Killing a pheasant by car on road

If someone driving accidently kills a pheasant on the road, I understand that the person behind in the following car can claim it but not the driver who killed it.  If this is so, then this is nonsense.

Needs to be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

If someone driving accidently kills a pheasant on the road, I understand that the person behind in the following car can claim it but not the driver who killed it.  If this is so, then this is nonsense.

Needs to be repealed.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Why is this idea important?

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Repeal the Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act was the single largest waste of Parlimentary time during the last Government. It was not introduced to improve Animal Welfare but simply camouflaged as such to hide the true Class discrimination that was so blatantly behind it. Not only is it unworkable but it Crimalises Law Abiding Citizens and wastes Police and Courts time to placate those people who believe that everydoby who rides a horse in the countryside is a "Toff" .

It has been shown by a Government Enquiry that it has no purpose and no evidence was given to prove Hunting is less Humane than any other methods of controlling the numbers of animal species that no longer have natural preditors.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act 2004 should be repealed. The welfare of the fox population and the vitality of the countryside depends on it. It is the most humane form of fox control which is both selective and beneficial to the fox population. The law, morover, is badly written and non sensicle.

Remove requirement to shoot animals from the Hunting Act

The Hunting Act defines a form of hunting called 'flushing out of cover'.  It states that this is exempt from the law if five conditions are met.  The last of these conditions is:

"reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person"

The previous Government have states that this condition is needed because otherwise the exemption would be used as an excuse to chase and kill animals that had been flushed out.  This makes no sense.  If someone wanted to claim that they had accidentally chased and killed a fox or a deer then they would also claim that they had accidentally flushed out the animal.

The use of dogs to disperse and deter wild deer is an effective conservation method and is an alternative to culling them.  It is also recommended by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

There is no reason that deer should have to be shot in the circumstances outlined by the Hunting Act and this condition should be removed from the law.

It has recently been suggested by the RSPCA that actually animals can be flushed out of cover without being shot – if true the condition becomes meaningless anyway.  We should not have laws we don;t have to obey.

 

Out on a trip to flush deer with more than three dogs without shooting them.

It should be legal to deliberately flush deer without shooting them.

Why is this idea important?

The Hunting Act defines a form of hunting called 'flushing out of cover'.  It states that this is exempt from the law if five conditions are met.  The last of these conditions is:

"reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person"

The previous Government have states that this condition is needed because otherwise the exemption would be used as an excuse to chase and kill animals that had been flushed out.  This makes no sense.  If someone wanted to claim that they had accidentally chased and killed a fox or a deer then they would also claim that they had accidentally flushed out the animal.

The use of dogs to disperse and deter wild deer is an effective conservation method and is an alternative to culling them.  It is also recommended by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

There is no reason that deer should have to be shot in the circumstances outlined by the Hunting Act and this condition should be removed from the law.

It has recently been suggested by the RSPCA that actually animals can be flushed out of cover without being shot – if true the condition becomes meaningless anyway.  We should not have laws we don;t have to obey.

 

Out on a trip to flush deer with more than three dogs without shooting them.

It should be legal to deliberately flush deer without shooting them.

Replace Dangerous Dog Act With Dog Ownership Test

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.

End to Breed Specific Legislation

To bring an end to dogs being banned and euthanised because of their breed or the way they look.

To deal with the issues surrounding crimes with dogs, look at the owner and punish those who train dogs to be dangerous or out of control. Remove their entitlement to own an animal indefinately.

Why is this idea important?

To bring an end to dogs being banned and euthanised because of their breed or the way they look.

To deal with the issues surrounding crimes with dogs, look at the owner and punish those who train dogs to be dangerous or out of control. Remove their entitlement to own an animal indefinately.