cookingfat
Well-Known Member
Good morning George,
I have not said it’s illegal to cross boundaries, all I said was our members will not cross boundaries without permission anywhere in the UK
That’s our policy
cheers Tony
Dog trackers .
- Thread starter Tulloch
- Start date
I have not said it’s illegal to cross boundaries, all I said was our members will not cross boundaries without permission anywhere in the UK
That’s our policy
cheers Tony
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
Morning Tony,
You and others within UKDTR did say it was illegal numerous times but hey ho.
Your policy is your policy.
Our policy in UKSHA is to follow the law in the UK.
English or Scottish law.
A wounded animal should be followed whether there is permission or not.
Welfare of that animal should be paramount.
The English law in reality should be changed but very doubtful that would ever happen-whats a wounded animal or 5 ?
Have a nice Xmas.
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
Exactly rms364
Body language is everything.
Even a tracking dog running after a wounded animal within a field of sheep will have zero effect on the sheep,as in Africa-the prey species will look on as the wounded or weaker one succumbs.
Our dogs will completely ignore everything whilst working a wounded animal,ignore everything but the wounded animal.
I have photos from the last time in Germany where we tracked a wounded boar through the city centre of Berlin.
100’s of people and do everywhere with traffic all around-different from sheep or livestock but the dogs don’t worry about anything else when on track.
My dog will completely ignore everything on a track and we have tracked through fields of sheep which are lambing are the time,with afterbirth on the floor-dog completely ignoring all but the wounded animal.
All the best
George
Body language is everything.
Even a tracking dog running after a wounded animal within a field of sheep will have zero effect on the sheep,as in Africa-the prey species will look on as the wounded or weaker one succumbs.
Our dogs will completely ignore everything whilst working a wounded animal,ignore everything but the wounded animal.
I have photos from the last time in Germany where we tracked a wounded boar through the city centre of Berlin.
100’s of people and do everywhere with traffic all around-different from sheep or livestock but the dogs don’t worry about anything else when on track.
My dog will completely ignore everything on a track and we have tracked through fields of sheep which are lambing are the time,with afterbirth on the floor-dog completely ignoring all but the wounded animal.
All the best
George
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
This thread content is the prime reason I haven't got a dedicated tracker dog. The hounds are very very focussed on what they do, small hunting blocks and complex legal situations can make for a nightmare in very short order.
Aggressive responses to trespass by man or dog are not necessarily the best way to go.
On the Continent things seem to be different, dogs aren't expected to know when they're trespassing or likely to be turned inside out by someone with a .243 pretty much just for being there. The difference isn't just legal, it's cultural.
A couple of years ago I was hunting in Sweden and one of the hounds took off after a boar, we stood there for over an hour and then I asked where she was. She's 5.3 K that a way, not on our ground not on the neighbours not on the next ground. What happens next? We go and get her, if she's on a moose we offer it to the other team, if it's a boar we offer but they'll probably tell us to deal with it ourselves. What happens if she gets lost? No problem, she'll wander up to a farm and the farmer will lock her up and call the hunt master, the hunt master will make a few calls until the owner is located, it hardly ever happens with GPS nowadays but was common enough years ago.
Shooting hunting dogs just doesn't happen.Dogs aren't expected to know or conform to shoot boundaries either.
I hunt a lot in sheep country and some shepherds seem to take a very expansive view of what constitutes " worrying" and their right to protect their livelihood with firearms, a couple regularly patrol with a rifle on the quad and one has a .223 licenced specificall to shoot marauding dogs.
I'd rather not have my dog shot, thank you, and if you do shoot it I'm likely to be peeved enough to tie you up for a long and potentially expensive court appearance, the dog is actually worth a fair bit in its own right.
Dogs don't read signs or understand which fences are not to be crossed, we do , if my pup vanishes into the wide blue yonder, I will go after it. It'd be nice to retrieve the deer, but I'm not leaving without pup and fences and signs won't prevent me trying.
If I have a firearm I'll unload it and stick the bolt in my pocket but it's coming along too, it'd be illegal to leave it behind.
If you happen upon me during my quest, don't start with a lot of shouting and swearing, chances are good that I'll shout and swear back ( I'm very stressed) and with neither of us listening it's unlikely that we'll see eye to eye or part amicably.
I know I'm off my ground and in the wrong, I won't enjoy your lecture but I won't argue back and if you've got time to give me a hand to get the pup back I'll be very grateful, if there's damage I'll pay for it.
We can discuss shortfalls in my training programme after I have her back.
Most people are reasonable most of the time, there are assholes but not as many as you might think, if you start off by being reasonable and things turn to crap despite you're best efforts by all means reciprocate, I deserve it.
