Was I legal?

[scarecrow243 24]

ok you did save the deer from suffering, but you have broke the law killing a deer with a caliber not suited for deer and your certificate can be revoked and you may end up with a heavy fine,or worse if you had used a shotgun with shot size aaa etc it would be legal, a game keeper was fined for doing the same thing even though he was asked by a police officer to put it out of its misery it was the r.s.p.c.a that complained

[RicW 67]

You have used the best available method to achieve a humane dispatch. You are completely legal, and morally untouchable. If there had been someone available with a .243 then the responsible authorities would have contacted that person. In East Sussex, where I live, if you are allowed a variation for deer you are expected to be available for humane dispatch in the event of an animal being unjured in a road accident.

 

Ric

[Night Hunter 109]

Hi mate ,I think your actions were 100% legal,I remember reading that any available rifle caliber can be used for humane dispatch to end suffering,also keepers used to use 22RF pistols for humane dispatch and I think some still do.

Well done mate...

[stando 177]

I had the same situation a few year's back and the police were in attendance,i explained my concerns to them and they reassured me that there would be no come-back on me!!

Because of this situation i have now got a "humane distruction of deer" added to my cert for my .22 and.32 pistols,i get called out maybee 8-10 times a year to road accidents involving deer!

 

You did exactly what any decent human being would of done!!!!!!!!!!!

[Colster 1]

Don't sweat it mate, you have done nothing illegal. The humane destruction of a wounded or injured animal has absolutely NOTHING to do with conditions on your FAC. Some shooters will have specific conditions for humane destruction if they are on a list to be called out to perform the deed but it doesn't mean you can't if the need arises. The priority is always to end the suffering as long as doing so does not cause further danger. If the deer had made it on to farm land you also have a legal right to go on that land and finish the job unless it could be proved that you had prior knowledge that the landowner would have denied you access.

 

Yes an LR is not deer suitable but that refers to hunting, not putting the muzzle against it's head and shooting it.

 

It's also an urban myth that it belongs to the driver behind you if you had actually hit it yourself.

[JonathanL 4]

Don't sweat it mate, you have done nothing illegal. The humane destruction of a wounded or injured animal has absolutely NOTHING to do with conditions on your FAC. Some shooters will have specific conditions for humane destruction if they are on a list to be called out to perform the deed but it doesn't mean you can't if the need arises. The priority is always to end the suffering as long as doing so does not cause further danger. If the deer had made it on to farm land you also have a legal right to go on that land and finish the job unless it could be proved that you had prior knowledge that the landowner would have denied you access.

 

Yes an LR is not deer suitable but that refers to hunting, not putting the muzzle against it's head and shooting it.

 

It's also an urban myth that it belongs to the driver behind you if you had actually hit it yourself.

 

I'd take issue that it's not illegal. If your FAC says something like "the xxx rifle is to be used only for shooting foxes" (or similar) and you use it to shoot a deer then you are in breach of that condition. You may have a defence of necessity (doing something wrong in order to prevent a greater wrong) but, technically, you are still in breach of the conditions.

 

As for following onto other land. You are trespassing if you go onto land without permission or the honestly held belief that permission would be granted even though it hadn't been. That is not the same as knowing that permission would be denied. A fine legal dfference, granted, but a difference non-the-less.

 

Having said all that, I think it's highly dobtful that a prosecuition would be forthcoming in the situation described by the OP.

 

I think you are right about the deer-legal rifle thing. The minimum calibre requirements related to "taking" deer (I think) and dispatching an injured one would not meet that definition, I don't think, so you don't break the law there.

 

You are also right about the thing about it belonging to the driver behind. It actually belongs to the owner of whatever land it dies on, reagrdless of where it was injured/shot or who did it.

 

J.

[gav22 24]

id say you made a good call fair play

Edited May 21, 2010 by gav22

[farmerkev09 105]

in my eyes you did the right think

 

farmer

[fellpack 7]

thats what i was saying he cant be done if the public interest backs him

[matt_hooks 188]

Nothing illegal. There is a provision for using "any reasonable means" to dispatch a wounded animal to end the suffering in the most expeditious way possible. This can be anything from a foot on the neck to suffocate the animal right through to a 12 bore solid slug. If you'd had the rifle in the car and weren't on the way to somewhere to shoot it then an offence might have been committed, but as you went home and fetched it specifically for the purpose you were legal.

 

Not sure the "not in the public interest" argument would hold any weight. I can think of many people who've been convicted for offences which I would say were not in the public interest to prosecute.

[AzMaN 0]

sorry to piggyback off this topic, and fair play to you for puting somthing out of its misery.

 

I had somthing occur the other week with made me think what the rights and wrongs of humane dispatch were.

 

I had a freind with a horse that had broken its leg, blood everywhere and it was in alot of distress, the original vet was over 2hrs away but luckily there was one about 10mins away. Had that nearer vet not been avaliable would i have been in the wrong legaly to end its life in the form of a round to the head even after the owners consent to do so?? bearing in mind i dont have equine on my fac, or humane dispatch.

 

 

 

 

[riohog 5,701]

sorry to piggyback off this topic, and fair play to you for puting somthing out of its misery.

 

I had somthing occur the other week with made me think what the rights and wrongs of humane dispatch were.

 

I had a freind with a horse that had broken its leg, blood everywhere and it was in alot of distress, the original vet was over 2hrs away but luckily there was one about 10mins away. Had that nearer vet not been avaliable would i have been in the wrong legaly to end its life in the form of a round to the head even after the owners consent to do so?? bearing in mind i dont have equine on my fac, or humane dispatch.

my guess is unless you have a specific condition on you fac you my well be braking the law .were horses are concerned think ..only a vet /or licenced knacker man can shoot horses!!

[murphymax 9]

I was out this morning at around 6 in my van when I passed a big old roe doe at the side of the road. She had been knocked and her back end was in a right mess but she was trying to sit up at the side of the road.

I went back home and got my rifle and went back and put her down as Im as soft as shite when I see something like this. The vet would have definately put her down so i figured why prolong the obvious agony.

Now the area in question was near houses and i had the option of a 22lr or a 223, neither of which are cleared for deer, so i decided to go for the 22lr as i didnt want to wake the houses up at that time with gunfire.

I shot her twice and she died surprisingly fast but was this legal? My licence is open, but it was on a main road and with a 22lr.

look at your fac, it will most likely tell you its OK if you are shooting an animal for humane purposes, the same happened to me 2 weeks ago, Roe Doe shot her with 22lr as she had been hit by a vehicle,i then phoned local police and informed them, just in case they found her with bullet wound to the head, and assumed she had been shot illegaly, and they retrieved the bullet and traced it back to me....

 

THEY WERE FINE AND ARRANGED FOR IT TO BE PICKED UP THE NEXT DAY.

[murphymax 9]

ok you did save the deer from suffering, but you have broke the law killing a deer with a caliber not suited for deer and your certificate can be revoked and you may end up with a heavy fine,or worse if you had used a shotgun with shot size aaa etc it would be legal, a game keeper was fined for doing the same thing even though he was asked by a police officer to put it out of its misery it was the r.s.p.c.a that complained

 

PISH !!!

[JonathanL 4]

thats what i was saying he cant be done if the public interest backs him

 

Yes he can. People get done all the time for doing things which many people would se in the public interest.

 

As I say though, on the facts as described in the original post I very much doubt there would be a prosecution. Actually, thinking about it, I think the defence of neccessity would be a very good one in this case as a wounded deer is a grave potential risk to human life if it's near a road.

 

J.