Exactly!  They are either trained or not; period!

what it must like to be to be sooo perfect with such perfect dogs.....and HOW boring.

No ChloeH it's far from boring to be able to recall your dog from a running rabbit, person or whatever.  It's very satisfying :)

Not for the dog though. :( No fun, or being able to follow their instincts allowed. Poor things. :(

On the contrary Jeangenie, my dogs get rewarded for recalling like that.  They can turn and race back to me at the same speed and with the same enthusiasm as the original chase for a tug on a ball on a rope.  Just a different outcome but still positive for them and still lots of fun :)  That is one of the reasons people have such difficulty perfecting a consistent recall.  They expect the dog to recall when THEY want them to because THEY want them too, and yes that can be boring for the dog because there's nothing in it for them. 

But no dinner, and no pleased neighbours that the rabbits are being controlled!

I wouldn't want to eat a rabbit that my my dogs have killed :(  All bruised and crushed :(

I cook them for the dogs. Free-range, organic ... :)

(And pray that we're never at War as before. They were very popular then because it was off-ration.)

well, it depends what flicks your switch I guess. mine chase rabbits on my land - and I only wish they were a lot faster to keep the damn things down. my old dallies were expert rabbit catchers.

Just a thought if your not fully in control of your dogs  towards other animals then when there offlead couldent they attack another dog  mabe small one like a yorkshire terrier ??
not very responsible is it .
The moment my dog started walking out the front door without permison which wasent a huge problem i spent time finding out why she started it ... someone had been throwing bouncing the ball for her to go get . so  I started training her again that was her only fault now shes great . she loves birds and running amoung them but shes simply not allowed how would she like it if a big Animal was allowed to chase her its just not right . if they cant be trained  keep them on lead  like most husky owners do or invest in a good muzzel cant get into trouble then ;)

I agree with the point that dogs should be trained not to chase anything if they are likely to harm it when caught.  My dog loves to chase the crows in the park and I do allow her to as I know she will never catch them.  I do not allow her to chase cats however (although she probably wouldn't hurt them as we have two at home).

If your dogs are likely to hurt something they are chasing, then they should not be allowed to do so - it could after all be someone elses pet cat!

Fiona

My wifes toy poodle caught a crow in our street last year, so be careful, also a crows beak is very sharp & will damage your dogs eyes if he/she did catch one...

Geoff

Geoff if I thought there was any danger of her catching one then I wouldn't let her chase them.  In the park they see her coming miles before she gets near them - I think even she knows she won't catch one!

Fiona

Well, that must have been one of the "weaker" crows then, otherwise it would have been in the air before your toy poodle got feathers between his/her teeth.

Stacey

>Try telling that to a Malamute or husky<

Or a hunt terrier who has been hunting all his life. At 13 years old it is a bit late to expect him to stop now.   Even though his owner does not actively encourage it, it is impossible to stop him.   If he can't find fox or rabbit, he will do hedgehogs.

Chasing and Hunting:

Chasing is part of the hunt sequence of:    Orient-Eye-Stalk-Chase-Bite-Kill-Consume

Depending on breed/type and individuality this hunting sequence could stop at Chase [pet type dogs/show dogs with hunting instinct bred out - these dogs chase just for fun] or at Bite, which could be an inhibited bite [collies and heelers, bred to herd with the kill-bite bred out and replaced by inhibited bite, whereby they start the sequence over again] and the truer hunting dogs who go all the way to kill bite.

My working springers do not do kill bite as they are bred for soft mouths to flush and retrieve game.    If they do catch something they do not kill it.  However the terrier does.

I hope all you guys who are dead against dogs using their inherent skills and being dogs do not EAT MEAT, because meat is the end product of live animals being purposely bred and often kept in abhorrent conditions and have a rotten life until they are killed at a relatively young age.

At least animals that are being hunted are living a free life.

Animals kill other animals - that is a fact of life.   If it is wrong for dogs to catch rabbits etc then it is certainly wrong for the lions and tigers in Africa to hunt and catch whatever they do to survive.

