Dog trackers .

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
Not at loggerheads at all Foxdropper,my dog is highly trained,I never want to lose him.
We wrote best practice in regard to working dogs on leashes,if you look back on here,we were made fun of when we suggested this for a start.
How things change eh.
My dog will tell me when it’s time to release him.
Even then I will always be sensible.Ways released well away from roads or railways.
Even then you can get animals running a long way.
Common sense always applies.
Need to get going,the boar was gut shot last night and apparently not pushed on so should be lying dead after a few 100m,been looked for by dogs already and not found so I’ve a wee drive in front of me.
All the best
George
 

mereside

Well-Known Member
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
We don’t just release as a matter of course each scenario is different I release when I get to see the animal get up, you know when your getting close the dog switches gear and manarism changes regards Wayne
 

Dan Newcombe

Well-Known Member
I think that the lesson from this thread is, in the interest of local politics and well being, get something in place for the recovery of deer well in advance and then a text should suffice for actually taking the access if and when the time comes.

My thoughts on the professional indemnity insurance was more that you are getting professional advice from a professional / certified person - if that subsequently means you get into trouble then there will be recourse in law - as Carl says, scant comfort if you are in that sort of trouble with the police.

I think that the service is an excellent one which should be supported but the politics of these things always seems to galvanise bad feeling for some reason.

George, good point about the dogs running loose - I also seem to remember a fairly heated discussion regarding letting dogs off the lead when following up deer!
 

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
I think that the lesson from this thread is, in the interest of local politics and well being, get something in place for the recovery of deer well in advance and then a text should suffice for actually taking the access if and when the time comes.

My thoughts on the professional indemnity insurance was more that you are getting professional advice from a professional / certified person - if that subsequently means you get into trouble then there will be recourse in law - as Carl says, scant comfort if you are in that sort of trouble with the police.

I think that the service is an excellent one which should be supported but the politics of these things always seems to galvanise bad feeling for some reason.

George, good point about the dogs running loose - I also seem to remember a fairly heated discussion regarding letting dogs off the lead when following up deer!
When required our dogs are allowed to chase off leash,that’s when the best work is done.
Often over boundaries as well.
When I say my dog tells me to release,he starts barking and telling me he will get the animal if he is let off leash,happened numerous times and witnessed as well.
Whether he’s released or not is down to me,no one else.....
All the best
George
 

Tulloch

Well-Known Member
I give up there is NO talking to some people , the Deer dog Tracking services are a good idea in principle but while neither organisation can agree on ANYTHING or what they do is in fact unlawful they are pointless so am happy using my own girl to track and IF I see anyone with a rifle and dog on any my properties they can deal with the police. simple as. Too many poachers happy to bull about reasonable access.
 

evangee

Active Member
I suggest that these organisations contact the procurator fiscal service in Scotland and the Crown prosecution service for England and Wales and see if they can get answers from them. It is those two services that actually decide whether charges are to be brought, the police report to them.
 

spannulman

Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t normally get in the middle of a debate like this as people are very much not on the same page but I stalk in Scotland as well as England and have an interest in seeing things clarified.


I’m not an eminent QC or whoever reviewed the act re s.17 and 25 but I don’t see anywhere the reference to carrying firearms on other peoples’ property. It reads to me that you can follow them to carry out humane dispatch, and end suffering etc using means not normally permitted. I assume that means running them down with your dog which , ordinarily, would not be allowed.

But that doesn’t suggest to me that one may take a rifle onto neighbouring ground over which you do not have authority to shoot. Personally, I have made contact with the factor on the ground surrounding ours and agreed a simple text to their stalker to FYI that I am crossing their march to recover a beast out is ok, as a courtesy. And I would have my rifle with me as I wouldn’t leave it unattended on our side. I guess that is what most people would do but for the volunteer tracker that isn’t likely unless their client has already done so.

I have no axe to grind, and think the service is valuable to those without a dog, but I would like to understand where this assumption is re taking a firearm onto someone else’s ground comes from. I accept it could be a defence in court that you were doing good for a wounded beast but the law doesn’t always behave as we might wish.
 

mereside

Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t normally get in the middle of a debate like this as people are very much not on the same page but I stalk in Scotland as well as England and have an interest in seeing things clarified.


I’m not an eminent QC or whoever reviewed the act re s.17 and 25 but I don’t see anywhere the reference to carrying firearms on other peoples’ property. It reads to me that you can follow them to carry out humane dispatch, and end suffering etc using means not normally permitted. I assume that means running them down with your dog which , ordinarily, would not be allowed.