It's much easier to turn up the volume than to turn it down.
Aggressive responses to trespass by man or dog are not necessarily the best way to go.
On the Continent things seem to be different, dogs aren't expected to know when they're trespassing or likely to be turned inside out by someone with a .243 pretty much just for being there. The difference isn't just legal, it's cultural.
A couple of years ago I was hunting in Sweden and one of the hounds took off after a boar, we stood there for over an hour and then I asked where she was. She's 5.3 K that a way, not on our ground not on the neighbours not on the next ground. What happens next? We go and get her, if she's on a moose we offer it to the other team, if it's a boar we offer but they'll probably tell us to deal with it ourselves. What happens if she gets lost? No problem, she'll wander up to a farm and the farmer will lock her up and call the hunt master, the hunt master will make a few calls until the owner is located, it hardly ever happens with GPS nowadays but was common enough years ago.
Shooting hunting dogs just doesn't happen.Dogs aren't expected to know or conform to shoot boundaries either.
I hunt a lot in sheep country and some shepherds seem to take a very expansive view of what constitutes " worrying" and their right to protect their livelihood with firearms, a couple regularly patrol with a rifle on the quad and one has a .223 licenced specificall to shoot marauding dogs.
I'd rather not have my dog shot, thank you, and if you do shoot it I'm likely to be peeved enough to tie you up for a long and potentially expensive court appearance, the dog is actually worth a fair bit in its own right.
Dogs don't read signs or understand which fences are not to be crossed, we do , if my pup vanishes into the wide blue yonder, I will go after it. It'd be nice to retrieve the deer, but I'm not leaving without pup and fences and signs won't prevent me trying.
If I have a firearm I'll unload it and stick the bolt in my pocket but it's coming along too, it'd be illegal to leave it behind.
If you happen upon me during my quest, don't start with a lot of shouting and swearing, chances are good that I'll shout and swear back ( I'm very stressed) and with neither of us listening it's unlikely that we'll see eye to eye or part amicably.
I know I'm off my ground and in the wrong, I won't enjoy your lecture but I won't argue back and if you've got time to give me a hand to get the pup back I'll be very grateful, if there's damage I'll pay for it.
We can discuss shortfalls in my training programme after I have her back.
Most people are reasonable most of the time, there are assholes but not as many as you might think, if you start off by being reasonable and things turn to crap despite you're best efforts by all means reciprocate, I deserve it.
It's much easier to turn up the volume than to turn it down.
cookingfat
Well-Known Member
Evening George,
UKDTR have never said its illegal to cross a boundary to end suffering in Scotland,
When we set up our handler tests for full members we asked some of the larger landowner's in Scotland( FC Scotland for one) what they thought about handlers crossing boundaries with firearms to end suffering, they said NO and until UKDTR get written permission from them and other landowner's to do so we will respect there wishes despite what section 25 says yes animal welfare should be paramount but we all stay within the law!
Thank you for asking, I have had a fantastic Christmas and looking forward to 2020
Hope you and your family have a brilliant new year.
Tony
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
The law is the law.
FC and any other land owners do not write the law.
The law is there for the allievation of suffering of a wounded animal.
As trackers that is what you should be concerned with,not whether a land owner who doesn’t agree with the law allows.
Husky,please read.....
Section 25 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 exempts individuals from being guilty of any offences involving the taking or killing of deer at any time if it is done for the purpose of preventing suffering by:
an injured or diseased deer; or
by any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived, or about to be deprived, of its mother, or
a deer which is starving and which has no reasonable chance of recovering.
If killing deer for the purposes described above you may use a firearm/ammunition that would otherwise be prohibited. Ref: Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) order 1985 which details the legal weapons and ammunition combinations for the culling of uninjured deer is not applicable.
Also please also read this within Best Practice.....
If a deer is dispatched on ground where you do not have deer control rights (e.g. an injured deer that has moved onto neighbouring ground), ensure that the owner/occupier is informed and has given permission to remove the carcass, or is informed as soon as possible thereafter.
As stated,the law is the law.
Nowhere within the above does it state that because FC or any other landowner does not like the law must permission be sought.
We in UKSHA will continue to abide by the law.
Tony,you did say,numerous times that it was illegal,all the while attempting to say we were breaking laws.
Until you and others were proven wrong within a Best Practice meeting.
All perfect up here Tony,just looking forward to Hogmany now,Xmas was over way too quickly.
All the best
George
FC and any other land owners do not write the law.
The law is there for the allievation of suffering of a wounded animal.
As trackers that is what you should be concerned with,not whether a land owner who doesn’t agree with the law allows.
Husky,please read.....