Wendy

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that for some dogs to chase and then kill another animal is natural.  The point is that a human must not take his/her dog out with the intention of killing another animal.  Unlike wild animals such as lions and tigers, dogs in this country do not need to kill for food.  As for everyone against hunting not eating meat - why not, it is also natural for us to eat meat, but that does not mean we need to enjoy killing animals we do not eat.

I am not prepared to take anyone's word for it; I have read exactly the same information as Lady Dazzle has.

The Bill makes it an offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog

"hunting" a wild animal is vastly different from a dog "chasing" an animal of its own volition and being "out of control" of its owner.

Those that have dogs who cannot be stopped from chasing obviously should not allow them off the lead..................

Many of use have breeds that are bred to hunt, that hunting instinct is controlled............. (or should be).

Also if you read the Q & A page re hunting on the DEFRA site re "what if my dog ..............?"

"The provisions of the Bill are clear and easily understood - innocent bystanders who witness an illegal hunt, farmers whose land is used against their will, or people, including those engaged in drag hunting, whose dogs chase and kill a fox against their wishes will not be guilty of a crime. This is because people will only be hunting when they themselves intend to pursue the quarry animal."

Always wise to read ALL the information rather than cherry pick what reflects our particular personal view............ ;)

"This is because people will only be hunting when they themselves intend to pursue the quarry animal."

So who and how is going to prove this point!!!!!!!!

If you are chasing after your dog who is hunting lets say a squirrel, trying in vain to stop its chase instinct.  How on earth are you going to prove you weren't in actual fact enjoying the chase?????

Particularly if, as will probably be the case, it is on someone else's say so.

I still maintain that whatever the outcome, there will be a lot of people taken to court with all the time and expense that involves, trying to prove their innocence.

Hmmmm, last time I looked the onus on proof in the UK was on the prosecuting authority............. or perhaps English Law has radically changed?   Any person accused of wrongdoing does not have to PROVE their innocence; on the contrary their GUILT has to be proved!

The burden of proof is the obligation on a party to establish the facts in issue in a case to the required degree of certainty (the standard of proof) in order to prove their case.

 
The general principle, of burden of proof is that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the facts essential to their case and/or "he who asserts must prove". The criminal standard of proof  is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, in civil law it ison the balance of probabilities, i.e., that an allegation is more probable than not.

You are of course entitled to your opinions/fears/beliefs; whether or not they prove to be well founded or not remains to be seen.........

Ooops sorry I'm not a lawyer, but to my mind it still means that if you are taken to court YOU have to prove your innocence.

I think that has been proved on many occasion with the DDA.

A lot of people who's dogs were seized with the Act ended up selling homes to pay their court costs.

Something that might in interest you all is the fact that:

THE LAST PERSON BEFORE THIS GOVERNMENT TO BAN HUNTING IN EUROPE WAS HITLER

Lady dazzle, I am appalled that you could even compare this government with the likes of Hitler???   You may not agree with their governship, but to compare them to Hitler is beyond tactless.  In addition to which, the last person to ban hunting in Europe prior to the English Parliament was in fact the Scottish Parliament. :)  Also, I AM a solicitor, and whilst I cannot advise on English Law, I can say that the basis of the DDA is very different to that of the act in question, and in anycase, it still remains fact that anyone is innocent until proven guilty within a court of law.  And finally, in the eyes of the law, there is a clear disctinction between those actively hunting any of the mammals mentioned in the text and those walking their dogs who happen to chase an animal whilst out.

I am not comparing this government to Hitler.

I am just stating a fact!!!!!!!

An incorrect fact nevertheless.  And by manner of your statement, that is what you appear to do, intentionally or not.

As you so rightly say Scotland banned it before England, but then I am of an age that still thinks of myself as being part of Great Britain, and can't get my head round the fact that Scotland is now governed separately.

I think suffice to say that I am not a solicitor and never have claimed to be one, and what I have posted is how I and many others see the situation.

I am not a Lemming and have never been one and I will stand up for my beliefs rightly or wrongly.

Precedent was set with the DDA, where the dog is presumed GUILTY unless the defence can prove otherwise. Last I read, the same rules apply with this Act - the onus will be on the defence, not the prosecution.

Obviously the DEFRA site and others are incorrect then...................

