Lord Geordie Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 If you shoot a squirrel 5 times with an air rifle, from point blank range, and it is still not dead, you should not be using any form of gun. You are grossly incompetent. One good thing that is going to come out of this is that the person is now not allowed to shoot under the General Licences, so it will be a very serious criminal offence for him to shoot vermin in the future. looking at the xrays I would think the gun was not producing a decent enough power for a clean dispatch anyway. Point blank and the pellets are still in there? Bad shot placement too! I rigged my trap so I can lift the floor to hold the squizzer still so I only.need one shot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 The aim is always for a clean kill. He has made serious failings and deserves prosecution. However, I must take issue with the RSPCA's comments saying to take them to a vet to be put down. The exposure to humans that this brings is less humane then shooting them or using the sack method on the spot, provided that it is done humanely by someone who knows what they're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I stand corrected... I read it somewhere, perhaps it wasn't an official document then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) However, I must take issue with the RSPCA's comments saying to take them to a vet to be put down. The exposure to humans that this brings is less humane then shooting them or using the sack method on the spot, provided that it is done humanely by someone who knows what they're doing. Yeah. But it's the RSPCA. You know, the lot that capture urban foxes, and instead of putting them down, they bring them out to rural areas (where I live). Those foxes have no idea how to hunt (their usual diet of kebabs aren't that good at running away and hiding), so after 2-3 weeks they are starving. Then they come and try taking my chickens and lambs. Then they get shot. That's why my fox trap is in constant use. Whch reminds me ... I need some fresh KFC for bait ... ... KFC ... fresh ... those don't really go together, do they Edited January 17, 2013 by robbiep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstone Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Haha, "2.2 air rifle", that'd obliterate the squirrel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Yeah the old bloke really should have taken a pulse then hooked a defib up to make sure it was dead. He's obviously an old fool set in his ways and has a useless gun/aim but facing prison are you serious? Burglars seldom go to jail these days, it was a squirrel for christ sake big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Crazy should have never went to court easy target for the RSPCA and a gun was involved just what they like Old fella is from an error when no one would have batted an eyelid where drowning was also viewed as acceptable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Im from an era where I could walk through my village with air rifle in hand,and no one would bat an eyelid woudnt try it now though putting the squirrel through this is un acceptable,and in todays world people do bat an eyelid BB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fse10 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) The aim is always for a clean kill. He has made serious failings and deserves prosecution. However, I must take issue with the RSPCA's comments saying to take them to a vet to be put down. The exposure to humans that this brings is less humane then shooting them or using the sack method on the spot, provided that it is done humanely by someone who knows what they're doing. Key word here someone who knows what they are doing, thats the RSPCA out then. Edited January 17, 2013 by fse10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) The guidelines are not to drown them that was the last case taken to court involving a squirrel Yes and yet drowning was the recommended method by the RSPCA a few years back. I can remember when it was. Don't you see what they are doing here? first drowning them, now shooting them. I think I see a pattern emerging here Edited January 17, 2013 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zx10mike Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Seriously underpowered to not pass straight through the squirells body at that range , so he had no business using it for the job, let alone his lack of skill. His arrogance entitles him to all thats thrown at him IMHO spot on sadly any fool can buy a 12 ft lb air rifle with no training .there are loads of people with very poor air rifles who would not have a clue how powerful it isn't.personally anyone should be allowed an air rifle for target work but to despatch life you should have to prove yourself competent. Edited January 17, 2013 by zx10mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 5 shots NEAR the head but not actually IN the head? What was he playing at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 While I agree that what he did was not an acceptable way to despatch a squirrel, as I said above, I do think the response was a bit disproportionate, and we should keep an eye on things like this. It may set a dangerous precedent and in the near future, they may try to prosecute people who are despatching squirrels perfectly humanely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbiep Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I disagree. He did not carry out almost all of the responsibilities that are expected of anyone engaged in pest control, either amateur or professional The one correct thing : he used a cage trap, which catches humanely, allowing you to release non-target species. He failed to ensure that his rifle was up to the job, or failed to ensure that he was competent in its use. Then, having shot it, he failed to ensure it was dead. Several hours later, he noticed it was still alive, and STILL failed to finish it off. If a precedent has been set, it is one that says to all people who wish to conduct pest control : do it properly, or else. I have no problems with that at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I agree with much of what has been said, idiots with air rifles do nothing but harm to the image of shooting and it was only right that he was prosocuted. One thing that slightly grated was in the article says that they are protected under the 1981 act but you can kill