Had a yearling doe run 90 metres with a fist sized exit hole in her!
Dog trackers .
- Thread starter Tulloch
- Start date
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
Very interesting the Working Group Report to the Government has a part about Section 25.....
UKSHA will continue working with the Police,SNH and crossing boundaries to end suffering with a firearm.
Number 7 and 11 says everything that’s required on the matter.
All the best
George
UKSHA will continue working with the Police,SNH and crossing boundaries to end suffering with a firearm.
Number 7 and 11 says everything that’s required on the matter.
All the best
George
Attachments
jamross65
Well-Known Member
So pleased you posted this. Part 7 specifically refers to EXACTLY what I have said all along, the Firearms legislation is still relevant and contrary to what you've suggested earlier is NOT superseded on the grounds of animal welfare under the Deer Act. Nowhere, does your working group findings state that looking for a wounded deer IS a reasonable excuse, it AGAIN states the onus of proof is on you.....so, as previously stated literally dozens of times, your whole argument is based on an assumption a court will agree with you should you be complained about by a landowner and there is NO legislation currently in force that states you CAN without fear of prosecution, enter land with a firearm where you do not have permission, even if looking for a wounded deer. Confirms everything I have previously stayed.
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
We have always said onus of proof is on those using Section 25.
UKSHA members are covered,we have an opinion from a very well respected lawyer,an opinion others have seen and agree with.
It is yourself and others who have said we were/are breaking laws.
As stated-we confer with all relevant people required to be spoken with when using Section 25 and have support of those who need to be informed prior to crossing any boundary.Not yourself or others who state that laws are being broken when none have been.
As stated-no person requires notification prior to crossing a boundary in Scotland,as long as there is proof that attempt has been made(not required by law either)
We will continue to take advice from the people who know the law and practice it instead of those who wish to consistently cause issue instead of thinking about animal welfare.
The opinion UKSHA received from lawyers says we are watertight should a case arise from it,thus the confidence we have in using Section 25.
It is up to others who cross boundaries to see if they have excuse or not.
We do not poach.
We track animals that are wounded.
Section 25 allows the use of firearms on ground you have no permission.
Therefore Jamross-you and your argument are wrong.
You stated numerous times that Section 25 was not an excuse for crossing with a rifle.
A retired policeman versus a respected practising lawyer whom knows law inside out.
The Working group also agree by the looks of things.
Welfare in this situation would again take precedence-........obviously with the onus of proof lying with the individual who is using the Section 25 defence.
As we have said all the way along-the court would not even look at it when the evidence is that UKSHA have ticked every box prior to even being called out and crossing a boundary.
We cross a boundary with a rifle and we will be doing it legitimately and legally.....with full support from the Police and others.
Read number 6,8 and 20 as well.
The new part to take from the Working Group is the fear of public safety caused by a wounded animal which would be all the more pertinent pertaining to Wild Boar as well as any wounded animal.
The part that I’m looking forward too is when SNH perhaps start legislation in regard to Boar.
As just now,you can’t cross a boundary in Scotland legally when tracking one-they are more dangerous than any other animal we have here.
Boar aren’t covered by the Deer Act.
Funnily enough crossing boundaries with a rifle are when you have all boxes ticked.
Sealgair nam fiadh
Well-Known Member
That part 7 says " but could still be committing an offence of aggravated trespass under s.20(2) of the firearms Act 1968". That contradicts everything you are saying regarding entering land with a firearm is it not ?
A lawyer once told me that when taking information from a lawyer to change the words " my opinion " to " I think ", as in I think you will get away with it.
If it is the case that the Deer Act overrules the Firearms Act my opinion ( I think ) is the mandarins at Whitehall would be upset that some Scottish Law overrules theirs.
Im not having a go at you or any other trackers but in the interests of all of us this should be clarified.
MW3
A lawyer once told me that when taking information from a lawyer to change the words " my opinion " to " I think ", as in I think you will get away with it.
If it is the case that the Deer Act overrules the Firearms Act my opinion ( I think ) is the mandarins at Whitehall would be upset that some Scottish Law overrules theirs.
Im not having a go at you or any other trackers but in the interests of all of us this should be clarified.