But that doesn’t suggest to me that one may take a rifle onto neighbouring ground over which you do not have authority to shoot. Personally, I have made contact with the factor on the ground surrounding ours and agreed a simple text to their stalker to FYI that I am crossing their march to recover a beast out is ok, as a courtesy. And I would have my rifle with me as I wouldn’t leave it unattended on our side. I guess that is what most people would do but for the volunteer tracker that isn’t likely unless their client has already done so.

I have no axe to grind, and think the service is valuable to those without a dog, but I would like to understand where this assumption is re taking a firearm onto someone else’s ground comes from. I accept it could be a defence in court that you were doing good for a wounded beast but the law doesn’t always behave as we might wish.
The whole assumption comes from sat with snh, forestry commission and a whole bunch of other people when we set out writing best practice for the follow up of wounded deer with dogs, everyone sat in that meeting where told categorically that we where correct in how we interpreted the law we also went to a barrister to interpret how we follow up as per sect 25 who also wrote that in his eyes we where doing things correctly snh had also been in contact with the procurator fiscal and was going to be following up with written guidance which has yet to be brought forward, anyone not in that meeting can say anything they like but as each person sat there knows what was said and how correct things are anyone can complain call us poaching bastards or anything else but we know what is right and above board, I cannot say it anymore, ukdtr members won’t actually come forward and say what went on and for this reason with a few others is why we will never work together, I am not going to try and say anymore because it falls on deaf ears with people who have axes to grind, contact snh yourself and ask for written clarification it’s long over due and everyone has a right to know, we paid a lot of money for an opinion, along with many meetings for best practice, further more UKDTR wanted our opinion from the meeting to use for themselves and we refused to give this up, regards Wayne
 
Last edited:

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
I give up there is NO talking to some people , the Deer dog Tracking services are a good idea in principle but while neither organisation can agree on ANYTHING or what they do is in fact unlawful they are pointless so am happy using my own girl to track and IF I see anyone with a rifle and dog on any my properties they can deal with the police. simple as. Too many poachers happy to bull about reasonable access.
Better to call the Police than have poachers take your deer,exactly what you should have done in the OP.
As stated numerous times-UKSHA help the Police.
All the best
George
 

Amjharris

Active Member
I understand where your coming from but for me stoping a injured animals suffering is more important than boundary lines. But I do agree wholeheartedly about not letting your dog run free while tracking.
 

Tulloch

Well-Known Member
Better to call the Police than have poachers take your deer,exactly what you should have done in the OP.
As stated numerous times-UKSHA help the Police.
All the best
George
Can I ask , How many stalkers (honestly) have used your services in the last 12 months? I am not asking about police because I get called prbably twice to 3 times a month to do Humane dispatch at certain times of the year.
 

leec6.5

Well-Known Member
Praise be to God....Give us peace in our time.
some how @Keith Edmunds that will never happen!
Can I ask , How many stalkers (honestly) have used your services in the last 12 months? I am not asking about police because I get called prbably twice to 3 times a month to do Humane dispatch at certain times of the year.
Down here south of the wall, between myself and the next tracker along 81 tracks from 1/1/18 -1/1/19 I know our man in the west has also notched up 30 plus.

these figures are submitted to the KBGS every year.
 

Tulloch

Well-Known Member
worrying, out of the 111 tracks that you have done how many have you had to cross onto someone elses grounds with your rifles without notifying the landowner first.?
 

leec6.5

Well-Known Member
worrying, out of the 111 tracks that you have done how many have you had to cross onto someone elses grounds with your rifles without notifying the landowner first.?
NONE we are in England not Scotland, law states NO crossing of boundaries without permission.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
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
Your wrong.

You constantly refer to sect 25.

Let's try and keep this simple. Where can I find the piece of legislation that states welfare of deer supersedes all other legislation???? Very important that claim is proven. Very important...cannot believe you have made such a bold statement that is absolutely incorrect!!!! (That's like saying it's okay to drive your car drunk because your wife is in labour and needs a lift to hospital....to ensure her welfare and that of the baby and prevent any undue delay in them getting assistance. I mean they are humans afterall so take a higher status than a wounded deer...)

Do you agree there is no reference made in the Deer Act to a firearm where tracking a wounded animal is concerned or in method of dispatch? Yes or no?

