It's very muddled Losos.

The nearest thing to a defininition I've found in the Act is:

For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where

• a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and
• one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)

so apparently intentional 'pursuing' is the crime.

However the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines state that "attempting to hunt" is not an offence under the Act.

So maybe it's just me .... but putting those two scenarios together a pet dog owner who intentionally takes the dogs to pursue (but not necessarily kill) prohibited quarry may be in breach of the Act; but someone all geared up for a day's hunting who for whatever reason fails to engage the quarry is not.

I love your use of such technical terms.

If your dog went down such sett, you'd be very lucky to get it out alive!

The other thing I was thinking (chuntering to myself while having tea) ....

Suppose a person is out with their dogs and pokes around in the bushes to bolt a rabbit because they love to see the dog run. They have sought out the rabbit and intentionally pursued it, which seems to be the essence of the 'crime' of hunting.

If that person is perceived as a Pet Owner they are unlikely to be stopped and questioned. I've never heard of it happening.

However if the person is perceived as a Working Dog owner the likelihood is that they would be stopped and questioned at the very least.

So what sort of law is it that allows two people to engage in the exact same activity, but the possibility of being charged with a crime is not based purely on their actions (as it would be with theft, driving offences, assault etc) but depends on the social group to which they belong?

Fair enough it could be argued that the law was never meant to cover the activity of pet owners. However the definition of hunting as I understand it, and therefore any breach of the Act, places 'pursuit' as central to the 'crime' which means that in order to comply with the intended spirit of the Act the police in effect turn a blind eye to any violations by pet owners.

It really is a badly drafted law when thousands of people are unaware whether or not they are breaking the law, and the police have neither the will nor resources to act.

edited to add: P.S. Colin, sorry to take this off-topic. Jess is lovely and long may she catch her own dinners!

I'll get back in my little box now

No stay on your little box red collar as I have found your posts very interesting.

Look like I'm going to have to sit Jess down and explain to her that she could be breaking the law when she catches her dinner by coming across a suicidal rabbit who chooses to jump in front of her mouth.

if she catches it within earshot of anyone else of course you will tell her that she is such a norty dog, and you are so embarrassed, and you're taking the rabbit straight to the vet!

Say 'bad dog' words in a 'good dog' voice and the other humans will hear 'bad dog' in the words and Jess will hear 'good dog' in your voice.

Then everyone's happy.

Apart from the rabbit of course

Rabbit has happy also. It's gone to Bunny Heaven where the carrots are big and the grass is lush.

What a wonderful post and Colins too, it sure is good to see most people on this forum have a sense of humour, in trying to interpret some of our laws I guess it's mandatory

Nice!! Well done to her!

Im rather annoyed now, i see your photos have not been taken off( this site is good!!) I took photos of my cat with a wood piegon and i got banned off a site for posting them, even though people on the same site had posted a lion eating a zebra?!

If you allow your dogs to eat fresh caught wild rabbit do you not worry about the tapeworms in rabbits ?