Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Animal Welfare Act 2006 Re: Shooters

  1. #1
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447

    Animal Welfare Act 2006 Re: Shooters

    I'm new to this website. So, please forgive me if the question I am about to ask has already been discussed ad nauseam

    However, I can find no such discussion.

    What do the members here consider to be the ramifications for shooters, if any, of the Animal Welfare Act 2006?

    I would especially draw attention to the following in paras 2 (b) and 3 (1) with consideration of the responsibilities, or none, of the shooter who deprives a dependant offspring of it's mother. Whether that be by shooting a nursing vixen or nursing female of any other species.

    Introductory

    1 Animals to which the Act applies

    (1) In this Act, except subsections (4) and (5), “animal” means a vertebrate other than man.
    (2) Nothing in this Act applies to an animal while it is in its foetal or embryonic form.
    (3) The appropriate national authority may by regulations for all or any of the purposes of this Act—
    (a) extend the definition of “animal” so as to include invertebrates of any description;
    (b) make provision in lieu of subsection (2) as respects any invertebrates included in the definition of “animal”;
    (c) amend subsection (2) to extend the application of this Act to an animal from such earlier stage of its development as may be specified in the regulations.
    (4) The power under subsection (3)(a) or (c) may only be exercised if the appropriate national authority is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering.
    (5) In this section, “vertebrate” means any animal of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata and “invertebrate” means any animal not of that Sub-phylum.
    2 “Protected animal”

    An animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of this Act if—
    (a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
    (b) it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or
    (c) it is not living in a wild state.
    3 Responsibility for animals

    (1) In this Act, references to a person responsible for an animal are to a person responsible for an animal whether on a permanent or temporary basis.
    (2) In this Act, references to being responsible for an animal include being in charge of it.
    (3) For the purposes of this Act, a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it.
    (4) For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as responsible for any animal for which a person under the age of 16 years of whom he has actual care and control is responsible.

  2. #2
    ad nauseam,
    I think that covers it, might I ask if you have any thoughts on seeing well formed foetus when gralloching, or seeing fish going back over the side because "someone somewhere thinks they should not be landed? or on picking up a shot milky doe rabbit, it's body writhing because the contents of the rabbit are in fact suffocating?
    (The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Uneatable.) " If I can help, I will help!." Former S.A.C.S. member!

  3. #3
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    C'mon finnbear It's surely not about having a go at me. This is a piece of legislation (along with it's equivalent in Scotland) which may or may not affect us and I wonder if it could be discussed. Do you simply choose to vilify me rather than discuss it?

  4. #4
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    Quote Originally Posted by finnbear270 View Post
    I think that covers it, might I ask if you have any thoughts on seeing well formed foetus when gralloching, or seeing fish going back over the side because "someone somewhere thinks they should not be landed? or on picking up a shot milky doe rabbit, it's body writhing because the contents of the rabbit are in fact suffocating?
    Ok, Just for the record. I have shot deer in calf and kid and pregnant rabbit does in my time. I'm never very comfortable with that but at least I know the unborn young die relatively quickly.

    As to fish, if you mean returning dead fish which are perfectly good food, just because of some nutty quota, I think it's insane.

  5. #5
    Reading the definition "Animals to which the Act Applies" I would say that the Act is not applicable to foxes. "Under control of man" implies captivity, e.g. magpies in a larson trap are covered by the Act. Also, 2 (c) specifies animals not living in a wild state. Foxes live in a wild state.

    However, as I said in the other thread, this shouldn't obviate the need to do your utmost to prevent orphaning dependants as I'm sure most shooters would.

    What is the purpose of this debate anyway? You will note that the person who sparked off this issue by calling ethical shooting "sentimental" has since left the building.

    Alex

  6. #6
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    Alex. No debate is sought. The act does not require the qualifications of all sub paras to be met. It appears to apply if any are met.

    However, the real crux of it is: Do we, as shooters, become "responsible" for orphans (even temporarily) if we kill their mother. The rest of your response rather implies you think yes.
    Last edited by Tamus; 29-07-2010 at 17:38. Reason: Typo

  7. #7
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland
    Posts
    3,447
    [QUOTE=csl;121795]Reading the definition "Animals to which the Act Applies" I would say that the Act is not applicable to foxes. "Under control of man" implies captivity, e.g. magpies in a larson trap are covered by the Act. Also, 2 (c) specifies animals not living in a wild state. Foxes live in a wild state.

    Please note the word or at the end of para 2 (b)

    It does not say "and"

  8. #8
    That was my point, I don't think any of the conditions are met. In law "under the control of" usually implies captivity of some form with respect to animals.

    Alex

  9. #9
    I think I mentioned on the other thread if you want a definitive answer then ask BASC. The forum member David BASC should be able to help. Why not drop him a PM for further qualification? The clue is in his user name.

    Personally I think an authoratative answer could prevent this thread from going somewhere it's not wanted.

    Cheers
    MJ

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogive View Post
    However, the real crux of it is: Do we, as shooters, become "responsible" for orphans (even temporarily) if we kill their mother. The rest of your response rather implies you think yes.
    Morally and ethically yes but legally, unlikely in my opinion.

Similar Threads

  1. EU Policy on Animal Welfare
    By GSP in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 16:34
  2. ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006
    By woody in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-06-2009, 17:59
  3. Water Buffalo hunt Australia 2006
    By TOP_PREDATOR in forum Big Game Hunting
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24-10-2008, 18:39
  4. 1851 Deer Clearance Act
    By Beowulf in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-05-2008, 17:48
  5. Deer act
    By PaulB in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2007, 09:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •