Forestry security Ashley forest

So are you going up there for a hunt Munsey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuidog

So are you going up there for a hunt Munsey?

---

Last weekend , absolutely no sign , not even pig sign . Might have to poach forestry instead :thumbsup: ( just confirming I'm taking the piss )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Munsey

Last weekend , absolutely no sign , not even pig sign . Might have to poach forestry instead :thumbsup: ( just confirming I'm taking the piss )

---

how far back did you go?

If you do that ,you'll have to get down in the low country along the front boundary, you didn't hear it from me though:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

If you own the property you can destroy a dog for being there (in our region anyway, quote from dog control officer).
If game animals are on private property they are deemed to be owned by the owner of the property. So a dog chasing game could technically be harassing livestock.
Another interesting twist also, if you enter a registered game reserve with a firearm (tresspassing), the rules then change and you can be charged with armed hold or such (the same as walking into a shop etc).
I haven't read this in the arms act but was quoted it by a detective.
So its probably sensible to just stay away from such places.

---

Your dog control officer needs a refresher... and by the sounds of it should not be giving advice...

But there is a difference between the law and what actually happens... if your dog gets shot on someone else's land, and you complain to the cops..... the first question you will get asked is why your dog was there....and where were you...?

There is not a lot of incentive to prosecute the unlawful shooting of dogs on land where poaching is a problem... hence the attitude in the original post...

Now that may be the reality... but the law permitting destruction of dogs does not extend to wild animals which may be on the same property... the act covers livestock (domestic stock) or protected wildlife.. and the destruction of dogs must be in accordance with the act.....

Next ......wild animals remain the property of the crown until lawfully taken, if the animals are owned by the crown then they are not owned by the property owner and he can hardly claim they are his livestock... so again no authority to destroy ...

Your detective sounds interesting, armed hold? never heard of it... not in the arms act, not in the crimes act....not in the trespass act...

However your last sentence is most practical is most likely to avoid any problem.....

Lawfully taken- by permit or permission to hunt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Made some enquiries and the charge which can be imposed for entering a registered game reserve with a firearm is "theft with intent" and is apparently the same as entering any commercial property (shop, business etc) with a firearm.
With regard to ownership of wild life, define lawfully taken.

---

Moonhunt pretty much nailed it..

You probably could be charged with theft from the crown when poaching a farmers property as well... given that you are unlawfully hunting.... although I am unaware of it happening. There are enough other charges that do apply...

I would point out that you actually have to have been successful at taking an animal in order to potentially be charged with theft... you can't be charged with theft before the fact...or just by entering.

Maybe attempted theft, or conspiracy to commit theft if there is a group of you.... but too much of a reach and judges tend to prefer appropriate charges to the actual offence....

Thats good...:D

I would say the law says that it still belongs to the crown until you shoot it, which of course you can do because you can give yourself permission to lawfully take it on your own land...

I have a "foreground" in the legal profession, and a history in law enforcement amongst other things...

Technically... the crown I believe still owns it, at least until it is lawfully killed or taken... Section 9 of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 applies and if you tag the animal in accordance with a Nationally recognised Animal Id scheme, it then becomes yours....

You couldn't send it to the works without that Identification anyway.

If you read that section you get an idea of how the animal recovery industry is authorised..

You are right... what the law actually says is always debatable... but in theory at least, can be worked out sensibly....before getting to court....

However the law is often not applied sensibly or even in a way that is technically accurate...

Lawyers regard court differently than the public does, ultimately lawyers like to be contributing to the debate...

Generally speaking ending up in court for the average person is a disaster and should be avoided....

When we speak about legal issues in these types of arenas, we should frame the discussion in 2 ways.... firstly what does the law say... and secondly what tends to happen in real life...

If we consider both of these, we should then be able to formulate a sensible understanding of how we should behave in order to avoid issues....

However an understanding of the law, can be beneficial in dealing with authorities who may not be applying the law correctly. I would suggest a respectful and polite manner, combined with an accurate knowledge is very necessary if you choose to engage in those situations...

Better to avoid if possible...