Thread: Forestry security Ashley forest

Originally Posted by Munsey

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

Maybe you should join one of those clubs then.

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.

I dont follow... what do you mean by this

Originally Posted by moonhunt

I dont follow... what do you mean by this

Major let those who had posted before him know who they were talking about...how far up the food chain this bloke was...the ethnic owners of said forest...and we all know staunch they can be looking out for poaching on their blocks...major also mentions that he has had at least one run in with them and learnt a lesson from it.

I spoke to Paul about this . It's more of are threat than are promise. His job is 24 hours are day chasing poachers late at night repairing gates locks and and people driving through fences . So he does get are bit cranky

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.

Armed hold? Never heard of that, it's certainly nothing like holding up a store with a rifle (robbery). I would say it's more likely to be "unlawfully on property" and "unlawful possession of a firearm". Probably some others in there but can't be bothered thinking.

Also, you cannot be trespassing unless you've been trespassed from the property.

Originally Posted by major

I spoke to Paul about this . It's more of are threat than are promise. His job is 24 hours are day chasing poachers late at night repairing gates locks and and people driving through fences . So he does get are bit cranky

If I had to spend my days doing that i would be more than just cranky!!!!

It never fails to astonish me as to how 'armed intruders' will fight to protect their 'right' to be on someone else's land and to discharge their rifles as they see fit.

I am not surprised in the least that people say 'I will shoot your dog'...it's the only way to get a message through beyond the bone surrounding the brain.

"Poison Laid For Dogs" is another that usually get's the message through.

Originally Posted by Spook

Major let those who had posted before him know who they were talking about...how far up the food chain this bloke was...the ethnic owners of said forest...and we all know staunch they can be looking out for poaching on their blocks...major also mentions that he has had at least one run in with them and learnt a lesson from it.

Yea i got that, i thought there might have been more of an under laying message there as well
I do the same thing as a second job, i know his pain, and feel all of his frustrations
Munsey did the right thing in asking about the access, the reply he got was bullshit and no way to treat people doing the right thing, it just adds to the ill feelings and what not
If i started to operate outside of the law i would find myself in the poo so to speak, and yes those threats do work for some but not all
Spook i hope i havnt come accross as someone that dosnt like to conform, i am quite the opposite

Originally Posted by moonhunt

Yea i got that, i thought there might have been more of an under laying message there as well
I do the same thing as a second job, i know his pain, and feel all of his frustrations
Munsey did the right thing in asking about the access, the reply he got was bullshit and no way to treat people doing the right thing, it just adds to the ill feelings and what not
If i started to operate outside of the law i would find myself in the poo so to speak, and yes those threats do work for some but not all
Spook i hope i havnt come accross as someone that dosnt like to conform, i am quite the opposite

I did not think of you as a non-conformist, you asked me to explain a post I made, and I did.

All good
This threads kinda all over the show, mis-something or rather

So are you going up there for a hunt Munsey?

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 ( just confirming I'm taking the piss )

Originally Posted by Munsey

Last weekend , absolutely no sign , not even pig sign . Might have to poach forestry instead ( 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

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