Dog trackers .

[CarlW]

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

No it doesn't. Only offences committed against that particular Act (for instance a s17 offence); not any others.

Anyway, we shall leave FAC-holders to make up their own minds on whether to risk their livelihoods on the basis of your rather buccaneering statutory construction.

In the meantime, when I get a moment, I shall write to Police Scotland, to SNH, and to FLS (although I believe this latter take a very dim view of your activities) in order to draw attention to the likely (because we don't know) criminality being committed, according to you, in their name.

Regards,

Carl

 

[Wolverine]

No it doesn't. Only offences committed against that particular Act (for instance a s17 offence); not any others.

Anyway, we shall leave FAC-holders to make up their own minds on whether to risk their livelihoods on the basis of your rather buccaneering statutory construction.

In the meantime, when I get a moment, I shall write to Police Scotland, to SNH, and to FLS (although I believe this latter take a very dim view of your activities) in order to draw attention to the likely (because we don't know) criminality being committed, according to you, in their name.

Regards,

Carl

All within Best Practice too,read below

Legislation
Deer are protected from hunting with dogs under both the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 and the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002,
There are exceptions built into these Acts to allow for:
• The retrieval or location of a wild mammal by a dog that the handler reasonably believes is seriously injured or orphaned. Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, Section 5 (1) (c)
•The humane destruction of an injured, diseased or orphaned deer by means that are normally prohibited. Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, Part 3, Section 25 (a) (b)

Police Scotland are also supporting UKSHA members as we get asked to cross boundaries to end suffering when required to do so.
We have had numerous tracks where the landowner could not be contacted and we continued to track to end suffering with Police Scotland’s knowledge.
What do you do leave an animal to suffer because of a boundary(In England,you have too,in Scotland-no)
Armed Trespass with the intent to willfully kill or take deer is an offence under Section 17......
But it is subject to Section 25.

We have also tracked for the police in a poaching case to retrieve a deer and find evidence for the Police at the site to prove that an animal has been shot.
With our dogs having all certification that is recognised in Europe this is also part of the job others in Europe do.
We help the Police,we don’t break laws.

All the best
George

 

[CarlW]

I'm afraid I don't have time to keep going around in circles. However, hopefully with all the debate, the guys now have sufficient information on both sides to make their own decisions.

Best of luck,

Carl

 

[reloader54]

"anyone here tried fried yak penis?"

 

[CarlW]

"anyone here tried fried yak penis?"

Yes! I wounded one once. Shot it in the bell-end, tracked it to the boundary, sent my neighbour a courtesy text checking he was happy for me to follow, he replied 'yes', I caught up with it and chowed down on a nice big fat cock. Lovely. Highly recommended...

 

[reloader54]

Yes! I wounded one once. Shot it in the bell-end, tracked it to the boundary, sent my neighbour a courtesy text checking he was happy for me to follow, he replied 'yes', I caught up with it and chowed down on a nice big fat cock. Lovely. Highly recommended...

"Oh,, Rocky" "I bet you shivered with antici , , , , , pation.

 

[Dan Newcombe]

If I were to call out a tracker (I’m in Scotland) and they crossed the march into my neighbours ground to follow up a beast with a rifle (the tracker, not the deer) without permission - obviously locally I would be equally culpable and people may be ****ed off but legally speaking, who would be the one the police would pursue (assuming for the moment that there is an offence committed) - me or the tracker?

I would not be the one there with a firearm on ground I have got permission.

Genuine question, I don’t really have an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of this subject, everyone can make their own decisions.

 

[CarlW]

If I were to call out a tracker (I’m in Scotland) and they crossed the march into my neighbours ground to follow up a beast with a rifle (the tracker, not the deer) without permission - obviously locally I would be equally culpable and people may be ****ed off but legally speaking, who would be the one the police would pursue (assuming for the moment that there is an offence committed) - me or the tracker?

I would not be the one there with a firearm on ground I have got permission.

Genuine question, I don’t really have an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of this subject, everyone can make their own decisions.

Assuming you did NOT accompany the tracker, if there is an offence committed (and we don't know - it is a gamble), the police would most likely pursue only the armed tracker criminally.

