# Terrier work question...



## severnmiles (21 September 2006)

Ok, little question for those in the know...

Its perfectly legal to enter a terrier to a fox earth and dig to the fox...Yes?

Is it then only legal if you bolt the fox to awaiting guns?

Is it legal to kill the fox in the earth?


----------



## Clodagh (22 September 2006)

I could be wrong but I think you are supposed to make sure the fox is moving before you shoot it. As in, bolted to the guns.
It is, of course, much kinder to shoot it up the ar*e than a clean head shot in the earth, as the people that drew up the ban thought out really well.
Will need Carreg to confirm that, OH is out walking terriers so can't check with him!


----------



## severnmiles (22 September 2006)

Thats what I thought but ex OH is saying I'm wrong and that its perfectly legal to kill it in the earth.

Clodagh's OH and Carreg where are you?


----------



## severnmiles (22 September 2006)

C'mon Skid you should know the law, I'm not too bothered I'd just like to clear it up (whether I'm right or wrong) as to what is techniquely correct.

Talking of killing foxes cleanly, an aquaintence wanted a rifle for shooting foxes, head of firearms told him that he didn't need one, she said if you shoot the fox with a shot gun and then kill it off with a pistol if need be....hmmm very humane, certainly not a way I'd like to go!


----------



## Clodagh (22 September 2006)

Just consulted OH who says it is a bit ambiguous. So, no help!! We're all right!


----------



## CARREG (22 September 2006)

You have a p.m..............Carreg


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

I don't think your average terrierman cares whether what he does is illegal or not.


----------



## Hercules (26 September 2006)

''I don't think your average terrierman cares whether what he does is illegal or not.''

Nor do the police care what the terriermen do, so what is your point?


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Some terriermen don't care that the dog fights that some of them organise are illegal: they normally get away with them. Does that mean we should have bothered banning them?


----------



## Hercules (26 September 2006)

More sweeping generalisations from a little person.

Dog fighting is cruel, worth banning and the law enforceable.

The Hunting Act, however .....


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

So it IS worth banning something even if it's almost impossible to enforce? Thank you.


----------



## Hercules (26 September 2006)

No.  The ban on dog fighting is enforceable.  That is because it is clear and unequivocal.

The hunting act however....


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

The Wright case showed that the Hunting Act IS enforceable because it was enforced but most hunts get away with flouting it. Same goes for terriermen who organise dog fights. But you agree that a law shouldn't be thrown away simply because it's rarely enforced. I thank you again.


----------



## Hercules (26 September 2006)

Whether or not people get away with crimes is irrelevant when considering throwing away a law.

What is the point in having a law that is not enforced?  None.

The fact that the police and CPS are not interested in the activities of Hunts should give you a clue as to whether or not the Hunting Act is worth keeping.

Keep collecting your pennies.  LACS will need them if they are to see any more huntsmen in court.


----------



## soggy (26 September 2006)

So come on Severn what is the answer to you question.


----------



## wurzel (26 September 2006)

"The Wright case showed that the Hunting Act IS enforceable because it was enforced "

And what are the Exmoor Foxhounds doing at the moment?


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Hercules himself agrees with me that just because a law is rarely enforced doesn't mean it should be scrapped. Thank you.


----------



## wurzel (26 September 2006)

Good old Hercules !!

As long as it is not enforced I don't give a toss !!!!


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

You obviously do give a toss, otherwise you wouldn't contribute to an online debate like this. Thank you again!!!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (26 September 2006)

Do you think I should get prosecuted if I chase deer with my dogs?


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Well I suppose it's beats dropping a nuclear bomb in a rather misguided attempt to produce an environmental paradise.


----------



## severnmiles (26 September 2006)

The Wright case showed that the Hunting Act IS enforceable because it was enforced but most hunts get away with flouting it. Same goes for terriermen who organise dog fights. But you agree that a law shouldn't be thrown away simply because it's rarely enforced. I thank you again.
		
Click to expand...

Wright was done for NOT killing the fox soon enough.....yea it sure is an enforceable law, the many other charges were dismissed!


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Very interesting, but it makes no difference to what I said. Try again.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (26 September 2006)

Can you answer the question rather than making ridiculous claims about the environmental impact of nuclear weapons.

Do you think I should be prosecuted for chasing deer with dogs?


----------



## severnmiles (26 September 2006)

So come on Severn what is the answer to you question.
		
Click to expand...

If I knew that I wouldn't have asked the question...I think I should scan the Hunting Act 04!  

C'mon Sogs....you tell me, surely you must know, save me a few hours reading seeing as its cubbing tomorrow morning...though I'm still hobbling on crutches :-(


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

You said:

"From what I understand, from the point of view of nature conservation, the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was the best thing that ever happened. The place is now a wildlife paradise. 

It's rubbish that nuclear is bad for the environment. 

It may be bad for people, but environmentally, it's a god send."

-----------

In view of that I can't take anything you say seriously.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (26 September 2006)

So what chernobyl wasn't a nuclear weapon. 

It was a controversial comment aimed at provoking a debate.  

It was made by a leading and much respected scientist called James Lovelock who many consider to be the father of the environmental movement.

Why do you keep changing the subject?

Do you think I should be prosecuted for chasing deer with dogs?


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Please don't change the subject. This thead is about terrierwork. If you wish to start another thread on the "god send" benefits to the environment of nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl, feel free.


----------



## Ereiam_jh (26 September 2006)

I'll do what I like.  

You keep bringing up Chernobyl, not me.

No do you think I should be prosecuted for chasing wild mammals with dogs.

Answer on another thread if you like.

You could give a simple answer to a simple question rather than wittering on about nuclear accidents.


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

I think the RSPCA should be called to run a geiger counter over your poor dogs.


----------



## wurzel (26 September 2006)

"You obviously do give a toss, otherwise you wouldn't contribute to an online debate like this. Thank you again!!! "

I will spell it out for you then.

I don't think there should be laws in this country that the police are unable and unwilling to enforce.

That is a principle.

In practice, I don't give a toss about the law. I hunt at least twice a week. It is a charade called exempt hunting.

Whatever your dopey law says I know I am morally right. Just like the convicted criminal Mr Wright who is now trying to kill more Foxes.

No fox  hunting means more snaring.

No Stag hunting means no deer.

If you want no Red deer and foxes dangling in snares cutting their necks for 23 hours that is your affair.

I would rather chase them for 25 minutes.

(Or 2 hours for a deer)

And yes, I will be Fox hunting tomorrow and Stag hunting on saturday.

And you can't stop me.


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Oh for a Chernobyl in Exmoor! What a "god send" that would be!


----------



## Ereiam_jh (26 September 2006)

I'm afraid he's going to go on and on (and on) about one particular point nabout Chernobyl rather than engage in a debate about hunting.


----------



## Beaufort (26 September 2006)

Are you seriously saying that you object to people going "on and on (and on)" about one thing???????

Bottom line: you insist Chernobyl was a "god send" for the environment. I disagree.


----------



## wurzel (26 September 2006)

Sorry, I think the closest we have is Dunster Water mill.

How about hunting on the hunting forum?

Are you lost?

I will help.

I have just been looking at Kevin Hill on Points West. He seems to have made a complete recovery.


----------

