training a BOP on live quarry

[SPAR 2]

OK seen as my last post was deleted about baggies, a falconer I know have found some info out regarding bagged quarry

PLEASE READ

 

In this post I intend to show why I think that under certain circumstances, the use of baggies may not be unlawful. I will use the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911 ( WaCA and PoA) to support my argument, but the reader must be aware I am not a barrister, but do have some working knowledge of these two Acts. These Acts do not apply in Scotland.

The reader must should consider my argument and evaluate the Acts for themselves/seek opinion from a barrister if they wish to be 100% certain. I am submitting this as a theory rather than qualified legal opinion, so therefore neither I nor the Forum accepts any responsibility.

If you are legally challenged, you may wish to remember the argument.

Creditable links to the Acts appear at the foot of the post.

 

So, everyone screams baggies are illegal. But why?

The answer usually is either, " Cos it is mate", or, " it says so in WaCA 81".

 

But what does WaCA ACTUALLY say?

All through WaCA you will see the words "subject to the provisions of this part------"

 

The provisions are that WaCA actualy permits AUTHORISED PERSONS to take and kill certain species of birds under certain circumstances. WaCA does not dictate to those AUTHORISED PERSONS what methods may be used, but it does create plenty of offences for those persons who are NOT AUTHORISED to take and kill the permitted species or species that are not permitted.

 

 

So who is an AUTHORISED PERSON?

They are Landowners or people acting with their express permission to take and kill the permitted species.

So for this reason it is extremely important that you have permission from the landowner to hunt the species of bird or animal that you are actualy hunting.

Other people are also authorised by the Secretary of State under special circumstances.

 

One of the areas of confusion is Section 5 (d)

This states that " Subject to the provisions of this part.......if any person for the purposes of killing or taking or killing any wild bird, any sound recording of any live bird or animal whatever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances or which is blind maimed or injured; or ( goes to next para)

So that means a pigeon on a bit of string is definitely out, but does it prevent the release of a perfectly healthy un secured bird of a permitted species, by a an AUTHORISED PERSON as a baggie?

 

Further weight can be found in the Act to the meaning of "subject to the provisions of this part" and AUTHORISED PERSON, in the sections that deals with animals.

Now we all know that Landowners and those authorised by them go lamping for rabbits/ foxes etc at night. If you look at S11 Part (2) © (d) (e), you will see a whole list of offences, worded exactly the same as it is for birds in S (5)

So are these landowners etc who are lamping from trucks committing offences ? There have been thousands of complaints from townies who have moved rural complaining about night shooting, (' It is like the Battle of El Alamein!' ) but I have never heard of a conviction.

It would of course also mean that lamping rabbits with a hawk was illegal. Oooppps!

 

 

Now here comes the piece de resistance.

The Protection of Animals Act.

If you Google it, you will find a whole host of Police websites that have a summary/interpretation of the PoA. So I cannot think that this Act has been repealed. So many Police forces would not be putting up something that is incorrect.

 

The PoA states in S 3 (

"to the coursing or hunting of any captive animal, unless such animal is liberated in an injured, mutilated, or exhausted condition; but a captive animal shall not, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be coursed or hunted before it is liberated for the purpose of being coursed or hunted, or after it has been recaptured, or if it is under control and a captive animal shall not be deemed to be coursed or hunted within the meaning of this subsection if it is coursed or hunted in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape."

So here we have an Act that specificaly allows the hunting of a released animal as long as its uninjured healthy etc and not encumbered. In law you can not realy have one Act making an action illegal whilst another un-repealed Act permits an action.I suppose there is some argument that the Hunting Act 2004 contradicts the PoA, but the hunting Act relates to more than one hound hunting specific species, so perhaps not?

I therefore submit that baggies are legal,---- IF you are an AUTHORISED PERSON within the meaning of the WaCA 81, AND you comply with S3 ( of the PoA 1911.

 

The next issue is the moral one. Sure you may find it distastful to use baggies, but baggies can be used to teach a game hawk positioning, by not alowing it to catch one. Some USA falconers use the same pigeons for years!

Whilst I would prefer to get a hawk killing without the use of a baggie, it is no worse than what a hawks own parents would do in the wild.

If you are still feeling that it is moraly wrong, how's your moral feelings if you lose a hawk that is already well out of its 'wild state comfort zone' regarding its weight ,--------- knowing it can not kill.

Sobering though., Would you sleep at night?

Hence the constant emphasis from competent falconers regarding un-entered birds weight /condition and the use of telemetry.

No doubt some will disagree, and I look forward to debate and enlightenment, if you can use legislation to argue your point! I am ready to stand corrected.

 

References.