MW3
This discussion will continue to go back and forth and in all honesty will go nowhere. police do not make the law. Lawyers, QC and barristers do not make the law.
Until such time as a case comes to court and a judge determines/interprets the outcome then if you cross a boundary with a rifle you are at risk of prosecution whether it is poaching, armed trespass or whatever.
Advice can be sought until the cows, or in this case dog, comes home. I am no lawyer but I do work with contracts and have a rudimentary understanding of the law.
If I spot somebody with a rifle on one of my permissions then the farmer will be contacted, then the police will be contacted as I am not going to approach a potential poacher, we have heard of people being shot at. I am happy to leave it to the armed response team to deal with it and then the trespasser can explain whatever section of the law he wants to, to the police and the farmer can decide if he wants to press charges. Should the case then go to court, then we will have clarity.
if I spot a dog wandering around the field with the animals and no owner in tow then the dog is a risk of being shot. How am I to know if it is tracking or about to go on a rampage. And yes if I can get to the dog to grab it I will rather than shoot it.
The organisations operate a valuable service but as a shooter it would be better to help them by
1: shooters being sufficiently good shots that the instances of a deer being lost are minimal. Yes things go wrong. Happened to me as well.
2: the shooters should know their neighbours and have a contact for permission preferably in advance, but if not sorted at least a contact number that they can phone to ensure permission. That will make life soooooo much easier for everyone.
end of the day. The law is the law. It is down to the courts to interpret the law. We can quote what we like but at the end of the day case law is made in the courts and not by anyone else. People can advise, and maybe they are right, but...... maybe they are wrong. Someone want to go to court and find out? Put this argument to bed....
Until such time as a case comes to court and a judge determines/interprets the outcome then if you cross a boundary with a rifle you are at risk of prosecution whether it is poaching, armed trespass or whatever.
Advice can be sought until the cows, or in this case dog, comes home. I am no lawyer but I do work with contracts and have a rudimentary understanding of the law.
If I spot somebody with a rifle on one of my permissions then the farmer will be contacted, then the police will be contacted as I am not going to approach a potential poacher, we have heard of people being shot at. I am happy to leave it to the armed response team to deal with it and then the trespasser can explain whatever section of the law he wants to, to the police and the farmer can decide if he wants to press charges. Should the case then go to court, then we will have clarity.
if I spot a dog wandering around the field with the animals and no owner in tow then the dog is a risk of being shot. How am I to know if it is tracking or about to go on a rampage. And yes if I can get to the dog to grab it I will rather than shoot it.
The organisations operate a valuable service but as a shooter it would be better to help them by
1: shooters being sufficiently good shots that the instances of a deer being lost are minimal. Yes things go wrong. Happened to me as well.
2: the shooters should know their neighbours and have a contact for permission preferably in advance, but if not sorted at least a contact number that they can phone to ensure permission. That will make life soooooo much easier for everyone.
end of the day. The law is the law. It is down to the courts to interpret the law. We can quote what we like but at the end of the day case law is made in the courts and not by anyone else. People can advise, and maybe they are right, but...... maybe they are wrong. Someone want to go to court and find out? Put this argument to bed....
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
When and if someone attempted to prosecute a UKSHA tracker alleviating animal suffering or were to attempt to shoot one of our dogs-then yes,court it will be and no problem either going there to put across the truth.This discussion will continue to go back and forth and in all honesty will go nowhere. police do not make the law. Lawyers, QC and barristers do not make the law.
Until such time as a case comes to court and a judge determines/interprets the outcome then if you cross a boundary with a rifle you are at risk of prosecution whether it is poaching, armed trespass or whatever.
Advice can be sought until the cows, or in this case dog, comes home. I am no lawyer but I do work with contracts and have a rudimentary understanding of the law.
If I spot somebody with a rifle on one of my permissions then the farmer will be contacted, then the police will be contacted as I am not going to approach a potential poacher, we have heard of people being shot at. I am happy to leave it to the armed response team to deal with it and then the trespasser can explain whatever section of the law he wants to, to the police and the farmer can decide if he wants to press charges. Should the case then go to court, then we will have clarity.
if I spot a dog wandering around the field with the animals and no owner in tow then the dog is a risk of being shot. How am I to know if it is tracking or about to go on a rampage. And yes if I can get to the dog to grab it I will rather than shoot it.