Section 25 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 exempts individuals from being guilty of any offences involving the taking or killing of deer at any time if it is done for the purpose of preventing suffering by:
an injured or diseased deer; or
by any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived, or about to be deprived, of its mother, or
a deer which is starving and which has no reasonable chance of recovering.
If killing deer for the purposes described above you may use a firearm/ammunition that would otherwise be prohibited. Ref: Deer (Firearms etc.) (Scotland) order 1985 which details the legal weapons and ammunition combinations for the culling of uninjured deer is not applicable.
Also please also read this within Best Practice.....
If a deer is dispatched on ground where you do not have deer control rights (e.g. an injured deer that has moved onto neighbouring ground), ensure that the owner/occupier is informed and has given permission to remove the carcass, or is informed as soon as possible thereafter.
As stated,the law is the law.
Nowhere within the above does it state that because FC or any other landowner does not like the law must permission be sought.
We in UKSHA will continue to abide by the law.
Tony,you did say,numerous times that it was illegal,all the while attempting to say we were breaking laws.
Until you and others were proven wrong within a Best Practice meeting.
All perfect up here Tony,just looking forward to Hogmany now,Xmas was over way too quickly.
All the best
George
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
If that old stag/hind on every Highland Estate is suffering......”with no reasonable chance of recovery”
Then yes,you may do that legally.As long as you do not remove the carcass as it belongs to the landowner.
Read Section 25 of the Deer Act(Scotland)
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Best of luck with that.....Doesn't she have Gurkha's up there?
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
Wise words from Rem284 - letter of the law is all very well but I’m real life it doesn’t help.
about as much use as a chocolate fire guard springs to mind
About as much use as an ashtray on you motor bike
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
As much use as a fart in a colander
jamross65
Well-Known Member
Yes, the law is the law and just like the landowners and the FC do not write the law, neither do you or the UKSHA.
You and your organisation have time and time again claimed to operate within the law, yet seem to only cherry pick the parts that suit your argument, ignoring all other legislation that is in place regarding access to land whilst carrying a firearm. It is honestly like banging my head off a wall trying to get this through to you lot! You're still preaching to others that you are right yet have no actual case law to back this up.
Let me explain it in as simple terms as possible for your benefit and those who want to listen to you.
Sect 25 makes no specific reference to method of dispatch where ending suffering is concerned, do we agree on that? Hence weapons that would otherwise be prohibited for taking deer are now exempt from that control because better a wounded or injured beast being shot with a .22RF or shotgun at close range than suffering injuries for longer than is necessary. Banging it to on the head with a mallet could be deemed acceptable. Circumstances are all important regarding method of dispatch however. What isn't necessary and not referred to in ANY legislation is the method of dispatch being SPECIFIED regarding ending suffering. It is open ended....
But, where a firearm is the choice of dispatch then other legislation does not suddenly become defunct!!!! The Firearms legislation is still in force and sect 25 of the Deer Act does not say anywhere that it supersedes the Firearms legislation.
The Firearms legislation makes it very clear that entering land in Scotland with a firearm without permission (lawful authority) or reasonable excuse is an offence. Time and time again your organisation has preached that looking for a wounded deer is a reasonable excuse (it certainly isn't lawful authority) does not mean that a court would agree. You are basing every argument on this reasonable excuse when looking for a wounded deer. That does not mean a sheriff will agree with you, because if they do then they have opened the floodgates for every poaching b*****d in the country to say he is looking for a wounded deer if caught over a boundary with a rifle. Who cares if he is with a tracking dog or not, he is using EXACTLY the same excuse as you are using. No tracking organisations or qualified dogs are recognised in the UK just now so whether you say you've the best dog in the country or not, on paper my mates chihuahua is in the eyes of the law as qualified in being your 'excuse' in searching for a wounded deer.
The only way this will be decided is when someone is reported to the Crown Office for being on land with a firearm without permission saying they are searching for a wounded deer.
In the meantime it is (as usual) all blah blah blah.....
Match point I think!
Excellent.
jamross65
Well-Known Member
20Trespassing with firearm.
(1)A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [F82or imitation firearm] with him, he enters or is in any building or part of a building as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
(2)A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [F82or imitation firearm] with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
Above is lifted from the Firearms Act.
Below is lifted from the Deer Act
25Action intended to prevent suffering.
A person shall not be guilty of an offence against this Act or any order made under this Act in respect of any act done for the purpose of preventing suffering by—
[F1(za)a deer which is starving and which has no reasonable chance of recovering;]
(a)an injured or diseased deer; or
(b)F2... any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived, or about to be deprived, of its mother.
Contained within the Deer Act are sections specifically referring to legal/illegal methods of taking deer. The deer referred to in those sections are healthy, uninjured and not suffering. To use for example a non-specified firearm/calibre/chamber (in other words an illegal one) on a healthy uninjured deer is an offence as highlighted in the Act. However, should the deer be suffering or injured then the offences specified in THIS act (the Deer Act) whereby an otherwise illegal method of dispatch would create an offence, are overruled......to prevent suffering. That is the ONLY excuse for what would be an otherwise illegal method of dispatch. Because under the Deer Act you could use your knife, dog, hammer, in fact anything to end the animals suffering(unless of course the method used was deemed to cause MORE suffering than that already being endured by the animal, which could open up a whole new can of worms).....it does not require a firearm as specified under the act. What the Deer Act does not do is give 'trackers' a carte blanche excusal from any OTHER possible offences committed OUTWITH this act. In the meantime pending a legal decision, this is the bit the UKSHA need to grasp.
The point I have made to the UKSHA and it's chairman, the one they/he seems to continually ignore, is the reference to the firearms offences as specified in the first paragraph, namely entering land with a firearm without permission. The reference to reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) is the bit that will cause the issue.
Imagine the scenario if a landowner calls the police regarding someone wandering across their land with a firearm, having no prior permission to be there. Police are called and being agents to the Crown Office they cannot make a guilty/not guilty decision based on a point of law. They will be duty bound to charge and report the person to allow the courts to make a ruling (in the meantime removing your FAC and firearms). The point I have tried to make previously is the court will not necessarily agree that looking for an allegedly wounded/injured/suffering deer is a reasonable excuse. Proof of your excuse will be required for a start as the onus is on you. Ending suffering in the courts eyes may not supersede the need for continual health and safety concerns regarding use of a firearm on land that the tracker has no knowledge of, or estate activities ongoing never mind an estate worker/stalker out and thinking they have the land to themselves......
Obviously a court may well find in favour of the tracker and his reasonable excuse. But in every court case there were two lawyers both claiming they were right.....
(1)A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [F82or imitation firearm] with him, he enters or is in any building or part of a building as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
(2)A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [F82or imitation firearm] with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).
Above is lifted from the Firearms Act.
Below is lifted from the Deer Act
25Action intended to prevent suffering.
A person shall not be guilty of an offence against this Act or any order made under this Act in respect of any act done for the purpose of preventing suffering by—
[F1(za)a deer which is starving and which has no reasonable chance of recovering;]
(a)an injured or diseased deer; or
(b)F2... any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived, or about to be deprived, of its mother.
Contained within the Deer Act are sections specifically referring to legal/illegal methods of taking deer. The deer referred to in those sections are healthy, uninjured and not suffering. To use for example a non-specified firearm/calibre/chamber (in other words an illegal one) on a healthy uninjured deer is an offence as highlighted in the Act. However, should the deer be suffering or injured then the offences specified in THIS act (the Deer Act) whereby an otherwise illegal method of dispatch would create an offence, are overruled......to prevent suffering. That is the ONLY excuse for what would be an otherwise illegal method of dispatch. Because under the Deer Act you could use your knife, dog, hammer, in fact anything to end the animals suffering(unless of course the method used was deemed to cause MORE suffering than that already being endured by the animal, which could open up a whole new can of worms).....it does not require a firearm as specified under the act. What the Deer Act does not do is give 'trackers' a carte blanche excusal from any OTHER possible offences committed OUTWITH this act. In the meantime pending a legal decision, this is the bit the UKSHA need to grasp.
The point I have made to the UKSHA and it's chairman, the one they/he seems to continually ignore, is the reference to the firearms offences as specified in the first paragraph, namely entering land with a firearm without permission. The reference to reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) is the bit that will cause the issue.
Imagine the scenario if a landowner calls the police regarding someone wandering across their land with a firearm, having no prior permission to be there. Police are called and being agents to the Crown Office they cannot make a guilty/not guilty decision based on a point of law. They will be duty bound to charge and report the person to allow the courts to make a ruling (in the meantime removing your FAC and firearms). The point I have tried to make previously is the court will not necessarily agree that looking for an allegedly wounded/injured/suffering deer is a reasonable excuse. Proof of your excuse will be required for a start as the onus is on you. Ending suffering in the courts eyes may not supersede the need for continual health and safety concerns regarding use of a firearm on land that the tracker has no knowledge of, or estate activities ongoing never mind an estate worker/stalker out and thinking they have the land to themselves......
Obviously a court may well find in favour of the tracker and his reasonable excuse. But in every court case there were two lawyers both claiming they were right.....
Last edited:
Similar threads
