Thread: Forestry security Ashley forest

Originally Posted by Gibo

What a load of waffle! At large.... With the pine trees?
Immediate disturbance.... To the pine trees?! ..................

To you, what I post may be "waffle," but as it is is my understanding of the law, please feel free to correct me by saying where I am at fault.

The first guy was right... a dog cannot be legally destroyed/shot unless it is effectively worrying stock or wildlife. Pine trees are not stock. There is no power to destroy for annoyance of people...


If you are going to copy and paste law as rebuttal you need to read it..

Paul Stanley was it? if you are hunting the doc stuff you"ll be fine, you have a pointer right? Yould be really unlucky to see him up there, if you stick to the access routes that doc describe there should be no problem. you aren't supposed to walk up the road to the repeater on Mt Grey but I used to do it often just smile and wave for the camera. Leave the gorse and the pines for the dirty pig hunters

Originally Posted by Sidney

The first guy was right... a dog cannot be legally destroyed/shot unless it is effectively worrying stock or wildlife. Pine trees are not stock. There is no power to destroy for annoyance of people...If you are going to copy and paste law as rebuttal you need to read it..

I have provided cut and pastes from the Dog Control Act, and here is a link to the complete Act.

Dog Control Act 1996 No 13 (as at 03 September 2007), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

I invite you to read it and point out where, what I said, was at fault.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

I have provided cut and pastes from the Dog Control Act, and here is a link to the complete Act.

Dog Control Act 1996 No 13 (as at 03 September 2007), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

I invite you to read it and point out where, what I said, was at fault.

Mate not to worry, just no one mentioned there was stock in the forest. So the points you highlighted are sort of invalid is all.

Originally Posted by Gibo

Mate not to worry, just no one mentioned there was stock in the forest. So the points you highlighted are sort of invalid is all.

Thank you and I am well aware that no mention of stock in the forest has been made.
However I have done enough "Head banging" and see no point in repeatedly posting extracts from the Statute which those with closed eyes and minds choose either not to see or comprehend..............so I will follow Pontius Pilot's example.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

..........so I will follow Pontius Pilot's example.

Did He fly for Air New Zealand

Originally Posted by madjon_

Did He fly for Air New Zealand

I don't think so, but I do clearly recollect that he had very clean hands.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

Thank you and I am well aware that no mention of stock in the forest has been made.
However I have done enough "Head banging" and see no point in repeatedly posting extracts from the Statute which those with closed eyes and minds choose either not to see or comprehend..............so I will follow Pontius Pilot's example.

are you on about? Need to bang your head some more mate!

Firstly, I read what you posted and it was clear that you were incorrect.... I don't have to establish your point you do.. and you don't just get to do that with a copy and paste and an inadequate reading of the law..

So how about you identify the particular wording that allows the destruction of a dog without either domestic stock being involved or protected wildlife.. or in the other provisions of the act, attacking people.... and when you fail to be able to do so perhaps you can retract your initial post instead of taking a position....

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

I have provided cut and pastes from the Dog Control Act, and here is a link to the complete Act.

Dog Control Act 1996 No 13 (as at 03 September 2007), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

I invite you to read it and point out where, what I said, was at fault.