Jump to content

J Darcy

Donator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    10,808

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

 Content Type 

Everything posted by J Darcy

  1. J Darcy
    If the amendment goes through anyone can legally flush with an unlimited amount of dogs, be they terriers, lurchers, hounds or pekinese. On permission, they can flush, do the hunts have permission on every land they ride across? It's obvious that you seem somehow bitter toward fellow working dog people, namely people with hounds. Of course, I am not at every hunt, but, for the main, yes, they have permission to flush /drag hunt on the land that they are on. Obviously, the odd occasion hounds get on a scent and that takes them off the permission, like can happen with all our dogs. Tha
  2. J Darcy
    They do care, that's why there's many private prosecutions each year against hunts. That's why they are targeted by months of covert surveliance. Please don't under estimate what they go through to follow their love of working animals. I am not niaive, far from it, I have seen things with my own eyes. And I'm here to tell you, if some of the average working dog owner got the pressure some of the hunt staff get then they'd jack.
  3. J Darcy
    I don't understand what you mean. From where I'm standing, if you have permission then there's no court of law that will be able to convict you for hare coursing as accidents can happen and you may have been flushing to the gun, or rabbiting and a hare got up or setting snares for rabbits or picking up after a hare shoot. All of these answers make it impossible for a prosecution. So, with this in mind, what scenarios are you refering to? I can tell you now, that of all the 'coursing' convictions I have known in the last ten years every single one has been not on permission. Except one high
  4. J Darcy
    How many people have been coursing ON PERMISSION and got a conviction. That, surely, is the question you meant to ask?
  5. J Darcy
    If the amendment goes through anyone can legally flush with an unlimited amount of dogs, be they terriers, lurchers, hounds or pekinese. On permission, they can flush, do the hunts have permission on every land they ride across? It's obvious that you seem somehow bitter toward fellow working dog people, namely people with hounds. Of course, I am not at every hunt, but, for the main, yes, they have permission to flush /drag hunt on the land that they are on. Obviously, the odd occasion hounds get on a scent and that takes them off the permission, like can happen with all our dogs. Tha
  6. J Darcy
    If the amendment goes through anyone can legally flush with an unlimited amount of dogs, be they terriers, lurchers, hounds or pekinese.
  7. J Darcy
    spot on, there might be loop hole for hunting with horse+hounds , but running dogs and terriers will be left in the history books and stay there, its gone for ever now There is no 'loop hole'....it is still illegal to hunt foxes. The amendment is for the allowance to use more than two hounds to flush to the gun. ALL lurcher and terrierwork is legal if it is relation with flushing to either gun or bird of prey. We are ALL in the same boat. If you're got permission then you can basically do as you like as long as you take precautions and work around the Act. it's not a case of 'the
  8. J Darcy
    Theres a hell of alot of good grayling habitat around there, I can hardly imagine them spending thousands to worry about grayling.....I wouldn't be surprised if the canoeists are anything to do with it...
  9. J Darcy
    Now, what needs to be answered is; who put the 120-2 on the 'clone' list by naming them specifically and, WHY?
  10. J Darcy
    Is this difference relevant?
  11. J Darcy
    The three B's; Belisle, Bridger, BMI......
  12. J Darcy
    Reading again, it is reasonable to assume that the slightly curved corners of the Belisle, when compared to the BMI, would not affect it at all. The clone wording uses the word 'relevant', and IMO it is a reasonable stance to say that the slight differences are not relevant to alter the performance of the trap to the detriment of the target species. I will take a couple of piccys for those who have not compared the two...
  13. J Darcy
    heres the answer i received. Your query regarding the Victor Conibear 120-2 spring trap has been passed to me for response as I am the lead specialist on traps and trapping for Natural England. So in answer to your question…yes…the Victor Conibear 120-2 is approved for use against mink, provided it is set in a natural or artificial tunnel which is, in either case, suitable for the purpose. A quick U turn from the lead specialist!!!!
  14. J Darcy
    yes the only one i would check is the belise due to slight difference in jaw shape. they seem to be wanting exacts any visual difference is a possible no no...the bureaucracy in trapping and snaring is not helping im not happy with all these grey areas. i myself would say yes to belise but due to slight differences i wouldnt use em with risk of someone pointing out its not a bmi bodygrip or a exact clone.. anyone who uses dukes bmi ect would know straight away the difference with belise if they came across one. But would the slight difference in shape have any effect on it not being a clo
  15. J Darcy
    It is not legal because as it's two springs it cannot be classed as a clone of a single springed trap.
  16. J Darcy
    But the victor 110 would still be legal, as would the bellisle, bridge and duke 110's under the clone ruling.
  17. J Darcy
    I know quite a few 'benefit' and/or 'poor' families...and you know what, they all smoke like chimneys, all love their scratch cards, and all drink every night. AND they all have iPhones....so, is it the government that are making kids hungry or their parents 'need' for drugs and the latest gadgetry??? We're on the third generation of benefit careers now, people do not work because they don't have to. You can't blame the government for that....
  18. J Darcy
    spot on, there might be loop hole for hunting with horse+hounds , but running dogs and terriers will be left in the history books and stay there, its gone for ever now There is no 'loop hole'....it is still illegal to hunt foxes. The amendment is for the allowance to use more than two hounds to flush to the gun. ALL lurcher and terrierwork is legal if it is relation with flushing to either gun or bird of prey. We are ALL in the same boat. If you're got permission then you can basically do as you like as long as you take precautions and work around the Act. it's not a case of 'the
  19. J Darcy
    I think everyones clouding the issue....hunting foxes is still illegal, and after the amendment will still be illegal. They are in exactly the same boat as us. The amendment is for using more than two hounds, NOT to legalise foxhunting. We should all be supporting this....it is a step in the right direction.
  20. J Darcy
    I think nymphs like this will get you the best trout, if you're using the fly that is.
  21. J Darcy
    Rome wasn't built in a day, this is a step in the right direction folks. This time in parliament is only about the increase in the amount of hounds. Nothing else. No one has said that this is instead of a repeal, they're going to try and do the repeal once everything right and they know that the attempt will be successful. Otherwise there's no point. Let's stay positive, let's support and push for increased houndwork. After all, if we all stick together we make a formidable group. If the amendment is passed it is still ILLEGAL to intentionally hunt a fox with a dog (s), so hunters, lurcherm
  22. J Darcy
    The most important word in all this; 'Intent'.
  23. J Darcy
    just found an old pic of the weir, before it was ripped out. IMO a waste of money as this would form no barrier to migrating fish...
  24. J Darcy
    It's a 16 mate I think. I'm not one for big flies, I likes em dainty...
  25. J Darcy
    This is a cracking nymph......one of my own make-up.....I've had an amount of troot on this one...
×
×
  • Create New...