countrymans weekly scared of rspca

[jjbel 0]

i am not opposed to deer stalking per se . .there is a lot of skill and fieldcraft required in some cases , for instance stalking reds in the highlands ,but im not interested in the people laying a trail of aniseed to a glade littered with food , sat up a high seat shooting fish in a barrel , nor am i much interested in their views on running dogs. My main focus in this topic is the inexplicable fear of the rspca and their legal actions. Lets take it a step further , what could the cw be prosecuted for if they printed an article where i said i lurchered 4deer last night , i know for an absolute fact that i can not be convicted for writing that , i have broken a law which i have not , its just not possible to secure a conviction on that alone . .so i wonder which law prevents a publication (or internet site) from printing an article about breaking law ? National newspapers very often print interviews with law breakers ,for instance with a self confessed drug addict ,who discusses at length how he breaks the law every day. . .so although its clearly not a case for prosecution if the article is about preban hunting , i really dont think theres a law against printing an interview with a law breaker , as so many have been printed in the past.

why would we want to publish that , when the out come would make it worst for ourself. i mean surely its best to keep our sport low key , so it doesnt cause any contreversy from our critics. dont get me wrong i would love to read the articles, but the reason they wont publicise this is to protect our selfs and what hunting we have got, because as the times goes on its going to get tougher in reality . years ago we could go in our back gardens and shoot pests with shot guns. and no one would worry. but now we cant even keep dogs without complaints. hope you under stand what im saying

 

You mean keep quiet about it and hopefully noone will notice and try to stop us? Its this attitude why we are in the state we are in now. If we are heard, we are recognised and can stand for what we believe!

Its no good coming out of the woodwork when its too late.

[stormyboy 1,352]

The problem is that deer hunting with lurchers has always been the "black sheep" of hunting. Even when "legal",lets be honest,the VAST majority of deer were poached. This combined with the public perception of the sweet little "Bambie" Ensured that deer hunting with running dogs was not viewed favourably by the great unwashed! Deer hunting with hounds got a lot more bad press than other hound work too.

This is why most folk that were at it kept a low profile and went about the business quietly. :secret:

[whippet 99 2,613]

i am not opposed to deer stalking per se . .there is a lot of skill and fieldcraft required in some cases , for instance stalking reds in the highlands ,but im not interested in the people laying a trail of aniseed to a glade littered with food , sat up a high seat shooting fish in a barrel , nor am i much interested in their views on running dogs. My main focus in this topic is the inexplicable fear of the rspca and their legal actions. Lets take it a step further , what could the cw be prosecuted for if they printed an article where i said i lurchered 4deer last night , i know for an absolute fact that i can not be convicted for writing that , i have broken a law which i have not , its just not possible to secure a conviction on that alone . .so i wonder which law prevents a publication (or internet site) from printing an article about breaking law ? National newspapers very often print interviews with law breakers ,for instance with a self confessed drug addict ,who discusses at length how he breaks the law every day. . .so although its clearly not a case for prosecution if the article is about preban hunting , i really dont think theres a law against printing an interview with a law breaker , as so many have been printed in the past.

why would we want to publish that , when the out come would make it worst for ourself. i mean surely its best to keep our sport low key , so it doesnt cause any contreversy from our critics. dont get me wrong i would love to read the articles, but the reason they wont publicise this is to protect our selfs and what hunting we have got, because as the times goes on its going to get tougher in reality . years ago we could go in our back gardens and shoot pests with shot guns. and no one would worry. but now we cant even keep dogs without complaints. hope you under stand what im saying

 

You mean keep quiet about it and hopefully noone will notice and try to stop us? Its this attitude why we are in the state we are in now. If we are heard, we are recognised and can stand for what we believe!

Its no good coming out of the woodwork when its too late.

i think your attitude will make it worse, surely its common sense if you stand up and shout your mouth off you will only draw attention and make things worst. so when we were having protest marches before the ban why didnt that work. a couple of months later the hunting with dogs act was introduced. the only chance we have now is a conservative chance. im all for the ban to be overturned and if it means your right, then im one hundred percent with you

[whippet 99 2,613]

The problem is that deer hunting with lurchers has always been the "black sheep" of hunting. Even when "legal",lets be honest,the VAST majority of deer were poached. This combined with the public perception of the sweet little "Bambie" Ensured that deer hunting with running dogs was not viewed favourably by the great unwashed! Deer hunting with hounds got a lot more bad press than other hound work too.

