BY GILES BRADSHAW

When the Hunting Act was passed I wrote to Defra questioning the legality of my use of dogs to manage wild deer in my woods. My procedure is very simple. I walk the dog through the woods off the lead. That’s it. As I pointed out at the time to Defra this inevitably causes dispersal of the deer including them being flushed from cover.

Deer take steps to avoid perceived predators. They are also creatures of habit and if they are chased by dogs in a particular location they tend to start avoiding that location and showing a preference for areas where they are not hunted by any dogs.

I pointed out to Defra that the law contained an exemption for ‘stalking and flushing out’ and that this exemption required a number of conditions to be met. I was failing to meet at least two of these conditions. Firstly that no more than two dogs be used. I was using five dogs. Secondly that the deer had to be shot dead. I didn’t want to harm the deer and did not shoot them.

Defra agreed that this situation was ridiculous. The idea behind the Hunting Act was to save animals from being hunted, not to require people to hunt them. On that basis they invented a new category of hunting they called ‘chasing away’. I could chase the deer away and this would not be hunting because I had no intention to kill them.

They just invented this. There’s nothing in the Hunting Act about ‘chasing away’. It’s not at all clear therefore whether it counts as Hunting. The law states hunting includes a ‘pursuit’ but it isn’t clear whether this includes all chasing or just activities intended to kill or catch the animal.

There was a media uproar about this decision by Defra and they then reacted by changing their mind and deciding – again on no basis that actually ‘chasing away’ as well as ‘flushing out’ count as hunting under the law. In order to flush out wild mammals they must be killed.

In spite of this ruling large numbers of people have continued flushing out wild mammals with dogs in exactly the same way as I do. Taking dogs off the lead and when they flush or disperse wild mammals allowing these wild mammals to escape unharmed. These people include high profile anti hunters – one previous president of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), a chief executive of LACS and a director of ‘Wild Justice’. I am included in this number. I’ve continued deliberately not shooting the wild deer and other mammals which I flush out with my dogs. We simply do not believe that the law should apply to us.

We do not accept that the mandatory shooting of the large numbers of wild mammals that are flushed out with dogs in the UK is justified under the law.

I was unhappy with Defra’s decision and I therefore joined the Human Rights challenge against the Hunting Act led by the Countryside Alliance. My claim was based on my right to peacefully and safely enjoy my property without putting my, the public’s and the local wildlife’s lives at risk from the use of guns. I was in some ways the joker amongst the pack of claimants because I had nothing to do with hunting and was doing what millions of people do throughout the UK. Flushing a few deer, foxes etc by walking my dogs in the countryside.

The proceedings of the Human Right’s case are useful because they prove that the Government with the support in court of LACS, the RSPCA and IFAW, argued that I was breaking the law by not killing the deer I disturbed and also that the court backed their argument (I lost my case).

I am calling for people with dogs to break the Hunting Act in a very specific way. Firstly, if you are not currently flushing wildlife then providing your dog is happy and well exercised I am not seeking to encourage you to. However, if you DO flush wildlife, for example if you walk your dog through woodland, scrub, long grass etc. then I am publicly calling on you and encouraging you to do so deliberately and not pretend it’s some kind of ‘accident’. Most importantly once you have flushed the animal do not comply with the conditions for the exemption of that flushing. Definitely don’t comply with the requirement to kill the animal and do not comply with any of the other conditions that you do not want to.

I have flushed with more than two dogs, on land I do not own and do not have permission to flush on, I’ve never complied with the requirement to kill the flushed-out animal. At one time or another I have intentionally failed to comply with all of the conditions for exemption.

I do this with the full knowledge of my local police who permit me to break the Hunting Act in this manner because they believe it to be absurd.

To flush ‘accidentally’ you would need to not be aware that deer run away from dogs. When the high-profile anti hunters I have mentioned flush deer with their dogs it is no ‘accident’. They know perfectly well what they are doing.

The law was clarified further in 2009 when the Quantock Staghounds were prosecuted. The court made it clear that they should have shot ALL the deer they flushed. The entire herd. The judge ruled they would need to have at least ten guns present. In my opinion this kind of mass wildlife massacre is deeply cruel.

I am calling for anybody who has a dog who flushes out deer to break the Hunting Act. Do NOT shoot the deer. Do not be cruel to it. It is your human right to break the Hunting Act by refusing to kill wildlife.

If you have a dog, whether you are a member of the royal family, a hunt, a judge, an anti-hunt executive or indeed anybody please break the Hunting Act as I do.

If the arguments put to the courts in the Human Rights case by the Government were correct then by encouraging people to break the law I am breaking the Serious Crime Act 2007. The police will, rightly, take no action over this. It is essential that the police and the CPS allow everybody to flout the Hunting Act in this manner.

There is of course another possibility. Maybe merely flushing out isn’t hunting under the law. This would mean that legally one could flush deer with dogs without complying with any of the conditions of the Hunting Act.

At the end of the day, given the police’s refusal to enforce this aspect of the law it’s irrelevant what it is. You can flout it with impunity. Do so. The requirement to kill wildlife has no place in the Hunting Act because it can result in animal cruelty. Anti-Hunters should support anti cruelty hunt crime and commit it themselves where appropriate.