Question On The Law And Flushing Foxes

[skycat 6,174]

Now here's a question for knowledgeable gun dog owners and those who use a dog to flush a wounded fox. Let's say that a fox has been shot, but not killed, and disappears into thick cover. Is it legal to use a dog to find and stop the wounded fox? Or does it have to be under such close control that it only finds the fox, doesn't touch it, but remains with it until a human with a gun can get there and shoot it dead?

 

In which case: how do gun dogs get away with finding and retrieving shot and wounded hares? Surely they are breaking the law if they aren't supposed to touch them? I'm asking this as it doesn't seem clear to me from the Hunting Act. I sent an article into the CMW and had to edit it heavily as I was told that what I'd written had contravened the Hunting Act.

 

My point being if a wounded fox is in deep cover, brambles or whatever, won't or can't bolt because of its injury, then sending in a dog to finish it off is surely preferable to letting it die slowly from its wounds?

 

The following is copied from the Hunting Act: and is the only part I can find which corresponds to the scenarios I've described:

 

Rescue of wild mammal

8(1)The hunting of a wild mammal is exempt if the conditions in this paragraph are satisfied.

(2)The first condition is that the hunter reasonably believes that the wild mammal is or may be injured.

(3)The second condition is that the hunting is undertaken for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal’s suffering.

(4)The third condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.

(5)The fourth condition is that the hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.

(6)The fifth condition is that the hunting takes place—

(a)on land which belongs to the hunter,

(on land which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs, or

©with the authority of a constable.

(7)The sixth condition is that—

(a)reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and

(in particular, each dog used in the hunt is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective in paragraph (a).

 

(The seventh condition is that the wild mammal was not harmed for the purpose of enabling it to be hunted in reliance upon this paragraph.

Any thoughts on this please!

[fireman 11,515]

The 2nd paragraph answers your question i'd say and the last bit in red don't matter as the dog will be far from preventing you from doing so, in fact if it isn't helping with the retrieval why is it there in the first place as it's bringing the wounded fox to you for dispatch asap is it not?.

[toby63 1,236]

we all know this law on using dogs is a load of tosh

[events co-ordinator 353]

Not a problem in Scotland we can still use full packs of hounds etc.

[Born Hunter 17,966]

P, my interpretation of the hunting act in this case is that it is perfectly legal to use up to two dogs to hunt a wounded animal. But you must make every effort to dispatch it as quickly and humanely as possible, if that is with a dog/dogs then that is perfectly legal.

[Malt 379]

The scenario you describe would be exempt from the hunting act going on that.. If you knew the fox had been shot, you would definitely satisfy conditions (2) & (3). Since in your scenario you wouldn't be able to get to the fox, it could be argued that the appropriate action you took was letting the dog finish the gravely wounded animal. It appears to leave provision under 7 (a) when it says: Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as the wild mammal is found appropriate action is taken (if any) to relieve its suffering..

 

 

 

The problem with this act is that it's so badly written and open to interpretation it's laughable.. There are so many loopholes and grey areas yet to be tested in court nobody knows how to deal with It. I suspect the CW were just covering their asses rather than anything else..

[skycat 6,174]

Thanks guys: BH and Malt: I thought the same as you: but obviously not everyone is agreed on this. Normally I write this sort of thing as a Memory Lane tale: shame I had to alter it to put a gun in it, when it was the dog that did ALL the work.