Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NatureBoy

Dumped urban fox's!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

No in fact, its a bit arguable whether or not its "un necessary cruelty" to kill them once they are in the trap since by then they no longer present a threat to livestock. There are a few organisations, the RSPCA no doubt being one,  that would like to have a go at prosecuting somebody for that one. Ever hungry as they are for publicity.

Its becoming dodgy ground. 

I thought the screen shots i gave above ,from the gov.put that doubt to bed as its reads very clearly and says its illegal to release foxes once caught.

Love to see the RSPCA take on the gov. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Hah!! Keep whacking and stacking.

Then drop off at the local RSPCA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ultrastu said:

I thought the screen shots i gave above ,from the gov.put that doubt to bed as its reads very clearly and says its illegal to release foxes once caught.

Love to see the RSPCA take on the gov. 

Most pest controllers release foxes, that's a fact. The screen shot says "shouldn't" it doesn't say "illegal" ; most pest controllers don't have any legal method of despatching them once caught so they have to release them.. I can despatch them, I am legal but I still have to justify my action. Medically unfit to be released because of mange would cover about 75% of urban foxes but I still have to be wary of the cruelty legislation. Killing a fox for "no reason" can still be interpreted as cruelty under separate legislation. Its a minefield these days, in the end you think sod it, take it for a drive and problem solved.  

The RSPCA are a rogue organisation from our perspective. They are not terribly interested in animal welfare unless they can find a story that will make the news and give them publicity. they can and do put innocent people through their legal shredder just to give themselves a bit of publicity and get on the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has any hard evidence of this practice - such as photos of foxes that have obviously been treated and then released - or any other hard evidence, I would be very interested in seeing it. You can email me at christopher.graffius@basc.org.uk .

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2019 at 22:08, Vince Green said:

 

The RSPCA are a rogue organisation from our perspective. They are not terribly interested in animal welfare unless they can find a story that will make the news and give them publicity. they can and do put innocent people through their legal shredder just to give themselves a bit of publicity and get on the news.

I agree completely with this, the RSPCA genuinely have Zero interest in animal welfare, as stupid as that statement sounds it is indeed true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2019 at 22:08, Vince Green said:

... I am legal but I still have to justify my action. Medically unfit to be released because of mange would cover about 75% of urban foxes but I still have to be wary of the cruelty legislation. Killing a fox for "no reason" can still be interpreted as cruelty under separate legislation. Its a minefield these days, in the end you think sod it, take it for a drive and problem solved.  

Utter nonsense. Perfectly legal to shoot a fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Christopher Graffius said:

If anyone has any hard evidence of this practice - such as photos of foxes that have obviously been treated and then released - or any other hard evidence, I would be very interested in seeing it. You can email me at christopher.graffius@basc.org.uk .

  

Been going on for many years! I am surprised BASC and other orgs haven't known about and investigated it before?? Thats why i started the thread because  there are more foxes being dumped. Many with mange. Almost like they target shoots, farms with livestock and campsites. Never hear of any reserves having a problem. As Vince has said though  it's easier to dump them. Who is paying them to do it??  Its NOT solving the problem as he says at all! It's just passing it on to someone else and causing havoc in the countryside for wildlife, farmers, shoots and anyone with a genuine real interest in conservation. Spreading mange etc in the tolerated managed rural fox population. Maybe we should catch them up and return them to town, the reserves or Hampshire as they love them so much. Many that don't get shot quickly starve as they don't know how to hunt or dig for voles worms and Beatles       NB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks NB - BASC is familiar with these reports and has investigated them over the years but we have not been able to stand them up for lack of hard evidence. If you - or anyone else - has any hard evidence as opposed to anecdote I'd be really interested in seeing it and acting on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2019 at 22:08, Vince Green said:

Most pest controllers release foxes, that's a fact. The screen shot says "shouldn't" it doesn't say "illegal" ; most pest controllers don't have any legal method of despatching them once caught so they have to release them.. I can despatch them, I am legal but I still have to justify my action. Medically unfit to be released because of mange would cover about 75% of urban foxes but I still have to be wary of the cruelty legislation. Killing a fox for "no reason" can still be interpreted as cruelty under separate legislation. Its a minefield these days, in the end you think sod it, take it for a drive and problem solved.  

The RSPCA are a rogue organisation from our perspective. They are not terribly interested in animal welfare unless they can find a story that will make the news and give them publicity. they can and do put innocent people through their legal shredder just to give themselves a bit of publicity and get on the news.

I suppose it depends on when the particular legislation was passed. My King's English Dictionary explains that 'should' is the past tense of 'shall' which relates to compulsion or obligation. The former is obvious, the latter not quite so but in turn anything being defined as obligatory is binding in law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/01/2020 at 18:40, Prospero said:

Utter nonsense. Perfectly legal to shoot a fox.

