The Force Essex

[ozzy518]

The animal welfare act provides that offences may be committed by persons who have any responsibility to an animal, that being any animal that is domesticated or farmed. That responsibility can also be temporary responsibility.

In the case of using the provisions of the Act as a defence for the humane despatch of a deer I feel it would fail on two points. Firstly, the person would have no legal responsibility for the welfare of the animal unless owned by him or he is directly involved in the keeping or rearing of it and secondly, the Act specifically excludes those animals "Living in a Wild state".

Edited October 8, 2016 by ozzy518

[fortune]

I'm not trying to be a smart **** and didn't want to come across as such hence the happy to be corrected. It's also useful because if my suspicion is correct, wrong info could get people in trouble. But happy to be proven wrong, that's what this forum is about, learning, don't ask and you won't know

I wasn't being nasty to you,it just seemed to be an odd thing to say. Why didn't you find out the form and then sort it out? The trouble nowadays is that there is so much red tape and no one wants to do anything or being comited to sort situations out now for fear of some sort of retribution. If anyone with an ounce of common sense was in charge of the legal system they would kick someone's rudder for wasting time. Still that's about par for the course with everything official.

[12gauge82]

I wasn't being nasty to you,it just seemed to be an odd thing to say. Why didn't you find out the form and then sort it out? The trouble nowadays is that there is so much red tape and no one wants to do anything or being comited to sort situations out now for fear of some sort of retribution. If anyone with an ounce of common sense was in charge of the legal system they would kick someone's rudder for wasting time. Still that's about par for the course with everything official.

It's fine. I didn't take offence, it's hard to communicate via text sometimes.

Completely agree with everything you've said.

[old man]

Thanks ozzy, I will go with you.

 

I found a bit more information that probably misdirected my thinking?

 

In the Deer act 1991 but on re reading could not find any mitigation relating to the OP.

[shaun4860]

Watched this the other night, fair play to the police actually involved,

 

They stayed with the injured dear until it was finally dispatched and were very truthful about the facts they didn't know how to do it nor didn't really want to know because it wasn't something they would be happy to do

 

[steve_b_wales]

Watched this the other night, fair play to the police actually involved,

 

They stayed with the injured dear until it was finally dispatched and were very truthful about the facts they didn't know how to do it nor didn't really want to know because it wasn't something they would be happy to do

 

I agree Shaun. The police were okay. My gripe was how the 'system' is run and the fact that the other firearms unit were not allowed to dispatch the deer because they were on their way to another call.

[shaun4860]

I agree Shaun. The police were okay. My gripe was how the 'system' is run and the fact that the other firearms unit were not allowed to dispatch the deer because they were on their way to another call.

Must admit I thought that was strange, they spent longer talking and waiting for someone higher to make that decision that it would have actually taken to do the job

 

[UKPoacher]

All decisions made by the police these days have to take into account all sorts of things that you might not consider - the senior officer's next promotion board being the major consideration for most decisions. Long gone are the days when a bobby or bobbies would turn up and deal with something spontaneously based on nothing more than common sense.

[Vince Green]

Vets charge absolutely ridiculous amounts to turn out to RTAs so you can't really blame the police for not wanting to pay. If its a dog then the owner gets the bill, if its livestock then the farmer pays but a deer is going to be charged to the police if they call a vet.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Vince Green

[UKPoacher]

Vets charge absolutely ridiculous amounts to turn out to RTAs so you can't really blame the police for not wanting to pay. If its a dog then the owner gets the bill, if its livestock then the farmer pays but a deer is going to be charged to the police if they call a vet.

 

There is an argument that technically it is the council's responsibility for stray dogs that are injured as a result of RTCs. But getting the council to cough up is a different matter altogether. According to the YouGov website people who come across injured animals other than livestock or pets should report this to the RSPCA / RSPB, but again the likelihood of a result is variable at best.

 

And you can't blame a vet for charging when they are called out of a busy surgery to deal with an injured animal. They don't have the staff on standby just in case something like this happens and they aren't a charity.

[ozzy518]

Typically if a vet attends and has to euthanase the animal by chemical means he also has to remove and dispose of the carcass. Can't leave it at roadside as a shot animal would be

[Vince Green]

I agree Shaun. The police were okay. My gripe was how the 'system' is run and the fact that the other firearms unit were not allowed to dispatch the deer because they were on their way to another call.

If I were a copper I don't think I would want to shoot a deer on camera. Might be a different story in the middle of the night on a deserted stretch of road

[Bigbob]

Funny they never have the wrong type of speed camera

[Eeffaa]

Iv just watched a rerun of this episode. I'm confused as to how they are allowed to decide to put an animal down, they are not vets and should not be entitled to say wheatear or not an animal is injured badly enough to require killing? Surely it should be a vets decision on how to treat an animal? I'm not living in England so could be very different but seems wrong to me? 

[moose man]

On 08/10/2016 at 10:16, Muddy Funker said:

Didn't have the right gun? Maybe protocols are different in Essex to those I've been used to.

I'm aware of dozens upon dozens of animal destruction jobs, not once have I ever heard a vet/slaughterman/bloke on a list with a shotgun ever being available. Not once.

Sussex police in conjunction with the local council run a very successful deer warden scheme ,it’s been runner for several years now where there is nearly always a member on call to dispatch any rta injured animal .Most of us served within a certain radius of our homes , mine was ten miles , call outs came at any time of the day or night and very seldom was someone not available to assist even if it meant going out a bit further to help .Many a time the pcso or pc was extremely pleased to see someone turn up that could despatch the injured animal , usually deer ,and around my part of East Sussex their are a lot of deer , accidents at certain times of the year namely the rut and the few weeks after the young are born and they start moving about where particularly busy times .Three in one night was my best , all within two miles and the same young officers were at the scene ..Retired now I attended dozens upon dozens of calls .

As for dispatching an animal on the road , my advice would be before shooting it .RING THE POLICE , explain where you are , what is happening , who is present .AND GET A INCIDENT NUMBER from the police control  ..do not shoot it on the road if at all possible .

This was and still is as far as I know an unpaid , no expenses paid service from people who care and have an interest in deer ..

Call out the RSPCA ......😂😂😂.....pitiful .

[moose man]

On 11/10/2016 at 18:24, ozzy518 said:

Typically if a vet attends and has to euthanase the animal by chemical means he also has to remove and dispose of the carcass. Can't leave it at roadside as a shot animal would be

I have seen them left , with a notice pinned on it  ...madness ..luckily I was able to remove the carcass and have it picked up next day by the local council for incineration ..

[ph5172]

11 hours ago, moose man said:

I have seen them left , with a notice pinned on it  ...madness ..luckily I was able to remove the carcass and have it picked up next day by the local council for incineration ..

The council have a duty to dispose of the carcass especially if it has been euthanised. 
some vets will spray them with marker paint highlighting the shaved area after they have been euthanised to stop people taking them home to eat prior to them being collected. 

[moose man]

2 hours ago, ph5172 said:

The council have a duty to dispose of the carcass especially if it has been euthanised. 
some vets will spray them with marker paint highlighting the shaved area after they have been euthanised to stop people taking them home to eat prior to them being collected. 

Given the numbers of incidents , running into hundreds , Wealden council were well versed in retrieving and disposal of the carcasses .I had the means to remove all the deer I dispatched and took them home for the council to collect,  which saved them having to go looking for them .You wouldn’t believe some of the stories I could tell about “rights “ to the carcasses from affected motorists , and come to that , unaffected ones ..