them, but to the general public that sounds as though they are a protected species but under certain circumstances can be killed - in reality the act just says that they should be killed humanely. Also they make no mention that if he had release the squirrel unhurt it would also have been an offence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul65 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Totally incompetent old duffer but I'm surprised no-one here has bitten on the RSPCA slant of "RSPCA officers said Worthington was 'obstructive' when interviewed". Dunno but maybe he thought they had no right to be in his garden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39TDS Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I wonder if he would have been within his rights to have shot the RSPCA busybodies. Obviously non lethal force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 The man shot it in the head and chest repeatedly, it could have looked completely dead when he left it the first time and only came around later. Is he supposed to check for a pulse ? If you haven't hunted squirrels then you don't know how tough they are. I think he made an effort to kill it humanely, he didn't take a pot shot while it was on the bird table. His judgement wasn't too good, but he's 75 years old and frankly I think taking him to court over this is stupid. A warning from plod and perhaps confiscation of the air rifle would have been more fitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fella Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I wonder if he would have been within his rights to have shot the RSPCA busybodies. Obviously non lethal force. Comments like these aren't particularly helpful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reece Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I disagree. He did not carry out almost all of the responsibilities that are expected of anyone engaged in pest control, either amateur or professional The one correct thing : he used a cage trap, which catches humanely, allowing you to release non-target species. He failed to ensure that his rifle was up to the job, or failed to ensure that he was competent in its use. Then, having shot it, he failed to ensure it was dead. Several hours later, he noticed it was still alive, and STILL failed to finish it off. If a precedent has been set, it is one that says to all people who wish to conduct pest control : do it properly, or else. I have no problems with that at all I know that in this case, the prosecution was perfectly justified, but what about in the near future? You know what the RSPCA are like, they could try to prosecute other people who have despatched squirrels perfectly humanely. The RSPCA have made many prosecutions, many of them have been perfectly justified, some attempts have been downright disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 There for the grace of God go I. I trapped one and shot it with my air rifle to dispatch it. It shrugged it off and got very angy. Tried another - Still no joy. Was panicking at this point so resorted to the bag and club hammer which did the trick. Turns out my (old) air rifle wasn't up the job. Went and bought a new one straight away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Who do they think they are to say he was "interviewed" by the RSPCA. They are not the police, did they advise him of his rights? was the evidence obtained in accordance with the rules. Or was this just some RSPCA officer having a verbal with him in the back garden and then making it up later. When they stand up in court in their uniform they are treated like the Animal Police but their standards fall far short of what would be required of a police officer. They are very biased and seem perfectly allowed to let that bias come out in court. He described a squirrel as "vermin" (shock horror) he must be guilty. He was obstructive (shock horror) he had no legal obligation to talk to them. I don't suppose they were being very nice to him. Muppets on a mission, don't ever get on the wrong side of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 This country is getting hysterical. Its like living in Disneyland among permanently scandalised children. The RSPCA should have bought him a scope so he can do the job properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul223 Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 The man shot it in the head and chest repeatedly, it could have looked completely dead when he left it the first time and only came around later. Is he supposed to check for a pulse ? If you haven't hunted squirrels then you don't know how tough they are. I think he made an effort to kill it humanely, he didn't take a pot shot while it was on the bird table. His judgement wasn't too good, but he's 75 years old and frankly I think taking him to court over this is stupid. A warning from plod and perhaps confiscation of the air rifle would have been more fitting. i agree, with 5 shots in it you'd have thought that would be enough, sounds like he thought that the deed was done Who do they think they are to say he was "interviewed" by the RSPCA. They are not the police, did they advise him of his rights? was the evidence obtained in accordance with the rules. Or was this just some RSPCA officer having a verbal with him in the back garden and then making it up later. When they stand up in court in their uniform they are treated like the Animal Police but their standards fall far short of what would be required of a police officer. They are very biased and seem perfectly allowed to let that bias come out in court. He described a squirrel as "vermin" (shock horror) he must be guilty. He was obstructive (shock horror) he had no legal obligation to talk to them. I don't suppose they were being very nice to him. Muppets on a mission, don't ever get on the wrong side of one. were they doing their usual bit of trespassing? anyone with any decency on realising it was still alive would have banged it on the head, half wits the lots of em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 What he said. The squirrel was in a cage so a sitting target. I shoot squirrels in my back yard from around 20 yards away and have yet to have any run off after being shot in the head. Don't get me wrong, I make no defence of the guy here, but I can assure you that VERY FEW greys in cages are sitting targets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.