This is why most folk that were at it kept a low profile and went about the business quietly. :secret:

exactly my point - do what you do, its not really a subject to advertise for the critics against us

[flint67 2]

dont get me wrong mate , im not advocating or intending to submit an article about breaking the law , im just saying if one was printed , i really dont think the publication could be prosecuted . My original point was really about peoples fear of the mystical powers of the rspca ,and how many of us , even after having lost the right to hunt are now accepting censorship of our thoughts ideas and beliefs. Deer hunting is what it is and if talking about it on a public platform is a" bad idea" and we should all" keep our heads down" then the whole anti brigade have won on an even bigger scale than the ban itself

[mcass123 6]

dont get me wrong mate , im not advocating or intending to submit an article about breaking the law , im just saying if one was printed , i really dont think the publication could be prosecuted . My original point was really about peoples fear of the mystical powers of the rspca ,and how many of us , even after having lost the right to hunt are now accepting censorship of our thoughts ideas and beliefs. Deer hunting is what it is and if talking about it on a public platform is a" bad idea" and we should all" keep our heads down" then the whole anti brigade have won on an even bigger scale than the ban itself

i certainly wont be keeping my head down and will continue to talk freely on this site

mcass

[stormyboy 1,352]

dont get me wrong mate , im not advocating or intending to submit an article about breaking the law , im just saying if one was printed , i really dont think the publication could be prosecuted . My original point was really about peoples fear of the mystical powers of the rspca ,and how many of us , even after having lost the right to hunt are now accepting censorship of our thoughts ideas and beliefs. Deer hunting is what it is and if talking about it on a public platform is a" bad idea" and we should all" keep our heads down" then the whole anti brigade have won on an even bigger scale than the ban itself

 

You're right about the rspca. They have NO powers at all in law. I also agree we should be able to speak and print freely,but things are the way they are and the less attention brought to the "black sheep" the better in the long run imo. the subject has always been unpalatable to the general public.

[Simoman 110]

i wrote back saying that what sf wrote was shite and frowned upon by the vast majority of terrierman , simoman apart

 

What a terrible things to say

[T78 4]

its a bad do when you can't write about the history of lurcher work....after all,they even celebrate some bugger trying to blow the houses of parliment up!

[Bootsha 1,306]

its a bad do when you can't write about the history of lurcher work....after all,they even celebrate some bugger trying to blow the houses of parliment up!

 

Pity he didn't have a dry box of matches.............he'd have done us all a favour

 

B

[flint67 2]

lurchered deer the black sheep of hunting . . .maybe , maybe not . .a genuine anti shouldnt care if its a deer a hare a fox a badger or a rat , if youre opposed to killing animals there can be no distinctions. I suspect the rough figures in this country are strong pro hunt , 5 million or less , strong anti hunt 5 million or less and couldnt care less 40 million plus. How many of them complained when the bbc show a cheetah pulling down a thompsons gazelle ? None.. . . If anything i would say its the "poor little fox being savaged by upwards of a million bloodthirsty hounds " that draws the attention. "most deer were poached" . . .probably true , but in my view unnecessarily so. Youd be astounded at how many people including lurchermen thought it was illegal to hunt deer with dogs, going back 20+ years ,you just couldnt convince lads that all they needed was permission and daylight !! Ive never met a farmer who was in favour of deer , they hate them , but the one thing they hate more than anything is COWBOYS DESTROYING THEIR LAND . . So yes permission gets refused , add to that the lads dont want to ask in case they get turned down and youve got the 3 reasons why most deer were poached , all down to ignorance.

[whin 463]

good when you have understanding farmers quite a lot of roe do damage to new plantings , alot of pestcontrolers get paid for it with a good rifle and afinding dog ,up in scotland ,as woith the [bANNED TEXT] to roam law you have to be lrcensed and fully trained , sounds like good farmers chalkie

[flint67 2]

hold onto your horses there chalkwarren !!. Please dont talk about deering or it will be YET ANOTHER of my threads that disappears hahaha ! The farmers were always onside for us . .youd have to wear out a new pair of boots trying to find one who wants deer foxes hares rabbits or badgers on his land. Back in the day i had a lot of blind eye permission to go out at night i.e. Anything but rabbits and youre on your own. THERES A LOT TO BE SAID FOR BLIND EYE PERMISSION . . . . .back then. . . As at least you had the landowners onside ,and like i say ,you have to go a long way to find a farmer that didnt want them cleared , unless hed already had his crops driven over ,gates left open etc etc

[Phil Lloyd 10,736]

[snoopdog 1,255]

not a bad pic that chalky ...but i got a better one....lololomaybe you will see it one day,,,,,