However, as someone complicit in the enterprise, your own role in the matter would likely draw the attention of the police from a licensing perspective. This would be particularly the case as the irate neighbour may well be very insistent with the police that the matter be pursued with some vigour.

The further worry is the civil suits which may well follow. Scottish delicts are somewhat different from English torts so I will leave someone else to suggest details. However, in broad terms, once criminality by the tracker has been established (who was acting as a servant not only of you but also of the owner of the land over which the deer was originally shot), civil claims against the tracker, against you, and - most worryingly - against Sir Jock McScot, the laird, could follow.

And all it takes is a text, a phonecall, or - best of all - a prior mutual agreement between neighbours to avoid all of the above.

However, I repeat, it may be fine: just don't bet your FAC on it.

Kind regards,

Carl

 

[Dan Newcombe]

But if you accompanied them (without a firearm) based on the information that it is all above board from what is seemingly (honestly, my impression is that the organisation is quite a valuable one) professional outfit and then you ended up in the courts etc. Is that advice covered by some sort of professional indemnity insurance?
I cannot see where the landowner would be drawn into it beyond pressure from neighbours to kick the offenders off the ground or similar - they have nothing to do with the situation.

 

[User00014]

Getting off the subject of section 25, I think personally hunter education is the key.

stalkers need to understand how to read a shot site correctly, not just have a quick look.

each shot site tells a story and if the stalker is not educated in reading it properly their following actions can and will be the difference between recovering the beast or not.

Also those stalkers have to understand and be aware of what their dogs can do (if they have one)

i tell everyone if they have the slightest doubt in what their seeing on the ground, call in a tracker to assist.

And remember here not all wounded beasts bleed!

neither do all gut shots and neither do all head shots.

Education Education and more EDUCATION

 

[CarlW]

But if you accompanied them (without a firearm) based on the information that it is all above board from what is seemingly (honestly, my impression is that the organisation is quite a valuable one) professional outfit and then you ended up in the courts etc. Is that advice covered by some sort of professional indemnity insurance?
I cannot see where the landowner would be drawn into it beyond pressure from neighbours to kick the offenders off the ground or similar - they have nothing to do with the situation.

Professional indemnity insurance doesn't get you out of jail: it just means you can sue the tracker's insurance company afterwards because he gave you bad advice. That would be small comfort, in my opinion.

As for the landowner, rather than Sir Jock McScot, let's take Foresty & Land Scotland as a (more controversial) example. I think it is fair to say that FLS (via their contractors and rangers) take a more aggressive approach to the killing of deer than most of their sporting-estate neighbours. Many of those neighbours take a pretty dim view of this. (I have no strong opinion on that as I have very close friends living in both worlds). Relations are, however, often rather strained.

If the FLS authorises its contractors (and - by extension - its sub-contracting dog-trackers (if it had them)) to follow wounded deer across boundaries, while armed, at night, onto neighbouring sporting estates, those estates will not rest at the prosecution of the individual tracker. Angry and embittered, they will seek also to punish FLS. They will therefore bring a civil claim against FLS, seeking both financial and injunctive relief. (Find a Scots lawyer who understands delicts rather than torts for details.) Whether the claim succeeds or not doesn't really matter: what matters is how much it costs to defend it, along with the negative publicity that the litigation brings for FLS.

As I say, why risk such a mess when a phone call, a text, or a prior agreement makes it unneccessary.

Kind regards,

Carl

 

[mereside]

Why in the first place are you all banging on about what we are doing wrong and we are to blame, when most of the time we travel to track, any experienced stalker knows a leg shot or a jaw shot beast travels a long distance now here’s a thought and it’s just a crazy idea but why not actually ask for permission to cross a boundary in the event of this kind of thing happening,
CarlW is just a wind up merchant who hates uksha, I don’t lose any sleep over the ones like Carl, it’s plain to see. If people followed up correctly then there would be no need for the likes of us. So what we have learned from Carl
And a few other negative people is ask to cross a boundary with next doors permission even invite them along and you might actually learn something or let’s just leave the feckers to die slowly not give a toss and pretend it doesn’t happen like before, best regards Wayne

 

[Hanechdene]

Wayne,

I do not see Carl’s and others posts as negative.

They are purely pointing out that crossing a boundary, where permission has not been sought, with a firearm as a potentially fool hardy exploit as the law, which ever way one reads it, is open to interpretation. This interpretation can only be decided in a court of law. The decision can go either way as I am sure you are aware.