PoA

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Act...a_19110027_en_1

 

WaCA

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3614 ( Scroll to find download )

Edited January 3, 2009 by SPAR

[trappa 518]

The legislation is a grey area from what ive read. Its a bit like shooting a fox with an air rifle, its illegal viewed through one law but illegal through another. :stinker:

My view is its not necessary. Yes its done on the continent and in the other side of the pond, but its just "not cricket" !!

I cringe when i see it. It looks feckin awful, and is, imo, feckin awful.

It was bagged hare that got coursing banned and though i respect your views are your views, falconry in britain really can do without baggies.

trappa

[Dexter... 0]

The legislation is a grey area from what ive read. Its a bit like shooting a fox with an air rifle, its illegal viewed through one law but illegal through another. :stinker:

My view is its not necessary. Yes its done on the continent and in the other side of the pond, but its just "not cricket" !!

I cringe when i see it. It looks feckin awful, and is, imo, feckin awful.

It was bagged hare that got coursing banned and though i respect your views are your views, falconry in britain really can do without baggies.

trappa

 

100%

[D.A.Z 0]

um intresting post spar thanks.

as for where i sand on the whole thing i think i would describe as on the fence.by that i mean i dont think there is a stright yes or now answer to if its right or not.there aare always exceptions,persoaly i find it un sporting but i will try to give a example.where it may be required.

ive just got a bop lets say a hh, done all the manning etc and am ready to enter the bird, its a smallish male and i choose a couple of slips that after thinking about it were foolish. the bird now has had the shit kicked out of it by a couple of rabbits and caught nothing,cause i am a dick.at this point the birds confednce is well low, may have been unlucky on a handfull of other slips.at this point i would consider flying at something less capable of escape (mixie rabbit) etc orr even using a baggie.

as you pointed out spar in its natural enviroment the birds parents would help out so to me its the same thing.

the above is a example to try to show how i dont realy think there is a stright answer to if its right or wrong.

will be interesting to see other views,thanks daz

Edited June 1, 2008 by D.A.Z

[SPAR 2]

I agree it is a grey area and yes it can swing both ways

 

It is not illegal to use baggies providing they are not encumbered in any way.

 

Whether you think it is morally correct is a matter for the individual to decide.

 

Is it any different to holding a dog on point until you get in the best position to give your hawk every opportunity to catch the quarry, or paying for a days hawking on a shoot that has released 10,000 pheasants. I will openly admit that I have used pigeons to teach my saker to wait on, by releasing one when she was out of position knowing she had no chance of catching it. She would then come overhead in the hope that i would 'put up' something else

[SPAR 2]

 

1 Amendment of s. 1, subs. (3), para. ( of Protection of Animals Act, 1912 The first section of the M1Protection of Animals Act, 1912, subsection (3), paragraph (, shall be amendedby the addition thereto of the following words:— “and a captive animal shall not be deemed to be coursed or hunted within the meaning of this subsection if it is coursed or hunted in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape.â€

Edited June 1, 2008 by SPAR

[trappa 518]

From what i have read and been told over the year's it is illegal..

We all know it's a good way to get the bird fired up but why go on about it.. ..

Just get on with it..

Millet

Totally agree with millet. If you do use baggies i would think the sensible thing to do would be to keep it quiet and get on with it.

All "bloodsports" are in a precarious position in this country, and indeed, other countries around the world, so it would be silly to open up this can of worms.

[Kat 3]

Loose lips sink ships

[SPAR 2]

you lot make me lough. No different than flying at mixi Wabbits at least bagged quarry has got more chance of getting away.

[trappa 518]

There is a world of difference.

Mixy is a cruel, cruel way to go therefore the majority of us will kill a mixy rabbit on sight, regardless of having a bird, gun or knife in our hands, thus putting it out of its misery AND helping to stop the spread. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that.

Deliberatly catching a healthy creature and letting it go in an area/situation that gives your bird greater odds of catching it to aid your birds confidence isnt right legally, morally or ethically.

[Squirrel_Basher 17,100]

Long time since i had a harris but consider this .If your newly aquired bird or any other bird for that matter has had some knockbacks at the real deal ,young or old ,whos fault is it .You obviously strive to provide the younster with as much easy slips as is practical but they do not all make the grade .A youngster can be easily overmatched and an adult can and does go through bad patches .Personally ,i would keep trying the youngster on the right ones ,even part with it if it didnt do it to my liking in the end .A baggie of any description whether talking about b.o.p or dogs serves only to perpetrate weak stock and not self entering kit .Selective breeding of self entering stock only .Cull the rest .

[SeanTheHawker 0]

dont see the point in them really, IMO they can create a lazy bird and a lazy falconer.