Death of a Mink (1 Viewer)

[Mayo Corncrake]

Or they can grasp protruding nails, or even an overlap point in the metal sheets.

They can lunge upwards from the water quite a long way too. I don't think metal skirting will help much.

x2
Here's a youtube video of a mink in action, they are persistent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEdS9ZxLKg

 

[birdboybowley]

Drowning really is a sick way of killing something. Anything. If it has to be done, then do it quickly and effectively. That's why I despise fox 'hunting' too

 

[Dave Williams]

There's an amazing bit of footage on Youtube.
Winner(s) take all if you follow it to the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=WdTr8kjdNuI

The elephants can be ff 'd.

 

[keith]

Drowning really is a sick way of killing something. Anything. If it has to be done, then do it quickly and effectively. That's why I despise fox 'hunting' too

I totally agree.

 

[Phil Andrews]

Interesting paper on mink control methods here: http://www.sussexotters.org/pdf/Mink Control for Wildlife Conservation.pdf

 

[etudiant]

Drowning really is a sick way of killing something. Anything. If it has to be done, then do it quickly and effectively. That's why I despise fox 'hunting' too

Agree entirely.
That is why I am also deeply sceptical of using air rifles or .22s to dispatch the captured mink. It requires more accuracy than is easily achieved against a small and agile animal in a relatively large trap. A shotgun is much more reliable.

 

[Phil Andrews]

Agree entirely.
That is why I am also deeply sceptical of using air rifles or .22s to dispatch the captured mink. It requires more accuracy than is easily achieved against a small and agile animal in a relatively large trap. A shotgun is much more reliable.

Hi Etudiant - the paper I attached on my earlier post contained the following guidance re "dispatch" (and I am not talking DHL .....)

The only accepted way to kill captured mink is a clean shot through the head
Shooting should be done with a 0.22 calibre rimfire rifle, powerful air gun or shotgun (note that many firearms require a licence or certification).
Bullets with re-enforced tips are also recommended.
To make shooting easier, use a wooden “comb” to corner the animal in one end of the cage.
The body should be buried in an appropriate location, unless frozen for research purposes.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

You can throw the cage into a barrel of water and drown it, but that is a cruel and slow way to kill an aquatic animal like a mink.

Drowning anything, even a rat, is strictly illegal in the UK. This is because it is cruel and inhumane. Once an animal is captured, the catcher has a legal responsibility for its welfare, in the same way as any domestic animal. So while you can then kill it, you have a legal responsibility to prevent 'unnecessary suffering' or cruelty. That means that any method of despatch has to be quick (virtually instantaneous) and humane.

I'm quite surprised at the initial range that the shooter first attempted. Trying to shoot a mink at 110 metres with a .22 could well raise some eyebrows. That is not really a responsible range for trying to cleanly kill a small target like a mink, if it really was that far.

 

[Farnboro John]

I'm quite surprised at the initial range that the shooter first attempted. Trying to shoot a mink at 110 metres with a .22 could well raise some eyebrows. That is not really a responsible range for trying to cleanly kill a small target like a mink, if it really was that far.

Perhaps you weren't watching the Olympic archery the other day in which the Americans and Italians were zonking arrows into a less than Mink sized bullseye at 70 metres.

110 metres with a .22 rifle (not an air rifle) with a 9X scope seems entirely reasonable to me, especially given the still air conditions shown in the photo of the Mink swimming.

John

 

[Mayo Corncrake]

Drowning anything, even a rat, is strictly illegal in the UK. This is because it is cruel and inhumane. Once an animal is captured, the catcher has a legal responsibility for its welfare, in the same way as any domestic animal. So while you can then kill it, you have a legal responsibility to prevent 'unnecessary suffering' or cruelty. That means that any method of despatch has to be quick (virtually instantaneous) and humane.

I'm quite surprised at the initial range that the shooter first attempted. Trying to shoot a mink at 110 metres with a .22 could well raise some eyebrows. That is not really a responsible range for trying to cleanly kill a small target like a mink, if it really was that far.

I was unaware it was illegal to drown a mink (in the UK). I won't do it myself, because it is cruel, as I said previously. The two mink I have dispatched were euthanised humanely.

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

Perhaps you weren't watching the Olympic archery the other day in which the Americans and Italians were zonking arrows into a less than Mink sized bullseye at 70 metres.