The organisations operate a valuable service but as a shooter it would be better to help them by
1: shooters being sufficiently good shots that the instances of a deer being lost are minimal. Yes things go wrong. Happened to me as well.
2: the shooters should know their neighbours and have a contact for permission preferably in advance, but if not sorted at least a contact number that they can phone to ensure permission. That will make life soooooo much easier for everyone.
end of the day. The law is the law. It is down to the courts to interpret the law. We can quote what we like but at the end of the day case law is made in the courts and not by anyone else. People can advise, and maybe they are right, but...... maybe they are wrong. Someone want to go to court and find out? Put this argument to bed....
The fact of the matter is that when abiding by the law with highly trained dogs(by the way,that are completely reliable around people or livestock,proven with a test and certified)then any court or person who wishes to attempt and stop the finding of a wounded animal should first think about why they wish that search to be stopped.
The Police support the searching of wounded animals as do 99.99% of landowners whom have a wounded animal go onto their ground-it begs the question-why attempt and stop this legislation when it helps ease animals suffering.
It’s ok when you go next door and you have the permission to follow an animal across a boundary-the problem comes when you are called to a track and the stalker knows no one next door and can’t get hold of someone-then Section 25 rightly applies within the (clues in the name),Deer Act (Scotland)1996.
There is also no risk of prosecution if you have all boxes ticked-which UKSHA do have.
We would have no doubt or problem with crossing boundaries within Scotland should there be a need to do so.
With or without permission from the landowner.
This is what Section 25 is for-to alleviate animal suffering.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to get into in and outs legally. Can see both sides and doesn't look that cut and dry.
But in practice if ur a 3rd party tracker ( ie from an org) being called out the chances off u being a poacher is tiny as if have to be mad to phone a potential witness to ur poaching.
It could be a totally different story an individual who shot the deer using his own well trained dog to track over a boundary. Far more open to legal problems even if legitimate, but also potentially open to abuse if ur up for a bit of poaching
Sorry but I've know very experienced dog men training dogs to very high standards who reckon u can never truely trust any dog around stock, but u are being naive if u think any dog is 100% safe around stock ( or kids) esp if out off sight.
It can happen to any dog given the right/wrong circumstances no matter how unlikely it seemed previously.
But in practice if ur a 3rd party tracker ( ie from an org) being called out the chances off u being a poacher is tiny as if have to be mad to phone a potential witness to ur poaching.
It could be a totally different story an individual who shot the deer using his own well trained dog to track over a boundary. Far more open to legal problems even if legitimate, but also potentially open to abuse if ur up for a bit of poaching
Sorry but I've know very experienced dog men training dogs to very high standards who reckon u can never truely trust any dog around stock, but u are being naive if u think any dog is 100% safe around stock ( or kids) esp if out off sight.
It can happen to any dog given the right/wrong circumstances no matter how unlikely it seemed previously.
Wolverine
Well-Known Member
Not being naive at all.
These dogs are trained to completely ignore everything apart from one thing-the animal they are tracking-they will never go after anything else.Never.
Again,people or children-no problem at all.
These are not other breeds we are talking about.
Very specific for one job and the temperament and tests are as well.
No naivety at all.
These dogs will completely ignore livestock and chase a wounded animal through that field-been there,done it and all our dogs will do exactly the same thing.
Not naivety but confidence in the training and knowledge of what these dogs do.
Sealgair nam fiadh
Well-Known Member
I have read it and re-read it and as far as I can see you could still potentially be charged under the Firearms Act, if you were your firearms would be seized until a Sheriff made a ruling in court , would you take that risk ?
I think we all agree that you have exemption from the Deer Act but your own document says " could still be committing an offence " under the Firearms Act.
As has been said before it will take a court case to resolve this issue until then you are relying on a lawyers " I think" your ok.
Naive question - if a tracking hound is slipped on a lively animal and goes out of sight/ over a boundary and pulls the deer down well away from the handler is there a chance that the hound could guard the dead deer and potentially bite innocents out walking who may approach before the handler arrives on the scene ?This is not a criticism of any breed or org just a observation after watching a lot of continental tracking films where the HS or GWP gets a bit aggressive when people approach it's deer.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
Unicorn - i think that on the continent the dog is actually expected to do exactly that and guard its find from anyone but the handler - never quite sure why that’s required but seems that it is.