I think most people here who are against the bill are more concerned with how it will be enforced. We all know that the wording of the DDA was suspect when it became law and dogs arrested under the DDA are considered guilty unless the owner can prove otherwise. This bill sounds much the same to me, which ever way you look at it.

Ahh i dont have to worry about that i train my dogs not to chase wildlife :) so i suggest those of you who cant control your dogs to start some kind of training ;) If your animals arent In your control at all times really they should be left on lead till they are .

It is all very well keeping your dog on a lead until you are sure it will obey..... but dogs are not little people, they are dogs and such can be subject to impulsive actions. I have seen so called perfectly trained dogs, trained not to chase anything and for years be walked off lead, every where their "caring" owner goes. Then one day the inevitable happens and they run off after something and end up dead on a road or now perhaps dead because they ran off after a crow.
For those excellent trainers here who can train a dog to never make a mistake in it's lifetime ever, can I ask how you train a puppy to work at distance without letting it off lead? And don't say build up to it, because I know every dog trainer will say that. What I mean is when would you decide your dog is so perfectly behaved it will never ever run off not even by chance? Not even if scared by something?

Oh thats nice for you Lovelylady, you must tell me your training techniques some day.

O.K.Melodysk you want quotes -I'll give you quotes;

Hunting with dogs bill - subsection (1) " A person commits an offence if he INTENTIONALLY hunts a wild animal with a dog "

and  subsection (4) " It is an offence to own or keep 2 or more dogs with the INTENTION of their being used to hunt in contravention of subsection (1)

An intent to hunt must be clearly shown before anyone is liable to prosecution with this bill- unfortunately the pro hunting lobby have tried to pretend that the ordinary dog owner is at risk with this bill in order to raise support for their opposition to it .This statement is simply NOT TRUE - as I stated before, the Countryside Alliance no longer make this claim because it has been shown to be false - Not one single person in Scotland ( where a ban has been in place for some time now) has been prosecuted because their dog has flushed a hare/fox etc the whole purpose of the Bill is to stop the practise of using the death of our native wildlife as a source of entertainment - and I for one am delighted that it has ( at last) been passsed :D :D :D

I hope you are still delighted, when we are overrun with foxes and if rabies got into England, resulting in the Governments next ruling of all dogs in the immediate vicinity of a proven rabid fox must be destroyed!!!!

I hope you are also delighted at the prospect of all those Foxhounds being destroyed.

This argument always seem to contradict the other argument put forward by fox hunters that they hardly ever actually catch a fox - which is it?

Fiona

Why is it contradictory? The Bill is to ban 'hunting'. So obviously that must be defined. Or is it only the kill that is to be banned?

It is contradictory in the way that if they only occasionally kill a fox, then that alone would not control the population!

I have never used the argument that the hunt hardly ever catch foxes, they do catch and despatch them, particularly the old and infirm.

The numbers they do catch keep the population under control.

You only have to see the number of urban foxes that are now overunning our cities, where hunting does not happen, to realise that there will be a population explosion.

I didn't say you had used the argument LD, but I have heard that said many times in defense of hunting.  Also, if you usually catch an old or infirm fox, these are not usually the animals that would be breeding anyway.

You could also say that foxes are moving into cities because they are hunted in the countryside.

The other way old and infirm foxes die is generally starvation ... long, slow and painful. Being predated (and hounds are the closest we have to their naturals predator, the wolf, long since eradicated in the UK) keeps the population healthy.

I think many people who are against fox hunting might even agree that for those that might starve over many days a quick death by hounds may be kinder, if there wasn't the terrifying chase to exhaustion first and if there wasn't people who were actively enjoying another living creature being torn apart.  No way do I believe the hunt is there to prevent the foxes suffering, in fact it is the younger healthier animals which provide the best 'sport'

No they are moving into the cities because there is so much rubbish laying about that they have easy pickings.

But culling the old and infirm does reduce the numbers and keeps the healthy and strong to breed on, that is the law of nature.  Only the best breed on producing healthy stock for the future.

I for one would hate to see dozens of mangy scrawny old ill limping foxes populate our countryside.  Thats what you see in the towns.