110 metres with a .22 rifle (not an air rifle) with a 9X scope seems entirely reasonable to me, especially given the still air conditions shown in the photo of the Mink swimming.

John

I don't really see how an olympic-standard shot using a bow at 70 metres is at all comparable to a non-olympian using a .22 rifle at 110 metres, and the fact that he couldn't hit it (with or without a 9x scope) with several shots rather proves the point.

The kill zone on a mink is not large - head or chest shot only. The risk of getting it in the larger area of the guts or back limbs, where it then slopes off to die a lingering death, was clearly not worth taking on basic humane grounds. That there were lots of shots at 110 metres and then closing, and all were missed until the mink was stationary and much closer, demonstrates that the shooter was clearly over-reaching his abilities and was wrong to attempt the shot. The risk of injury without a clean kill seems quite reckless, as does trying to shoot a moving target in the water - how was an injured animal supposed to be retrieved?

I am all for killing mink, especially on reserves in a concerted manner, but not at the the price of reckless cruelty (which it would have been if hit in the guts out on that raft). If it has to be done, do it properly, not cowboy-style.

 

[stevo]

After you have humanely trapped the mink what do you do with it? Roger

Humanely kill it.

Steve.B

 

[Farnboro John]

The shooter clearly thought he could make the shot or he wouldn't have fired.

Once the Mink was in the water and swimming straight towards the shooter the only part of the target to hit was the head (check out the photo) so the only possibilities were a kill or a clean miss. As for the amount of damage a .22 would do, consider your chances of surviving a hit from say, a .44 Magnum and then consider the relative size of a .22 bullet and a Mink - for the latter it would be more like being hit by a small cannonball. Any hit is not going to result in a prolonged death but instant massive damage and shock leading to rapid death.

Also, frankly, there is no nice way to do this. You will never know, shooting a Mink in mid-summer, whether you are condeming its young to a lingering death from starvation. You either think reducing Mink numbers locally and temporarily is worth it or you don't.

John

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

The shooter clearly thought he could make the shot or he wouldn't have fired.

And his first or second shot (at most) should have told him to stop.

Once the Mink was in the water and swimming straight towards the shooter the only part of the target to hit was the head (check out the photo) so the only possibilities were a kill or a clean miss.

I'm sorry but that does not follow. The water just means that the shooter cannot see the body, not that he cannot hit it, which makes it even worse. It could still have been hit in the back or legs, as the shooter was aiming down onto it.

As for the amount of damage a .22 would do, consider your chances of surviving a hit from say, a .44 Magnum and then consider the relative size of a .22 bullet and a Mink - for the latter it would be more like being hit by a small cannonball. Any hit is not going to result in a prolonged death but instant massive damage and shock leading to rapid death.

A .22 calibre bullet in the back legs or intestines is going to be fatal for a Mink, but not necessarily anywhere near a rapid death. That is why people aim for head shots with e.g. Rabbits, at whatever range, for a clean kill. This is for a good reason. An animal with a shattered pelvis or leg could survive for hours. A poor shot could take the leg clean off, but that would hardly be a quick death!

Also, frankly, there is no nice way to do this. You will never know, shooting a Mink in mid-summer, whether you are condeming its young to a lingering death from starvation. You either think reducing Mink numbers locally and temporarily is worth it or you don't.

I am shocked that you say this. Of course there is a 'nice' (right) way and a less nice (wrong) way. A less nice way would be to deliberately target the back end instead of the front. The nice way is to be responsible and humane and GUARANTEE (as good as) a quick kill by making sure you only hit the front end. Pot shots at 110 metres over water where an injured animal cannot be retrieved is blatantly reckless, especially when your first, second and third shots tell you that you are not capable of an accurate hit on your target. I cannot see how any responsible person can defend this, and it is this kind of casual attitude to the welfare of 'vermin' or pest species that gives responsible shooting a bad name.

Can you imagine if it was hit on the raft, but not killed, and then a member of the public who watched this crippled animal writhing around out of reach was told that it was being done to 'help birds'? A wonderful advert for conservation that would be.

The shooter should have known his limits, and even if he tried it he should have stopped after his first shot or two and said "sorry, I can't get an accurate shot at that range".

