Thread: Forestry security Ashley forest

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.

Tell him your best mates are Bryant and May.

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.

You can't shoot a dog for mearly walking on your land

This sign and others are on fences that surround fields that my house backs onto ... Surely cant be legal begal ?

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

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

PS> Damned spelling checkers, they can be more trouble than they are worth

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.

Originally Posted by seano

This sign and others are on fences that surround fields that my house backs onto ... Surely cant be legal begal ?
Attachment 12769

We had signs like that around mum and dads farm up Nelson for pig hunters.

Trespassers prosecuted
Dog shot. . .

Plain and simple we would shoot maybe 10 every year when forestry was opened up. Hang a couple by the signs.

Some we would catch if we could other wise it just got rolled. Some owners where good others weren't so good, even had couple of owners shoot them when they picked them up for getting into the stock.


Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

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!

Cmon you kids play nicely now !!

I see the two posts by 'major' have been totally ignored by all and yet they are critical to this thread.

Originally Posted by Spook

I see the two posts by 'major' have been totally ignored by all and yet they are critical to this thread.

Being owned by maori doesn't change anything, and why would it ! and they do allow hunting clubs in there every weekend over winter