The police do not have the power to give access to land and whether they are supportive or not of your service.

It will only take one disgruntled land owner to bring a world of anguish to that unfortunate person who effectively commits an act of armed trespass.

Jamie

 

[mereside]

Wayne,

I do not see Carl’s and others posts as negative.

They are purely pointing out that crossing a boundary, where permission has not been sought, with a firearm as a potentially fool hardy exploit as the law, which ever way one reads it, is open to interpretation. This interpretation can only be decided in a court of law. The decision can go either way as I am sure you are aware.

The police do not have the power to give access to land and whether they are supportive or not of your service.

It will only take one disgruntled land owner to bring a world of anguish to that unfortunate person who effectively commits an act of armed trespass.

Jamie

Jamie why not then get all permissions sorted instead of people having a pop at a service that is provided for free at a huge expense time and effort. if people cannot be bothered to ask in the first place why blame us. people might as well give up calling on our services and everyone might as well not call, I am fully aware of how things are we sat in a meeting with SNH, forestry commission and others, snh was supposed to be sorting this whole mess out and putting it out there, did anyone actually read the best practice guides.
If a disgruntled land owner does not want a genuinely wounded deer followed up and dispatched is he then not creating animal suffering and then could he not be charged?
why do the stalkers not have something in place prior to this happening, because believe me this happens far more than most know.
like I said either have prior permissions in place with a proviso that in the event of it happening they will be called and asked to follow a trained team and not just a random dog and handler who thinks he has an idea, who then pushes the beast on further making it ten times worse.
or lets all forget about animal welfare and pretend they will be ok,regards wayne.

 

[foxdropper]

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.

Are you saying a chest shot beast will or cannot make 300 yards .We have tracked a sika paced at 434 yards shot top of heart in Dorset .
In England it’s in every stalkers interest to seek out neighbouring land owners and put t in place follow up protocol ,not law but saves hassle should this event occur .I have phone numbers of all but one neighbour who was a devout anti and all agree on follow ups first ,phone call later .

 

[User00014]

Are you saying a chest shot beast will or cannot make 300 yards .We have tracked a sika paced at 434 yards shot top of heart in Dorset .
In England it’s in every stalkers interest to seek out neighbouring land owners and out in place follow up protocol ,not law but saves hassle should this event occur .I have phone numbers of all but one neighbour who was a devout anti and all agree on follow ups first ,phone call later .

i wish there were more like you in England that’sfor sure!

 

[foxdropper]

Seems common sense to me mate .

 

[Wolverine]

Are you saying a chest shot beast will or cannot make 300 yards .We have tracked a sika paced at 434 yards shot top of heart in Dorset .
In England it’s in every stalkers interest to seek out neighbouring land owners and put t in place follow up protocol ,not law but saves hassle should this event occur .I have phone numbers of all but one neighbour who was a devout anti and all agree on follow ups first ,phone call later .

I have tracked sika that have been chest shot over 300m as well but not in the high shoulder as OP.
All the best
George

 

[Wolverine]

Having permission with neighbours is fine,however,once that animal runs and the dog is released it may be over a couple of boundaries before you can catch up with it.
In the example of leg shot or jaw shot animals this happens often.
By saying that it is illegal to cross boundaries lawfully with a rifle to end the suffering of these animals certain people are saying that it is ok not to follow up these animals.
Section 25 and Section 17 of the Deer (Scotland)Act 1996 allow it for people with reasonable excuse.
As we have said many times.
An eminent QC and high ranking solicitor have both said they agree with this.
As Wayne also says-what does animal welfare matter if you aren’t going to follow up these animals ?
If a landowner were to stop one on a chase of a wounded animal,that landowner is actually allowing suffering of that wounded animal-there is no reasonable excuse or law that allows that,in Scotland anyway.
All the best
George
PS-away to find a boar that’s been shot-can’t cross boundary without prior permission,so won’t.
Have a nice day.....

 

[foxdropper]

Do you release a dog as a matter of course or would you take advice as to the use of a line to prevent said dog from crossing multiple boundaries or indeed roads .
We may be at loggerheads on this one but no wounded deer is worth the life of your dog