I'll leave it at that, but hope you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[C B Allen]

Understand me, I am not defending Mink. However, what Alan and his shooter friend have achieved by their action is a big fat nothing. Next spring another Mink will have moved in. The only thing that can justify killing Mink is a national eradication project and that I truly advocate. Perpetual control killing in a few areas is wrong.

John

John, some observations based on our experiences ...

Whilst I would have to agree that just taking out one mink like this is of only limited benefit, this should be followed up with concerted deployment of mink rafts & subsequent trapping on detection etc.

Unfortunately it is unlikely we will ever see a national eradication plan - such as that which successfully eradicated coypu - due to the sheer geographical scale of the problem and that mink are not perceived to cause the same physical damage as was the case with coypu (ie. erosion of riverbanks).

We have run 2 mink rafts on our marshes for nearly 5 years now. These were supplied as part of a project run by Suffolk Wildlife trust that is making concerted efforts to control mink numbers on the major Suffolk river systems (OK, we're just in Norfolk but the Waveney is a Suffolk river!). A number of other local landowners are also running traps so hopefully together we are making a significant difference to the wider population.

Since deploying the rafts we have detected mink visits twice and caught the offending creature within a couple of days. We had also previously caught a "family" of 4 over a period of a week using standard traps a couple of years earlier. Mink are stupidly easy to trap - we were told putting a cracked hard boiled egg makes a good bait (also less appealing to otters), although often an unbaited trap works just as well!! We normally destroy trapped mink humanely (fortunately my wife is a vet), or with the help of a .22 air rifle whilst controlled in the trap. As has been mentioned earlier, it is illegal to release a trapped mink - as it is a trapped grey tree rat (which also respond well to the same methods of dispatch).

When we moved here some 15 years ago we regularly saw water voles & had a large breeding population of moorhens (winter "flocks" on the marsh nearest our house could exceed 40). Over the following 7 or 8 years both declined drastically, so much so that for 2 or 3 years I saw no water voles. Since first seeing and then trapping mink we have gradually seen water voles return/recover along with visibly more success for nesting moorhens & ducks (mallard, gadwall & shoveller).

We haven't seen a mink now for a couple of years but will continue using the rafts indefinitely. One is used regularly as a water vole latrine, and using a trail camera we have recorded it's use by stoats and otters!! In the mean time the water voles can concentrate on trying to avoid being eaten by the resident marsh harriers, barn owls, pike & herons ...

Chris A.

 

[saluki]

And his first or second shot (at most) should have told him to stop.



I'm sorry but that does not follow. The water just means that the shooter cannot see the body, not that he cannot hit it, which makes it even worse. It could still have been hit in the back or legs, as the shooter was aiming down onto it.



A .22 calibre bullet in the back legs or intestines is going to be fatal for a Mink, but not necessarily anywhere near a rapid death. That is why people aim for head shots with e.g. Rabbits, at whatever range, for a clean kill. This is for a good reason. An animal with a shattered pelvis or leg could survive for hours. A poor shot could take the leg clean off, but that would hardly be a quick death!



I am shocked that you say this. Of course there is a 'nice' (right) way and a less nice (wrong) way. A less nice way would be to deliberately target the back end instead of the front. The nice way is to be responsible and humane and GUARANTEE (as good as) a quick kill by making sure you only hit the front end. Pot shots at 110 metres over water where an injured animal cannot be retrieved is blatantly reckless, especially when your first, second and third shots tell you that you are not capable of an accurate hit on your target. I cannot see how any responsible person can defend this, and it is this kind of casual attitude to the welfare of 'vermin' or pest species that gives responsible shooting a bad name.

Can you imagine if it was hit on the raft, but not killed, and then a member of the public who watched this crippled animal writhing around out of reach was told that it was being done to 'help birds'? A wonderful advert for conservation that would be.

The shooter should have known his limits, and even if he tried it he should have stopped after his first shot or two and said "sorry, I can't get an accurate shot at that range".

I'll leave it at that, but hope you can see what I'm getting at.