It goes way back to 1906-1910 and beyond where the gentry shoot their stag or boar and don’t want it to be stolen, while they are away to either get a horse or help to remove the carcass.
the dog should be 3-5m and should not touch the carcass at all.
i had to train by dog to do this for her Vorprüfung or preliminary test in Germany.
nower days it’s more tradition and out dated than anything.
the dog should Show controlled aggression nothing more then a firm bark to warn to keep away.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
Interesting, thought it must be something like that. So the dog isn’t meant to bite anyone even if they went to grab the carcass?
Would that form part of the UKSHA / UKDTR requirements or has it been dropped as not important in this country. Obviously still required on the continent
Would that form part of the UKSHA / UKDTR requirements or has it been dropped as not important in this country. Obviously still required on the continent
We within the UKSHA train to the requirements of the Breed, BGS we train to the KBGS requirements for Vorprüfung and HS to the Verien Hirschmann requirements for Vorprüfung, by following those requirements our dogs are judged by judges that are highly experienced trackers themselves often 200 plus tracks a year, when travelling to europe passing these requirements and following the rules set by each clubwe are proving that we are serious about animal welfare on an international scale.
By testing our dogs like this also enables us to have access to the best bred tracking dogs in the world.
Correct it is not necessary here, but it is still a requirement of the kbgs test so I had to train for it, but normally just a bark is enough points to pass.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
Fair play, can’t be all that easy to teach. A friend of mine was talking about the guarding requirement years ago and it struck me as a strange thing to require but now makes sense.
If it is required to pass the tests then you need it obviously. Do you think that if we develop our own testing basis like the continentals the guarding will be included and will there be a qualification in this country?
Academic to me to be fair - I just use one of my labs to find deer usually at night so nowhere near as good as the proper tracking hounds because sometimes even finding the shot site is a pain.
I’m fully supportive of training and ‘qualifications’ but we should bear in mind that they are not the be all and end all. Ie a dog that tracks but doesnt guard is a lot more useful than the other way round when it comes to failing the continental test (just an example)
If it is required to pass the tests then you need it obviously. Do you think that if we develop our own testing basis like the continentals the guarding will be included and will there be a qualification in this country?
Academic to me to be fair - I just use one of my labs to find deer usually at night so nowhere near as good as the proper tracking hounds because sometimes even finding the shot site is a pain.
I’m fully supportive of training and ‘qualifications’ but we should bear in mind that they are not the be all and end all. Ie a dog that tracks but doesnt guard is a lot more useful than the other way round when it comes to failing the continental test (just an example)
No dog that pulls down a deer and so call dispatch the animal is under control. This I strongly believe if your dog pulls down and kills the deer can pull down and kill other animals. When trackers let the dogs go and do not have the dog in view at all times
I think are irresponsible.
I think are irresponsible.
mereside
Well-Known Member
Dan for me it really has no relevance in this day and age guarding a carcass, now we have phones gps cars so leaving a dog to guard is not going to do anything. This goes back years when people had to leave a dog with a beast nowadays we can call someone to meet at gps coordinates and wait with the dog,
the Hs testing doesn’t have that in it.
As for howy, you really have no idea on how the dogs work or even distinguish between game sharpness and aggression, I am trying to find a vid of my hound who will take an injured beast tracking being on the home farm playing with a goat, they know what animal they are taking down and they are not foaming at the mouth trying to kill anything in its path and you have absolutely no idea of our working dogs and how they are
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
I assume that it’s no different to Gundogs and poultry.
Our dogs will nail a pheasant / partridge that is injured or wrong but we keep hens at home and they wont look at them (well maybe I have a cocker who occasionally fetches one back when she has been left to her own devices for a while and gets bored
There is always a risk and you don’t know how dogs will ultimately react but you can be pretty confident.
Our dogs will nail a pheasant / partridge that is injured or wrong but we keep hens at home and they wont look at them (well maybe I have a cocker who occasionally fetches one back when she has been left to her own devices for a while and gets bored
There is always a risk and you don’t know how dogs will ultimately react but you can be pretty confident.
Similar threads
