the ownership of a carcase taken under 25 from ground where you do not have rights to shoot and he kindly responded on the same vein as the letter sent to you. However, I queried how one can have a defence under Section 25 of the said Act to shoot the deer, but then you have to apply Common Law to recover the carcase. As you are no doubt aware Statute takes precedent over Common Law and Section 17(2) subject to Section 25 merely states that you do not commit an offence under the Act by removing it, it does not say that you can! Whereas Section 17 confers the right to 'take' on the person who has the shooting rights on that ground. I await his response.
The other interesting scenario is that you shoot a deer on your own ground and it walks onto an adjacent ground within full view of you, you wait the obligatory 10 mins and see that it is dead as there is no movement! Are you protected under Section 25 to enter and prevent suffering? Not if the deer is dead as your action is not to prevent suffering!
As someone else has said, if you use the Act for one action (Shooting) and then the Common law for another action (removal of carcase) on ground where you do not have rights, then it is essentially a 'Get out Jail card'! Can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE
Your logic is fallible. I will not argue against it.
Mr Hingston will put you straight, but it will only be useful to you if you can understand what you are being told.
What I will say is... Just becasue a man doesn't know for sure that what he is doing is lawful, as well as morally right, that does NOT make it unlawful. Being both morally right and lawful is what we aim for here I think and I've not seen anyone say anything that leads me to suspect they've not done both.
You won't get blanket permission from many because it can encourage flexible boundaries. If it was me you were asking I would request that should it occur you informed me on a case by case basis and a decision on what action to take would be made by me. That action may include permission to go and get it, but that way everyone is crystal about their position and encourages sensible shooting.
to prevent suffering would give you a defence "in court"
you can break most if not all laws to save life (human) if that is your "defence in court"
but if the cps take it to court it can go either way
hi fatty
who decides what is in the public interest
So you advocate breaking the law, but are concerned that stalkers are getting bad press- contradiction in terms?
As far as i am aware from a legal point if the Deer is shot on your permission and drops on other land then it belongs to that land owner its not yours to retrieve.That's it plain and simple. no point getting all ethical about it but i must say it is a dilemma. no different to the rules of engagement in the military some times it just don't make sense,
alexs nice post and you say you dont have this issue thats great but this was a hypothtical question so what would you do if your deer did cross a boundary and die which happens all to often.
Simple would you leave it to suffer or rot or would you go and get it and use it the way it should be.
I have at no time advocated that anyone act in an illegal manner, I know what I do I've been at this for some 37 years ,I'm not going to change my mind or habits now ,I do what I do for the reasons I stated in the former post .
Theres no contradiction in any terms stalkers will always get bad press people think (badly educated) that those wee roe deer haven't done anyone or thing any harm ,so why are you out there killing them, then there is the poacher who gets disturbed and walks away ,or in Glasgow the deer slaughtered in the necropolis and left over the grave stones ,and the deer left hanging in the trees in Clydebank golf course ,so no double standreds and no contradiction ,fo me it is right to work in a humain fashion .
I would never like to think any stalker worth his salt would walk away, if a beast jumped a march fence after it had been shot ,I'd go as far to say with someone who was to carry out such practices like that, should give the game up, as they have absolutely no interest or care for the deer that they are managing , I say managing because that's what we're all meant to be doing .
The day the police knock the door and say I was poaching by carrying out such humain practices I'll gladly give them the guns and won't contest that fact .
Thank you Tamus, it should be CRYSTAL CLEAR to all how we stand. !
Rgds, Buck.
I'm curious has there been a test case where section 25 was put foreward as a defence Tamus ?
as you know the proof's in the pudding !..............