Add Your Idea

Repeal of the Hunting Act 2004

Comment 2nd July 2010

The Hunting Act came into force on 18 February 2005 after an eight year battle that absorbed over 700 hours of Parliamentary time. The prejudice, misuse of science and abuse of parlimentary process that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of criticism and regret from politicians of all parties, the media and the public.

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effect are entirely negative. It diminishes respect for Parliament; it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts police attention from real crime; it brings no benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudiice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to 'protect.'

It must be repealed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ary time. The predudjice,misuse of science and abuse of parliamentary progress that eventually saw the Act onto the statute book were the focus of critism and regret from polititions of all parties, the media and the public.

The hunting act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It deminishes respect for Parliament:it puts law-abiding people at risk of prosecution; it diverts policeattention from real crime;it brings no bebefit to the environment; it is a blatentexample of political preducice and it does nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to protect.

Why does this matter?

A CONFUSING LAW

From the onset, the practical application of the Hunting Act has been surrounded by confusion. According to Government, hunting can only be an 'intentional' activity. So it is the intention of a person engaged with a dog or dogs, not he action of those dogs,which is criminal. The fact that the dog is pursuing a fox,or another mamal, does not necessararily mean that offence is being committed.

The series of 'exemptions'designed to allow some types of hunting to continue were the result of political wrangling and are both illogicial and unclear. For instanse it is legal to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare,a rat but not a mouse. It is legal to use two dogs in order to flush to a waiting gun, but not three. It is legal to use a number of dogs in order to flush animal (unspecified) for a bird of prey (also unspecified). It is legal to use a terrier underground to control foxes because they are killing game birds,but illegal to use the same dog to kill the same fox if it is killing lambs. Defining these exemptions has been left to huntsmen, the police and the courts.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea