Rural organisations call on House of Lords to support hare poaching amendment

[South hams hunter 8,988]

Countryside Alliance - Latest news and blogs from the Countryside Alliance (countryside-alliance.org)

There's a few part to this that looks to me like lurcher lads are just getting the short end of the straw not just the 'illegal hare coursers' that they aim to target.

stretched police forces to recover the kennelling costs incurred where dogs have been seized. This means police forces would have the means to seize more dogs which would act as a significant deterrent to poachers given their high value. The amendment also enables courts to ban convicted offenders from having dogs and to strengthen penalties by lifting the existing limit on fines. -  will this be just people caught hare coursing and causing destruction or will it be anyone where they have there dogs seized? will they just be able to take any dog they dont like the look of?

 

after reading this i thought i'd look a bit more and found something the CA published earlier in the year.

18094-ca-hare-document-v06-(1).pdf (countryside-alliance.org)

There are, however, differences between the powers available to the police and courts under the Hunting Act and those under the older legislation, especially the Night Poaching Act 1828 and the Game Act 1831. Although the powers of the police and courts have been strengthened by more recent legislation, in particular by the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960, there remains a discrepancy between the Hunting Act and the older legislation in terms of the seizure and forfeiture powers specifically in relation to dogs and vehicles. Given the high value of the dogs to those involved in illegal coursing this is a substantial weakness in the existing law.

if they are just targeting illegal hare coursing what relevance has the night poaching act got? surely they must know that 'hare coursing' is traditionally done during the day, especially when bets are involved.

 

The older game laws should be amended to create consistent seizure and forfeiture powers for all poaching offences, including dogs and vehicles. This would both act as a deterrent, assist the police, and enable the courts to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence

so basically they want it so that if your caught anywhere you havent got permission take the vehicle and/or dogs.

 

The Game Act should also be amended to enable the police to recover the kennelling costs incurred where dogs have been seized. Such provision is made in other legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006

so confiscate the dogs (no doubt give them to the rspca to look after) whilst the process is being dragged out for months. if not years, and then produce an itemised bill for each day the dog is kennelled. 

These legislative changes would complement other changes being called for, and which the Alliance supports, such as a review of criminal behaviour orders so they could apply across more than one police force area, revised sentencing guidelines, and recording crime statistics so that hare poaching is identifiable, enabling a proper understanding of the scale of the problem and where resources need to be focussed.

so if you get caught they can ban you entering multiple counties and with a harsher fine.

 

 

 

[Gypsydog94 4,705]

41 minutes ago, South hams hunter said:

Countryside Alliance - Latest news and blogs from the Countryside Alliance (countryside-alliance.org)

There's a few part to this that looks to me like lurcher lads are just getting the short end of the straw not just the 'illegal hare coursers' that they aim to target.

stretched police forces to recover the kennelling costs incurred where dogs have been seized. This means police forces would have the means to seize more dogs which would act as a significant deterrent to poachers given their high value. The amendment also enables courts to ban convicted offenders from having dogs and to strengthen penalties by lifting the existing limit on fines. -  will this be just people caught hare coursing and causing destruction or will it be anyone where they have there dogs seized? will they just be able to take any dog they dont like the look of?

 

after reading this i thought i'd look a bit more and found something the CA published earlier in the year.

18094-ca-hare-document-v06-(1).pdf (countryside-alliance.org)

There are, however, differences between the powers available to the police and courts under the Hunting Act and those under the older legislation, especially the Night Poaching Act 1828 and the Game Act 1831. Although the powers of the police and courts have been strengthened by more recent legislation, in particular by the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960, there remains a discrepancy between the Hunting Act and the older legislation in terms of the seizure and forfeiture powers specifically in relation to dogs and vehicles. Given the high value of the dogs to those involved in illegal coursing this is a substantial weakness in the existing law.

if they are just targeting illegal hare coursing what relevance has the night poaching act got? surely they must know that 'hare coursing' is traditionally done during the day, especially when bets are involved.

 

The older game laws should be amended to create consistent seizure and forfeiture powers for all poaching offences, including dogs and vehicles. This would both act as a deterrent, assist the police, and enable the courts to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence

so basically they want it so that if your caught anywhere you havent got permission take the vehicle and/or dogs.

 

The Game Act should also be amended to enable the police to recover the kennelling costs incurred where dogs have been seized. Such provision is made in other legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006

so confiscate the dogs (no doubt give them to the rspca to look after) whilst the process is being dragged out for months. if not years, and then produce an itemised bill for each day the dog is kennelled. 

