Dog trackers .

[CarlW]

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.....

Two excellent posts, @jamross65 .

The UKSHA people don't cite the Firearms Act and the 'reasonable excuse' defence (which, as you say, may or may not have legs). They keep citing S25 Deer Act instead, presumably because they are negligently or wilfully misunderstanding the words 'against this Act' as meaning 'against any Act'. They are not listening to you, my friend; nor will they.

I have said it before and I repeat it here: although there may well be some good people within the membership of that organisation (who do good work for stalkers who don't have their own dogs), its leadership contains such a toxic blend of arrogance and ignorance that it is deeply harmful to the stalking community.

Sensible people will avoid it.

Kind regards,

Carl

 

[jamross65]

Two excellent posts, @jamross65 .

The UKSHA people don't cite the Firearms Act and the 'reasonable excuse' defence (which, as you say, may or may not have legs). They keep citing S25 Deer Act instead, presumably because they are negligently or wilfully misunderstanding the words 'against this Act' as meaning 'against any Act'. They are not listening to you, my friend; nor will they.

I have said it before and I repeat it here: although there may well be some good people within the membership of that organisation (who do good work for stalkers who don't have their own dogs), its leadership contains such a toxic blend of arrogance and ignorance that it is deeply harmful to the stalking community.

Sensible people will avoid it.

Kind regards,

Carl

I may be wrong Carl and a court could find in their favour and a court could potentially create case law by accepting the need to dispatch a wounded deer is indeed a reasonable excuse and supersedes the firearms legislation but right now there is no cross reference made, it is specifically referring to the Deer Act and offences contained therein. But there are so many permutations to every possible scenario.....every case on it's own merits in other words. But so far the UKSHA have made a decision, that they are right and every one else is wrong. I'm actually happy to be proven wrong! But, going by the wording of the legislation it is nowhere near as clear cut as they would make out.

 

[CarlW]

I may be wrong Carl and a court could find in their favour and a court could potentially create case law by accepting the need to dispatch a wounded deer is indeed a reasonable excuse and supersedes the firearms legislation but right now there is no cross reference made, it is specifically referring to the Deer Act and offences contained therein. But there are so many permutations to every possible scenario.....every case on it's own merits in other words. But so far the UKSHA have made a decision, that they are right and every one else is wrong. I'm actually happy to be proven wrong! But, going by the wording of the legislation it is nowhere near as clear cut as they would make out.

And it will be an individual member who faces prosecution; not the organisation. It is irresponsible to place one's membership in that position.

 

[jamross65]

And it will be an individual member who faces prosecution; not the organisation. It is irresponsible to place one's membership in that position.

Well, there is the thing Carl......if we have an individual or organisation in a position of 'authority' for portraying themselves as experts, who for several years now has publicly advised on legal matters and encouraged others to follow that thinking, should those actions eventually be shown as illegal, is there a degree of culpability on behalf of them?????

 

[CarlW]

Well, there is the thing Carl......if we have an individual or organisation in a position of 'authority' for portraying themselves as experts, who for several years now has publicly advised on legal matters and encouraged others to follow that thinking, should those actions eventually be shown as illegal, is there a degree of culpability on behalf of them?????

No doubt a bunch of civil claims (in various directions!), joining UKSHA to proceedings, would follow the individual member's criminal prosecution, if successful.

As you say, we just don't know ref the Firearms Act defence. However, we do know that this continued reliance on s25 Deer Act is nonsense.

 

[Ranger22]

Jamross65

 

[mchughcb]

I love guns.

 

[mchughcb]

Prefer gun to baseball bat.

 

[Wolverine]

100% correct Jamross,the onus of proving one has a reasonable excuse is down to that person who is using Section 25 to lawfully cross the boundary to end suffering.Using any means necessary.

In the OP,me thinks the person using the excuse would find oneself in deep water.
It’s down to the person crossing the boundary to prove they have the excuse.

When Section 25 is used as it should be,to end suffering,then it is lawful to cross a boundary with a firearm,or as you again correctly state using a knife,a stone,a handgun or a spanner....or a rifle.
A lot of people have handguns to end suffering of wounded animals.Yet they are illegal to be owned.

