Hunters' secret memo blows apart 'pest control' myth

"Mole" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

said nothing, pete forging again

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
pete forging again

I am not pete. But, even if I was, that's no excuse to dodge the question.
Do try to answer it. It seems a reasonable question to me. Here it is
again. "How would you enforce a hunt ban?"

"Mole" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
pete forging again

I am not pete. But, even if I was, that's no excuse to dodge the
question.
Do try to answer it. It seems a reasonable question to me. Here it is
again. "How would you enforce a hunt ban?"

pete is the one forging my post. Because he makes such a bog of it, I often
don't see his attempts, in this case I only saw your reply.

Me, I don't think there should be a hunt ban
Jim Webster

"Mole" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
pete forging again

I am not pete. But, even if I was, that's no excuse to dodge the
question.
Do try to answer it. It seems a reasonable question to me. Here it is
again. "How would you enforce a hunt ban?"

As I understand it the plan in some police forces is to pick off the
landowners.

If you care to read the Bill at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...12/2004112.htm

They can confiscate the dog and have it destroyed

The land owners can be arrested and fined.

The vehicles can also be forfeited and destroyed..

Very few farmers I know could afford a find on what for most would be a
point of principle.

Pat

"Pat Bryant" wrote in message
...

"Mole" wrote in message
...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
pete forging again

I am not pete. But, even if I was, that's no excuse to dodge the
question.
Do try to answer it. It seems a reasonable question to me. Here it is
again. "How would you enforce a hunt ban?"

As I understand it the plan in some police forces is to pick off the
landowners.

If you care to read the Bill at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...12/2004112.htm

They can confiscate the dog and have it destroyed

The land owners can be arrested and fined.

The vehicles can also be forfeited and destroyed..

Very few farmers I know could afford a find on what for most would be a
point of principle.

Let's do it to cross posters also.

"Pat Bryant" wrote in message
...
As I understand it the plan in some police forces is to pick off the
landowners.

You cannot be prosecuted until you are seen to be hunting. Riding with
hounds isn't hunting until a quarry is chased. Up to that moment you are
just taking the dogs for a walk. A fox will go where it pleases and the
person whose land the hunt is lead onto may have no idea that the hunt is
there and, indeed, may not have given permission for the hunt to use the
land. A prosecution against such a defence (by the landowner) would fail
unless there was other, more compelling, evidence.

If you care to read the Bill at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...12/2004112.htm
I got 404 Page not found, but anyway the letter of the law is one thing and
the implementation of it in the courts, with each case being heard on it's
merits, is quite another.

They can confiscate the dog and have it destroyed
Which dog? Which one out of the pack did the deed? Would they destroy the
entire pack? I think not.

The land owners can be arrested and fined.
For what? Suppose the fox is caught in the front garden of an anti-hunt
saboteur. Will he be arrested and fined?

The vehicles can also be forfeited and destroyed..
I won't go on, though I take your points. The thing is, that with something
in the region of 20,000 people who have vowed to carry on hunting
regardless, enforcing this law will be virtually impossible. There is
plenty of money in the kitty (I assume) to fight and appeal every case
brought against those who hunt and those (landowners etc) who are alleged to
have supported hunting. The whole thing is just going to be a big
embarrassment for the government.

In article , Jim Webster
writes

pete is the one forging my post. Because he makes such a bog of it, I often
don't see his attempts, in this case I only saw your reply.

Me, I don't think there should be a hunt ban

There are now so many double Xs in this thread that I am unable to find
the bit I wanted to follow up....

It crossed my mind that banning the rearing and release of game birds
would create a situation where existing shoots are forced to pay more
attention to the control of vermin in order to retain *wild* game. This
may be good for conservation in that more land may be used for *cover*
but may also lead to further protective controls.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb writes

It crossed my mind that banning the rearing and release of game birds
would create a situation where existing shoots are forced to pay more
attention to the control of vermin in order to retain *wild* game.

Er, I'm not sure this would be good for conservation.

Firstly there would be a big temptation to shoot raptors.
Secondly to shoot egg-eating birds/squirrels etc.
Thirdly rats etc, which are also food for raptors.
Fourthly Mr reynard would face extermination in some areas.
Fifthly outside feeders may be banned, these feed wild animals too.

Sounds a **really** bad move.

This
may be good for conservation in that more land may be used for *cover*
but may also lead to further protective controls.

Hmmm....
Cover can soon be made into an inviolate conservation area that cannot
be disturbed.

Me, cynical? Whyever should that be?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.