These legislative changes would complement other changes being called for, and which the Alliance supports, such as a review of criminal behaviour orders so they could apply across more than one police force area, revised sentencing guidelines, and recording crime statistics so that hare poaching is identifiable, enabling a proper understanding of the scale of the problem and where resources need to be focussed.

so if you get caught they can ban you entering multiple counties and with a harsher fine.

 

 

 

There shooting there self in the foot really. What if there beloved hounds go we’re they shouldn’t. Can they be confiscated? Sowing running dogs down the stream will only make it easier for future governments to change legislation on hounds? 

[South hams hunter 8,988]

1 minute ago, Gypsydog94 said:

There shooting there self in the foot really. What if there beloved hounds go we’re they shouldn’t. Can they be confiscated? Sowing running dogs down the stream will only make it easier for future governments to change legislation on hounds? 

course they wont, theyre not poaching with hounds are they. 

[Gypsydog94 4,705]

1 minute ago, South hams hunter said:

course they wont, theyre not poaching with hounds are they. 

If they haven’t got land owner’s permission why shouldn’t they be taken? Like my dog running something on my permission then going somewere I haven’t am I then poaching? 

[South hams hunter 8,988]

4 minutes ago, Gypsydog94 said:

If they haven’t got land owner’s permission why shouldn’t they be taken? Like my dog running something on my permission then going somewere I haven’t am I then poaching? 

no; being written for fox hunting again, poaching is trespass in pursuit of game. fox hunting goes against the hunting act but foxes arent game so not poaching 

[mC HULL 15,948]

Just now, South hams hunter said:

no; being written for fox hunting again, poaching is trespass in pursuit of game. fox hunting goes against the hunting act but foxes arent game so not poaching 

just dont pay the kenneling some c**t will have to pay it 

[Gypsydog94 4,705]

4 minutes ago, South hams hunter said:

no; being written for fox hunting again, poaching is trespass in pursuit of game. fox hunting goes against the hunting act but foxes arent game so not poaching 

Rabbits aren’t game but they are when you poach them. What about beagles? 

[chartpolski 27,961]

Remember the Working Lurcher Association? When it was going to become affiliated with the Countryside Alliance ?

I was asked to become a committee member but declined. I knew since the Hunting Ban that the CA had no interest in Lurchers, and would throw us under the bus without a moments hesitation, and they have at every opportunity!

As for confiscating dogs, it's nothing new, there's lads on here who have had dogs taken.

Poaching has never been legal, and to be fair, the punishments have been far harsher in the past, but on balance, I wouldn't mind being deported to Australia now, at least they can still hunt down there ! !

Cheers.

[riohog 5,938]

3 minutes ago, mC HULL said:

just dont pay the kenneling some c**t will have to pay it 

the bill want to amend the law  to recover costs  

[chartpolski 27,961]

Just now, Gypsydog94 said:

Rabbits aren’t game but they are when you poach them. What about beagles? 

Correct, but the law used to be "Trespass in pursuit of game AND coney".

I know because I've been charged with it twice; won one, lost one

Cheers.

[South hams hunter 8,988]

5 minutes ago, mC HULL said:

just dont pay the kenneling some c**t will have to pay it 

then you deffo wouldnt get your dogs back and youll get prosecuted for that aswell

2 minutes ago, Gypsydog94 said:

Rabbits aren’t game but they are when you poach them. What about beagles? 

they are in the eyes of the law in relation to poaching. beagles - f**k knows

[South hams hunter 8,988]

3 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

Remember the Working Lurcher Association? When it was going to become affiliated with the Countryside Alliance ?

I was asked to become a committee member but declined. I knew since the Hunting Ban that the CA had no interest in Lurchers, and would throw us under the bus without a moments hesitation, and they have at every opportunity!

As for confiscating dogs, it's nothing new, there's lads on here who have had dogs taken.

Poaching has never been legal, and to be fair, the punishments have been far harsher in the past, but on balance, I wouldn't mind being deported to Australia now, at least they can still hunt down there ! !

Cheers.

that the ones the signed loads up for membership and just dissapearred? 

 

i know people have had dogs confiscated but they want them to have more powers to confiscate them

[mC HULL 15,948]

1 minute ago, South hams hunter said:

then you deffo wouldnt get your dogs back and youll get prosecuted for that aswell

they are in the eyes of the law in relation to poaching. beagles - f**k knows

you get a few week for none payment of fines 

sometimes you have to cut your nose to spite your face 

[riohog 5,938]

think i might get a cheetah, ,the law doesnt apply to hunting with cats!!

[chartpolski 27,961]

Beagles are the same as any other dog in relation to the Hunting Act. Hares are their quarry, and hunting hares is illegal.

Cheers.