You may not believe me when I say I think the fox is a beautiful animal and should not be culled to the point of extinction, there is no more beautiful sight than a fox going about its business on a cold and frosty morning in the countryside.  That is what is likely to change.  I am a realist and fully believe that the only way to keep healthy fox population is the way it has been done for centuries.  That way our children's children may have the same pleasure that we have of seeing a beautiful animal living wild.

You may not have seen what I have seen in the past, which is fox's with gangrenous legs, after being shot and injured, fox's who have been snared, and have chewed off their own limbs. That to me is pure cruelty.

This is all in an area which does not have a local hunt and the farmers find their own ways of keeping down the population.

Rubbish has always been laying about the towns and cities, so no change there.  Something else must be bringing the foxes in.

I do believe what you are saying LD and I agree with alot of it.  Trapping and snaring animals is inhumane and cruel.  I am sure there must be another answer to culling the old and infirm foxes that would otherwise starve to death - maybe by trapping them humanely and then PTS (maybe a bit idealistic).  Not ideal I know, but better than hunting them I feel.

Fiona

This article (one signatory is Jim Barrington, ex-leader of The League Against Cruel Sports) explains the situation, and options, very well.

If rabies got into Britain it wouldn't be fox exclusive as carriers.  Every mammal would be at risk and every mammal would be just as capable of carrying it as a fox.  That is a ridiculous argument :(

I heard a policeman on the news today saying its not illegal to go out in a red jacket, horses and hounds - they would have to PROVE the person went out with INTENT. The question is - how would they punish you fro not being able to control your dogs who are followinfg a natural instinct?

Well The Alliance have set the challenge in motion, so we will have wait and see whether this attack on the Freedom of individuals will go ahead or not!!!.

Personally I don't think it will go ahead, but time will tell.

Nuff said!!

Apparently MI5 will be monitoring members of the Alliance instead of protecting this country from terrorists!
The world is certainly not a safe place any more.Are foxes more important than people?
Ange

Why? are the alliance planning to fly hijacked areoplanes into buildings ?

Reply to Polly. I have owned and trained my own border collies and german shepherds and also my sisters afghan and her english springer spaniel, friends retrievers and beardies, plus various others. Also all different breeds that come to our classes are taught the down and recall before they are given a certificate to say that they have passed successfully. I know that some breeds take longer than others but then until they have learnt this, in my opinion, very necessary part of training, then dogs should be kept on lead and under control.

Lets face it, it's so easy to say "All dogs will have to be trained not to chase animals" but how many pet dog owners have, or even have the knowedge to be able to train their pet? Have a look next time you are out, how many have been able to train their dog to come to them WITHOUT a distraction? VERY FEW! I'll even go as far as to ask how many people on here have enough control of their dogs that they NEVER chase wildlife?

As to proving intent, If I go for a ride across a field with 10 foxhounds and they put up and killed a fox, I take it that if I said it was not me intention to hunt, just to exercise me dogs, that the law would be satisfied?

As to shooting foxes, do you know that if on a shoot there is a beater with dog and the beaters put up a fox, the guns may shoot it. But if there happens to be two beaters with dogs then the guns must NOT shoot the fox!

Regards, John

I have to say that after months - years even - of people being told by others on this board that unless their dog is completely reliable at recall, won't run up to/chase other dogs/children/people (unless allowed), etc then it shouldn't be allowed off lead, a complete U-turn seems to have been done!  More than once the discussion about Huskies unreliablity at recall has come up - and it has been said that they should not be allowed off lead as no matter how reliable he/she seems ONE DAY it WILL run off and get run over or whatever.

Now it seems that alot of dogs are not completely reliable off lead and will chase other animals, ignoring their owners calls (as their 'natural instinct' is to hunt!).  So what about the risk of getting lost or run over to these animals?   If you live in such a remote part of the countryside that you don't need to worry about roads, then surely there won't be anyone about to see if your dog accidentally caught another animal anyway.

The bottom line in my opinion is that if you are worried that your dog may do something you don't want it to or is not allowed to, then it shouldn't be off lead.  I think you need to weigh up the pros and cons of everything - I personally do not think it is fair to keep a dog that has been bred to run on lead at all times, and so would not keep one as a pet (unless of course I had the space to let it run freely and safely).

I do not think most people need to worry about this ban - alot of your average pet owners won't even be aware of it I'll bet.

Fiona