Hunters think they are above the law
I read your front page article, "Hunters Told To Keep On Fighting," (Western Daily Press, October 28) with interest – blood sports people just do not seem to understand right from wrong.
It is wrong to cruelly kill a wild animal for fun.
That is why hunting was banned.
It is also wrong to break the law of the land because you do not agree with it, and want to carry on being cruel. This is why the hunting ban needs strengthening.
I have watched the Cattistock for years, and it is a bit rich for the Cattistock huntsman to complain that the hunt is being monitored, when Cattistock hounds are entered into thick gorse coverts and small woods, too dense to lay a trail, and where the hunt traditionally found, chased and killed foxes before the ban.
If hunts behave in this way then they are breaking the law, because they are seeking foxes in such a manner that finding a fox is virtually guaranteed – not accidental – as claimed.
Make no mistake, hunts are hunting as before the ban, and the authorities are turning a blind eye.
I am sick of monitoring this cruelty, but my friends and I will carry on until the Hunting Act is strengthened.
For far too long hunters have been allowed to behave as though they are above the law – they are not, and they should not be allowed to behave as though they are.
Helen Weeks West Coker Somerset
13 Comments
View all
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Wednesday, November 05 2008, 5:06PM
“I've brought this issue up with a gentleman from the "Hunt Sabatouers Association" His advice is that :
"it is better to break the law then to kill the deer."
I went on to put the following questions to him:
<<
Do you think that it is possible to enter a wood with dogs making deer ruin out without causing unacceptable cruelty?
Which do you think causes more suffering to a deer:
a) Entering a wood and letting it run out and the escape.
b) Entering a wood and shooting it as soon as possible after it runs out.>>>
His response:
"Ah yes I stand corrected you do have to flush to a gun but you can always miss :-)
It would be hard to not flsuh a deer just by entering a wood with dogs or without. No I don't think by doing this youa re being cruel the deer is just following it's natural reaction to a percieved threat.
And B causes most suffering.
The law is designed (badly) to stop people hunting animals with Hounds untill they are caught by the Hounds and as always is an a$$. In the case you put it doesn't work but then your intention is just to move the deer away from your woodland not cause them harm. You could just walk thru the wood making a noise but then I suppose your dogs don't get exercised."
What a farce this law is!!!!”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Wednesday, November 05 2008, 9:19AM
“Don't worry Charles I have okayed it all with the police and they have written to me telling me I will not face prosecution for breaking the law.
I have a carte blanche to continue illegally flushing and chasing deer as much as I want.”
by Charles Henry, Somerset
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 7:42PM
“Gees Ruth! . . Prosecute Giles? . . . Don't be silly! . . There isn't enough room in our jails for thieves, rapists and Council Tax defaulters!”
by Ruth Glover, Barnstaple
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 6:31PM
“It's very unlikely that the Hunting Act contains a 'typographical error' as Roger suggests. In actual fact hunts have already been prosecuted for their failure to take adequate steps to kill flushed out animals.
Helen Weeks is wrong to say that people who hunt think they are above the law. It is only mavericks such as Giles Bradshaw who give that impression by refusing to obey it because of a misplaced objection to killing animals.
It is not our fault that the police refuse to prosecute him.”
by Roger Harrison, Cheadle
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 5:42PM
“What on earth is Giles Bradshaw's problem? Anyone who reads the Hunting Act will realise straight away that the requirement to shoot flushed out animals is merely a minor typographical error. The law is AGAINST killing animals and is of course meant to read that flushed out animals must NOT be shot.
Does anyone honestly believe that a prominent animal welfare activist such as Helen Weeks would be criticising people for not shooting deer?
I am quite sure that everyone welcomes Bradshaw's methods as they are obviously better than the slaughter of wildlife. What is incomprehesible is his objection to the law when it is clearly not going to be enfoced to the letter.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 5:00PM
“I really cannot see why anyone should have a problem with me breaking the Hunting Act.
I am against killing the deer I flush out. Anti Hunters should support someone who is prepared to break the law on principal when obeying it would clearly involve senseless killing.”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 4:55PM
“Not five deer jessica, I have five dogs. I flush out as many deer as are in the woods with them.
I have a perfectly good life thanks. I just like taking my dogs out and don't see why I should have to shoot the deer I flush.
Do you think I should kill them?
I reckon that most antis don;t agree with this law either :)”
by Charles Henry, Somerset
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 4:02PM
“You've owned horses all your life Jessica; but could you or any of them really handle any of the natural obstacles anyway? . Are we perhaps getting nearer the truth now?”
by jessica jones, bath
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 3:31PM
“Giles you seem to be flushing 5 deer out every week ! G ET A LIFE. I have owned horses all my life and would never go hunting .Totaly agree with Simon you so called hunters need to get a life!!!”
by Giles Bradshaw, Rose Ash
Tuesday, November 04 2008, 11:44AM
“It's all very well for you to hurl insults at me Simon but the fact is no one has any sensible argument as to why I should not continue breaking the Hunting Act.
It is without a shadow of a doubt a defective law.
I like chasing deer with my dogs and it is a good method of controlling them.”