Do you agree that under the Firearms Act it states very clearly that entering land (Scotland) with a firearm without permission is an offence without reasonable excuse, the onus of proof thereof lies with you? Yes or no? (Although according to you Sect 25 supersedes that so looking forward to your answer above where that claim is confirmed...)

Does the Firearms Act make any reference to the Deer Act or an excuse of dispatching a wounded animal? Yes or no?

Define reasonable excuse please as referred to in the Firearms Legislation? I'll help you save time, you can't.....neither can your lawyer or SNH. Because there is no case law. Yet.....

Just answer these questions first with yes or no then tell me where you know for a fact that your reasonable excuse will be acceptable?

Lastly, please pass on the names of the cop who has decided it is a reasonable excuse and also the person at SNH who agrees so I can contact them tomorrow and ensure when I cross into land with my firearm (exactly like you do) with my HS and rifle, I'm also covered....

P.S, onus of proof you refer to above.....is actually referred to in the FIREARMS legislation....
 
Last edited:

Free range rob

Well-Known Member
So how’s this one stand, be it in Scotland as we know the English law prohibits it anyway.
A Stalker shoots a deer on neighbouring land, he calls in the services of a tracker for what ever reason, tracks to the boundary, meets the owner who says nothe owner says no because he will take over the tracking on his own land, if it’s the animal welfare that ‘’supposedly’’ gives right of access in Scotland, does that mean the original tracker has to stand down by law as the animal welfare is been taken over by the nieghbour ? What’s to say the original tracker does not believe the landowner, or has doubt in his ability, does that mean the original tracker still has the right to enter for animal welfare reasons ? It could end up with unlimited people crossing boundaries like a lynch mob

Thoughts please gents, as much as I agree, animal welfare comes first, I also feel uncomfortable with the issue it may be seen as ok to enter someone’s land, with or without a firearm.
 

leec6.5

Well-Known Member
So how’s this one stand, be it in Scotland as we know the English law prohibits it anyway.
A Stalker shoots a deer on neighbouring land, he calls in the services of a tracker for what ever reason, tracks to the boundary, meets the owner who says nothe owner says no because he will take over the tracking on his own land, if it’s the animal welfare that ‘’supposedly’’ gives right of access in Scotland, does that mean the original tracker has to stand down by law as the animal welfare is been taken over by the nieghbour ? What’s to say the original tracker does not believe the landowner, or has doubt in his ability, does that mean the original tracker still has the right to enter for animal welfare reasons ? It could end up with unlimited people crossing boundaries like a lynch mob

Thoughts please gents, as much as I agree, animal welfare comes first, I also feel uncomfortable with the issue it may be seen as ok to enter someone’s land, with or without a firearm.
personally if it was me tracking and there was another tracker waiting at the boundary, he can crack on, I’ve done my bit!

I would tell the tracker my findings and off he can pop.
 

jamross65

Well-Known Member
z
So how’s this one stand, be it in Scotland as we know the English law prohibits it anyway.
A Stalker shoots a deer on neighbouring land, he calls in the services of a tracker for what ever reason, tracks to the boundary, meets the owner who says nothe owner says no because he will take over the tracking on his own land, if it’s the animal welfare that ‘’supposedly’’ gives right of access in Scotland, does that mean the original tracker has to stand down by law as the animal welfare is been taken over by the nieghbour ? What’s to say the original tracker does not believe the landowner, or has doubt in his ability, does that mean the original tracker still has the right to enter for animal welfare reasons ? It could end up with unlimited people crossing boundaries like a lynch mob

Thoughts please gents, as much as I agree, animal welfare comes first, I also feel uncomfortable with the issue it may be seen as ok to enter someone’s land, with or without a firearm.
Tha was actually brought up as an issue previously in some other old thread and a valid point. Well, going by UKSHA a t their interpretation of the legislation, they could ignore him/her and carry on!

However, if the landowner took on the mantel of tracker with a view to dispatching the injured and suffering deer he could potentially be held accountable for causing unnecessary suffering should he make a half arsed job of it or didn't bother to try at all.
 

Wolverine

Well-Known Member
Can I ask , How many stalkers (honestly) have used your services in the last 12 months? I am not asking about police because I get called prbably twice to 3 times a month to do Humane dispatch at certain times of the year.
Plenty of calls from stalkers and estates.
Not talking about Police callouts to RTA’s.
 

Top