Man fined £1,500 for killing Grey Squirrel (1 Viewer)

[John B (not the sloop)]

Forgive me I'm a little confused(doesnt take much:-O) are you suggesting that this then means that once captured and therefore under control of man its is protected from being killed as I'm quite sure thats not the case.

No it's protected from being killed inhumanely. AWA 2006 Section 4 is all about prevention of unnecessary suffering.

Here's the act to peruse if you wish:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060045_en_1

 

[Adam W]

No it's protected from being killed inhumanely. AWA 2006 Section 4 is all about prevention of unnecessary suffering.

Here's the act to peruse if you wish:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060045_en_1

I see, thats what i meant when i said depends what you mean by protected,they arent protected from being killed(which I think is what most people would normally think protected would mean)you just have a responsibility to do it humanely which is only right.

 

[John B (not the sloop)]

I see, thats what i meant when i said depends what you mean by protected,they arent protected from being killed(which I think is what most people would normally think protected would mean)you just have a responsibility to do it humanely which is only right.

That's "statutespeak" for you....... |:S|

 

[bitterntwisted]

Notwithstanding the ethics of dispatching the squirrel in the first place, I'm a little confused, as I thought drowning actually was a humane way to dispatch an animal. It's surely preferable to warfarin (which would make also make it inedible), and more reliable than a blow to the head or air-rifle shot.

I guess I just don't understand why, if it is not illegal to kill grey squirrels, drowning is not an acceptable means of dispatch? Are there elements of this case not being (fully/accurately) reported?

Graham

 

[Adam W]

Notwithstanding the ethics of dispatching the squirrel in the first place, I'm a little confused, as I thought drowning actually was a humane way to dispatch an animal. It's surely preferable to warfarin (which would make also make it inedible), and more reliable than a blow to the head or air-rifle shot.

I guess I just don't understand why, if it is not illegal to kill grey squirrels, drowning is not an acceptable means of dispatch? Are there elements of this case not being (fully/accurately) reported?

Graham

I think everything has been reported fully and correctly but i just dont think that drowning is a particulary humane way of killing it,it might not be as bad as some methods but certainly alot worse and slower than a blow to the head, an air gun shot would probably be best of all especially if it had already been captured as that would eliminate the element of human error of maybe not placing the shot correctly though an air pistol would probably easier to use for this than a air riffle.

 

[Brian.Hart]

At the risk of anthropomorhizing a squirrell, I think I would prefer drowning. Being shot, whether with an air rifle, or a regular firearm is NOT an instant death, unless you can get right up on top of the critter and get perfect shot placement, with a large enough projectile to completely sever the spinal cord. Very often, an animal that is shot is likely to suffer more than an animal that is drowned.
I have never drowned an animal, but I'm not above it.
Numerous times I've called the game warden about a sick or injured animal, and the response is alway the same, "Just let nature take it's course." Should the game warden be hauled in to court and be made to pay a fine or court costs for allowing an animal to suffer for days before dying?
What do you think the dying animal would prefer, if we could ask it? Dying in a few minutes by drowning? Or a slow agonizing death of hours maybe days by nature's course?
He might have shot the squirrell, and it may have taken longer, and caused more suffering to die from being shot than being drowned. Even a trapped animal is hard to get a good clean painless shot on. And if you're in the city limits, as I am, even air rifles are illegal. What should he have done? Taken it to someone else's property and released it and let it become someone else's problem? Or taken it to the vet and had it euthanized for a fee of what? $30? Give me a break!
Drowning seems like a horrible way to die for us as humans, but for those who are actually in tune with the harsh realities of nature, it's better than MOST alternatives.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
Brian

 

[Adam W]

Very often, an animal that is shot is likely to suffer more than an animal that is drowned.


Err no.

 

[birdboybowley]

Yeah....if I had to choose.....a short sharp blow to the head or being held under water, panicking and terrified with my lungs slowly filling with water as I frantically gasped for non-existent air.....yeah, very humane there

 

[birdboybowley]

I have never drowned an animal, but I'm not above it.

Nice to know Brian.....God bless America and all that

 

[Edward]

Nice to know Brian.....God bless America and all that

A bit unnecessary.

 

[birdboybowley]

Not really Ed

 

[dantheman]

Before this all kicks off into racism, religion and sadism ... :eek!:

... although the guy wasn't fined as such, he was ordered to pay the £1500 costs of the animal charity. Quite a large sum, and surely somewhat disproportionate when you consider the fines/costs meted out for the illegal killing of raptors/taking of eggs etc of Protected Species... and then are cases like the 27 swans being shot and buried where not even a conviction occurred.

Fairly ridiculous when you think about it, unless the guy had a history of cruelty and this was the culminating effect of previous crimes; the law is a bit of an ass at times imo

 

[Canadian Lady]

It was annoying him by eating his bird food and plants.

I wonder what he would do to a wife or children if they "annoy" him? Usually people that are cruel to animals are also cruel to human beings. :eek!:

What goes around comes around - the sooner the better for this Jerk!

 

[Canadian Lady]

he was ordered to pay the £1500 costs of the animal charity. Quite a large sum, and surely somewhat disproportionate

I respectfully disagree - it wasn't ENOUGH! It sounds like the guy needs to go for some "anger management" as well.

 

[Dave Boyle]

As someone who has had to kill lots of animals for conservation reasons and still kills quite a lot for humane reasons you really can't beat a quick sharp blow to the back of the head with an iron bar or smash the back of its head against a rock - it really is instant and far more humane than methods deemed humane by people who don't have to deal with things like this.

Drowning is definitely not good, but I don't know that from experience

 

[dantheman]

I respectfully disagree - it wasn't ENOUGH! It sounds like the guy needs to go for some "anger management" as well.

It's all relative. £1500 for killing a non-native pest species 'the wrong way' when people (scum!?) who kill rare and endangered birds generally get off scot free, or a token fine ... ??

It doesn't quite add up. But I guess that's just my point of view.

 

[Adam W]

I wonder what he would do to a wife or children if they "annoy" him? Usually people that are cruel to animals are also cruel to human beings. :eek!:

Thats a pretty huge leap you are making there with no reason at all to think its true!

 

[DaveN]

Thats a pretty huge leap you are making there with no reason at all to think its true!

My thoughts too, very bizarre.

 

[Mono]

As I understand it he was prosecuted by the RSPCA not by the Crown. The magistrates gave him a conditional discharge, effectively saying we know you were technically guilty but we don't want to punish you. The £1500 was towards the RSPCA's costs in prosecuting him I'm guessing it would have cost them a lot more than that.

Usually people that are cruel to animals are also cruel to human beings.

There is a link between animal abuse and child abuse and of a history of being abused but in this case there was no evidence the man was delibratly trying to be cruel.

 

[Adam W]

There is a link between animal abuse and child abuse and of a history of being abused but in this case there was no evidence the man was delibratly trying to be cruel.

Thats the thing here I think,maybe there was some cruelty involved but as you say I dont think it was really intentional more just a bit misguided.