Its perfectly legal to shoot squirrels but people have still been prosecuted for doing so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Its perfectly legal to shoot squirrels but people have still been prosecuted for doing so

When?, Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Its perfectly legal to shoot squirrels but people have still been prosecuted for doing so

News to me. Evidence please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive read of a guy who was prosecuted for shooting a squirrel 5 or 6 times with an air gun .leaving it still alive for a few hours then returning to find it holding on to life so he drowned it  .

He was prosecuted for cruelty  .

Failing to dispatching  it quickly and effectively.  Also drowning is not allowed  . 

IMG_20200105_232242.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly his .177 smk xs19 was well under power as there is no way at 2 ft away would a 11 fpe pellet not fully pass through a squirrel .

I guess one of his crimes was to use an inappropriate  tool .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Its perfectly legal to shoot squirrels but people have still been prosecuted for doing so

The bloke who was prosecuted was prosecuted because he was an idiot who took about 5 shots to kill it. It was an animal suffering issue, not because he killed a squirrel. 👍

Just seen someone put the actual article up. Shooting it several times,  not killing it then drowning it. Deserved to be prosecuted.

Edited by walshie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ehb102 said:

The drowning of a squirrel alone will get you prosecuted.

or a fox, yet not that many years ago that was the recommended method for dispatching cage caught foxes and squirrels. The goalposts are moving all the time. The RSPCA prosecute using Cruelty to Animals legislation not firearms legislation and the wording of that legislation is so vague as to what constitutes cruelty that they hold all the cards.

That bloke with the squirrel was prosecuted on the evidence of the RSPCA's own vet. Hardly an impartial witness. Are vets trained in forensic pathology the way doctors are? They are very hard to defend yourself in court all the same. Did he get a fair trial? I wonder?

But this thread is not about whether its legal to shoot the fox, its about why urban foxes are being released in the country and the answer is for the reasons I have said

Edited by Vince Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2020 at 09:42, Christopher Graffius said:

Thanks NB - BASC is familiar with these reports and has investigated them over the years but we have not been able to stand them up for lack of hard evidence. If you - or anyone else - has any hard evidence as opposed to anecdote I'd be really interested in seeing it and acting on it.

What have your previous investigations turned up/shown so far? That's why i am asking! Because everyone saying what a big problem it is and getting bigger. People getting caught doing it and reported but trail goes cold and nothing happens. I'll pass on your request to the farmers and fox  boys in my area. There is plenty of peps posting pics on Instagram and talking about it. worth contacting them. One of the shooting times jurnos was talking about investigating it to.     NB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

The RSPCA prosecute using Cruelty to Animals legislation not firearms legislation and the wording of that legislation is so vague as to what constitutes cruelty that they hold all the cards.

The "cruelty to animals" legislation you must be referring to is the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996. The act is quite clear in the actions it forbids in terms of dispatching an animal and if you take the time to read it, it's far from "vague" or "a minefield".

The person who was prosecuted for the squirrel was not prosecuted for killing the squirrel but for treating inhumanely and causing unnecessary suffering. Vince, you obviously don't really know what you're talking about in this area.

Notwithstanding that, people who don't hold the relevant SGC or FAC are probably relocating foxes. The law isn't really enforced, and it's surprising how many people actually don't realise that this is in fact against the law. Yourself included.

As I said previously, shooting foxes is perfectly legal, there is no requirement for them to be sick or injured, they are a pest, they are not a protected species, it is perfectly legal to shoot them with a firearm providing that they do not suffer.

Edited by Prospero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Prospero said:

The "cruelty to animals" legislation you must be referring to is the Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996. The act is quite clear in the actions it forbids in terms of dispatching an animal and if you take the time to read it, it's far from "vague" or "a minefield".

The person who was prosecuted for the squirrel was not prosecuted for killing the squirrel but for treating inhumanely and causing unnecessary suffering. Vince, you obviously don't really know what you're talking about in this area.

Notwithstanding that, people who don't hold the relevant SGC or FAC are probably relocating foxes. The law isn't really enforced, and it's surprising how many people actually don't realise that this is in fact against the law. Yourself included.

As I said previously, shooting foxes is perfectly legal, there is no requirement for them to be sick or injured, they are a pest, they are not a protected species, it is perfectly legal to shoot them with a firearm providing that they do not suffer.

I agree with everything else you said but it's not illegal to relocate foxes as they are a native species to the UK. Frowned upon? Yes. Ill advised? Yes. Illegal. No. 

It's kind of like Chinese Whispers where everyone thinks they've heard it or read it, but no-one (myself included) has ever managed to find the relevant legislation to back up the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Prospero said:

My take is that relocation causes unnecessary suffering! Ergo, illegal...

Fair enough, I can see that, but my take on that is that it is an interpretation of another law, rather than a law in itself. 

If releasing foxes was illegal, there would be a law saying specifically that. They bother to write a law for grey squirrels, so I'm sure they would for foxes if it was the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...