id say one swift blow to bird or mammel or fish head is fine, the problem comes with suffering if you need multiple blow either the preist is too small or you are too weak. i too would be interested in the legislation mentioned above, as we got side tracked talking about rta we are trying to end suffering in a hypothetical scenario and as i understand the law is on our side comparred to using a lump hammer to hunt with
shakey
Yeah, probably hit on the a4 as it was last tracked very close to a very busy fast stretch. Transmitter probably got run over.
I know all the keepers in the area it went missing personally, if raptors were being persecuted around here then it wouldn’t be possible to see dozens of buzzards and kites daily!
But just what has that got to do with this thread or your inability to actually reference the legislation you imagine exists?
As far as I'm aware, there is no specific legislation about killing an animal with blunt force, such as a knocking it on the head with a priest. Legislation however does cover cruelty to animals. This did, in the past refer only to domesticated animals with legislation dating back to 1911 but for some time now has applied to all animals, including wildlife. The Animal Welfare Act 2006, which supersedes prior legislation sets out the responsibilities and duty of care of domesticated animals. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 sets out legislation regarding wild animals. But to summarise, if you're inflicting unnecessary cruelty on any animal, you will be falling foul of the law.
For example, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 says: If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence. So, basically if you bash an injured animal on the head and that's the most humane method available to you at the time, to kill it to prevent further suffering, it's not against the law. The operative word here being "unnecessary".
If you decide for fun to inflict wanton cruelty on any bird (which I'm sure nobody on here would do), my advice would not be to argue in court that it's okay because it's a bird, not an animal. Because they are considered animals for the relevant legislation. So if you do use that argument, I'd take your toothbrush to court. Indeed, remember that all birds are protected anyway, with some exceptions (game birds in season, the general licenses and specific licenses granted by the authorities).
(b)the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner of any such wild mammal if he shows that the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of either lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or [F1lawful]pest control activity;
(c)doing anything which is authorised by or under any enactment;
(d)any act made unlawful by section 1 if the act was done by means of any snare, trap, dog, or bird lawfully used for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal; or
(b)the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner of any such wild mammal if he shows that the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of either lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or [F1lawful]pest control activity;
(c)doing anything which is authorised by or under any enactment;
(d)any act made unlawful by section 1 if the act was done by means of any snare, trap, dog, or bird lawfully used for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal; or
When did you leave the police force? I suspect things may well have changed during Alison Saunders regime. The CPS have nothing to lose by playing poker.
View more Changes to legislation:
There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, Section 1. 1Offences.
If, save as permitted by this Act, any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering he shall be guilty of an offence.’
So, to inflict unnecessary suffering is an offence, to despatch an animal with an effective, swift blow to the head is not causing unnecessary suffering and if done properly no suffering at all.
Under exceptions (you know, the things that you can do that do not constitute an offence?)
‘the killing in a reasonably swift and humane manner of any such wild mammal if he shows that the wild mammal had been injured or taken in the course of either lawful shooting, hunting, coursing or [F1lawful]pest control activity;’
There is an exclusion for ending suffering too, making it quite legal.
To summarise, you’re talking rubbish, absolute poppycock, fortunately our legislators are not quite as daft as you!
Guys, stop wasting your time on JTO. He's embarrassed himself enough. Turning the knife is painful to read. Hovr over his icon and just click 'ignore'. It makes the time spent on this site much more enjoyable! Some people will always refuse to apologise or admit that they're wrong! Common sense will always prevail!
I would have thought coming from South Dorset he would have more common sense. I am originally from just over the border going West but now living just over the border going East and never met a Dorset person without common sense
I quite often read posts where someone says 'don't do that' or 'don't do this' etc etc because it will put your FC on the line.
It makes me think that some folk go shooting with a lawyer on their back or in company with a legislator or in the middle of town in full view of the public.
PS. written with a smile on my face by the way
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.legislation.gov.uk