Section 25 is there to be used when required.

Members of UKSHA are using it,actively.
Again,we have never been prosecuted or even stopped by Police.I wonder why that is ?

Perhaps the Police support the ending of suffering of wounded animals.

Happy New Year
George

 

[countrryboy]

Not going to çomment on the intricacies of sect 25

But wot the OP is describing is a lone stalker potentially using his dog as an excuse to push the boundaries, quite literally.

U'd have to be pretty silly or very cocky to get a 3rd party involved in a poaching expedition.
So I imagine ur defence would be stronger as a independant tracker rather the the stalker with ur own dog.
I imagine if u got pulled up if u could show the shot site on the correct ground, common sense says ur defence should be ok, but how many polis could look at a shot site and know wot they're looking at. And how often is common sense ever applied to much nowadays, and u could potentially have a long wait with no guns.
I would imagine the FC will never really embrace this

But as a 3rd person tracker how do u know where a boundary is if ur on a call out??
Esp so n eng where they're is no grey area/defence in law.

 

[308rws]

By extension, and in the absence of a Boar Act, does this mean there is no defence for the tracking of an injured boar?

 

[mereside]

By extension, and in the absence of a Boar Act, does this mean there is no defence for the tracking of an injured boar?

yes wild boar are not part of the deer act,regards wayne

 

[User00014]

Personally I don’t track in Scotland, so it’s the law in England and Wales I follow to the letter!

boundary stops I stop it’s as simple as that.

but also it’s the stalkers responsibility to secure permission to cross boundaries or in worst case situations multiple boundaries in the event of a mishap.

bad shots happen it’s inevitable.

But also when I track I wear a go pro camera with both sound and video, to cover my back side so if the stalker says yes ok to cross the boundary, I make sure I have that info stored if it turns out that information is incorrect.

any 3rd party trackers Like myself, should know the law of the land inside out, know what their dog is capable of and first and upmost be professional.

There I’ve not been able to track countless animals because of the law in England, only in 2 or 3 cases have I been able to cross boundaries with permission, 95% of the tracks I get are leg or head shots mainly on reds and fallow, the beast is usually pushed on by the stalker and therefore making my job even harder and usually this results in the beast crossing the boundary and being unable to follow.

also what we have to remember most recreational stalkers in England have small patches of land to stalk 100 - 500 acres thats no distance at all to cover with a dog and boundaries are usually close, 1km is nothing to a leg shot red or fallow running with the herd and within 5 mins of being shot wollop their over the fence and away, even the humble roe, muntjac or cwd will cover large distances if pushed.

to this present day I’ve not yet been called out to chest shot beast and very few gut shot.

Like I said 95% of the work I do is complicated and complex tracks and with this boundary issue here in England it makes life very very difficult and it’s cold hard fact that yes animals unnecessary suffer because of it.

tracking is much easier on larger estates where you have good distance of ground to cover.

but hey ho that’s the law of the land, and we do the best we can with the situation

 

[CarlW]

By extension, and in the absence of a Boar Act, does this mean there is no defence for the tracking of an injured boar?

If you reread, particularly @jamross65 's excellent posts, you will see that the Deer Act provides no defence to the armed tracking across boundaries of an injured deer either (be that in Scotland or in England & Wales). The Firearms Act may (but certainly not enough to bet your certificate on) provide an alternative defence.

One rogue organisation, UKSHA, is gambling with its members' FACs in pursuit of its leadership's narcissistic attempts at self-agrandisement.

Kind regards,

Carl

 

[rem284]

Personally I don’t track in Scotland, so it’s the law in England and Wales I follow to the letter!

boundary stops I stop it’s as simple as that.

but also it’s the stalkers responsibility to secure permission to cross boundaries or in worst case situations multiple boundaries in the event of a mishap.

bad shots happen it’s inevitable.

But also when I track I wear a go pro camera with both sound and video, to cover my back side so if the stalker says yes ok to cross the boundary, I make sure I have that info stored if it turns out that information is incorrect.

any 3rd party trackers Like myself, should know the law of the land inside out, know what their dog is capable of and first and upmost be professional.