Given the choice, I'd have used a centre fire .22 (a .223 or 22.250). It's perhaps over-gunning a bit, but both calibres are highly accurate over that sort of range. The bullet will probably ruin the carcass but for predator control that's not an issue. However, the guy may not have had a Firearms Cert. that allowed him to use such a calibre, an open license that allowed him to use it where he wanted to (rather than where indicated on his cert.), or he may simply have felt it was inappropriate to use such a weapon in those circumstances (richochet, etc.). Maximum range for a .22 using subsonic ammo is going to be around 50-60 yards, and that's probably the range the rifle's sights will be zero'd in for, the fact that the guy missed several times proves the point. You could kill a mink at far greater ranges but a subsonic bullet is going to start to drop at anything further than the above range, at 110 yards you'd probably have to aim two inches over the mink's head.

My first thought in this instance would have been to attempt to call the mink in. They're often incredibly easy to call and will sometimes come within a few feet . . . then they're too close and are just a blur in your 'scope!

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[AlfArbuthnot]

As has been mentioned earlier, it is illegal to release a trapped mink - as it is a trapped grey tree rat (which also respond well to the same methods of dispatch).

The law was amended a few years ago, and it is no longer illegal to release grey squirrels, muntjac, and a couple of other things. This was at the behest of 'animal hospitals', who get a lot of them through their doors. When you think about it, it's pointless killing a grey squirrel in southern England. It's about 60 years too late to do any good for reds, and in conservation terms they do not do any real harm.

 

[C B Allen]

The law was amended a few years ago, and it is no longer illegal to release grey squirrels, muntjac, and a couple of other things. This was at the behest of 'animal hospitals', who get a lot of them through their doors. When you think about it, it's pointless killing a grey squirrel in southern England. It's about 60 years too late to do any good for reds, and in conservation terms they do not do any real harm.

If you were to google grey squirrel/trap/release/law - or similar - all the references I can find (including the RSPCA, BASC, EU squirrel inititative etc.) state that iit is illegal for the public to release trapped greys. However, I do understand that UNDER LICENSE some charities are allowed to release - the example given was where a squirrel is reported to a rescue charity as being trapped by its' leg in a bird feeder (so technically "trapped") and subsequently "released" (freed).

There is still much debate about the amount of damage done by both grey squirrels and - to an even greater visible effect - muntjac. There is little argument that much damage is done by both to the structure and health of woodland & our local landowners are only too happy to encourage proper control of both. Personally I find muntjac to be the most delicious venison & am happy to report a couple in my freezer, whilst our local farmers market sells out of squirrel pie quicker than anything else!!

Chris A.

 

[Farnboro John]

This has been an interesting thread and I have learned a lot. However there is one thing that I think is wrong and that is the suggestion that Mink cannot be eliminated nationally.

Given the claims that (a) they can be trapped "stupidly easily" and (b) can be called in easily rendering shooting a realistic option, perhaps there ought to be an opening for alliance between conservation interests and wildfowlers. Mink eliminatiion would restore the possibility of wildfowl breeding on waterways where they are robbed/killed at present - and besides, shooters' disposition to kill things could for once be an advantage!

It seems to me that the possible gains must be worth the attempt, at least. Does anyone have a Mink population estimate? Richie Moores suggests 37,000, I don't know where he got the figure. I'd be astonished if the human race, having in the past eliminated the Passenger Pigeon's billions from North America, couldn't see off 37,000 Mink from our small archipelago.

John

 

[etudiant]

This has been an interesting thread and I have learned a lot. However there is one thing that I think is wrong and that is the suggestion that Mink cannot be eliminated nationally.

Given the claims that (a) they can be trapped "stupidly easily" and (b) can be called in easily rendering shooting a realistic option, perhaps there ought to be an opening for alliance between conservation interests and wildfowlers. Mink eliminatiion would restore the possibility of wildfowl breeding on waterways where they are robbed/killed at present - and besides, shooters' disposition to kill things could for once be an advantage!

It seems to me that the possible gains must be worth the attempt, at least. Does anyone have a Mink population estimate? Richie Moores suggests 37,000, I don't know where he got the figure. I'd be astonished if the human race, having in the past eliminated the Passenger Pigeon's billions from North America, couldn't see off 37,000 Mink from our small archipelago.

John

While I share your faith in the predatory nature of humanity, a 'mink no more' campaign could be abused painfully easily. Otters in the water are easily confused with mink by trigger happy nimrods.
Moreover, just because some mink are stupid does not mean all are. Here in the US at least, the wild ones are pretty wary. I doubt that the captive ancestry of the UK mink has permanently lowered the IQ of todays feral population. They will not go easily.