There I’ve not been able to track countless animals because of the law in England, only in 2 or 3 cases have I been able to cross boundaries with permission, 95% of the tracks I get are leg or head shots mainly on reds and fallow, the beast is usually pushed on by the stalker and therefore making my job even harder and usually this results in the beast crossing the boundary and being unable to follow.

also what we have to remember most recreational stalkers in England have small patches of land to stalk 100 - 500 acres thats no distance at all to cover with a dog and boundaries are usually close, 1km is nothing to a leg shot red or fallow running with the herd and within 5 mins of being shot wollop their over the fence and away, even the humble roe, muntjac or cwd will cover large distances if pushed.

to this present day I’ve not yet been called out to chest shot beast and very few gut shot.

Like I said 95% of the work I do is complicated and complex tracks and with this boundary issue here in England it makes life very very difficult and it’s cold hard fact that yes animals unnecessary suffer because of it.

tracking is much easier on larger estates where you have good distance of ground to cover.

but hey ho that’s the law of the land, and we do the best we can with the situation

I am lucky to be working in Scotland and in an area where I am on the most part surrounded be others who would accept that the animal welfare issue may mean on occasions you may end up on neighbours land. This means it is important to NOT abuse this situation and use it as an excuse to actually poach deer.

If the way the current law stands in England is preventing the follow up of wounded deer then would it be an idea to petition for a change

 

[Wolverine]

You can not cross a boundary in Scotland without prior permission for boar.
Not covered in Deer act.
Anyone who states that UKSHA are breaking the law-does not understand the law nor actually want to use this very reasonable excuse or they have axes to grind.
The Police are hugely supportive of what UKSHA and our trackers North of the border are doing.
We are also called out by the SSPCA as well as the Police.
Perhaps those saying UKSHA are breaking laws should talk to SNH and the Police to see if any problems have arisen by UKSHA using Section 25 to cross boundaries with a rifle.We have been supported,not prosecuted.
Everything is logged and above board,as I said earlier,the OP person who was 300m over a boundary with a chest shot animal is poaching,not tracking by the sounds of things.
PS-UKSHA members when crossing a boundary with no permission in Scotland after a wounded animal will have the proof required to defend the case.That is fact.

 

[CarlW]

...UKSHA using Section 25 to cross boundaries with a rifle...

Section 25 does not permit that. By continuing this fallacy, you are placing your members, the unfortunate stalkers who called them out, and the landowners upon which the deer was originally shot at risk of both criminal and civil sanctions.

This level of irresponsibility does not belong in the shooting world.

 

[Wolverine]

Section 25 does not permit that. By continuing this fallacy, you are placing your members, the unfortunate stalkers who called them out, and the landowners upon which the deer was originally shot at risk of both criminal and civil sanctions.

This level of irresponsibility does not belong in the shooting world.

Very simple.
SNH agree.

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.......etc etc

If there is proof as well that no armed trespass has been committed all the better.

 

[Wolverine]

If you reread, particularly @jamross65 's excellent posts, you will see that the Deer Act provides no defence to the armed tracking across boundaries of an injured deer either (be that in Scotland or in England & Wales). The Firearms Act may (but certainly not enough to bet your certificate on) provide an alternative defence.

One rogue organisation, UKSHA, is gambling with its members' FACs in pursuit of its leadership's narcissistic attempts at self-agrandisement.

Kind regards,

Carl

Please read Section 17 of Deer (Scotland)Act 1996

Deer (Scotland) Act 1996

An Act to consolidate the legislation relating to deer in Scotland.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Wolverine]

Section 17 is subject to Section 25
Therefore Section 25 as a reasonable excuse supercedes unlawful killing of deer-which armed trespass is of course.
Some people should get facts correct prior to as some say bla bla bla.....
We have had top solicitors look at this and have had the support from SNH all the way on it saying onus of proof lies with the person who is using Section 25 as a defence.
As stated above,any UKSHA member will have that proof.
All the best
George