Using A Drowning Cable...

[J Darcy 5,871]

Let's not forget that there was no legal precedent set with the notorious squirrel drowner... he pleaded guilty.

 

If you set a trap that's approved to kill pests, and it's victim ends up in the water, only a PM would provide evidence that it drowned.

 

Highly unlikely to be prosecuted IMHO, but only NE could provide a definitive answer as they are the ones who would do the prosecuting.

OK Matt, worst case scenario....you set a trap, in a correct position. Everythings legal. it's on a wire into the water. BUT the mink (or whatever quarry) is 'foul' caught, not a perfect kill as can happen from time to time. So it's a pad catch or some other bad catch. And it gets into the water and it actually drowns. Obviously it's all over in less than thirty seconds. But, the facts are it's drown. How would you stand then?

I don't want to play devil's advocate, but i think working on worst case scenario is always best...

[Matt 160]

I agree JD.

 

It would be dodgy ground for sure....

 

If you set a trap, and a PM showed that the animal died from drowning then it could be the first proper test case.

 

The law is not black and white...... while it seems to be clear that drowning is illegal, what it actually says is 'unnecessary suffering'....... it's up to the courts to decide, but I'll not be the one to test it.

 

I'm not, and never would, condone drowning, before anyone suggests I am.

[Huan72 687]

Its a difficult one..........by having a set up that allows the trap to reach water an intent may be implied and a prosecution possible but what's more humane, a caught animal waiting for a visit from the pestie or drowning. I can imagine that if this did happen a prosecution would be inevitable, because the powers that be would be keen to stop drowning through the back door. Its all to do with intent, if part of the set up was designed to allow a caught animal to reach water, you would be on very dodgy ground I think as it could be argued that you planned the trapping with drowning in mind.

[EDDIE B 3,166]

 

 

Let's not forget that there was no legal precedent set with the notorious squirrel drowner... he pleaded guilty.

 

If you set a trap that's approved to kill pests, and it's victim ends up in the water, only a PM would provide evidence that it drowned.

 

Highly unlikely to be prosecuted IMHO, but only NE could provide a definitive answer as they are the ones who would do the prosecuting.

OK Matt, worst case scenario....you set a trap, in a correct position. Everythings legal. it's on a wire into the water. BUT the mink (or whatever quarry) is 'foul' caught, not a perfect kill as can happen from time to time. So it's a pad catch or some other bad catch. And it gets into the water and it actually drowns. Obviously it's all over in less than thirty seconds. But, the facts are it's drown. How would you stand then?

I don't want to play devil's advocate, but i think working on worst case scenario is always best...

well if you look at worse case scenario, what if you don't use a wire that reaches water level, and mink if foul caught! During the night there is heavy rain, river rises a foot or so drowning the mink! Where do you stand then?

 

Not a far fetched scenario by any means!

[paulus 26]

how i see it, the fact it could drown could be considered to have the potential to cause unnecessary suffering, contrary to the animal welfare act 2006 as i posted earlier a test case has already set a President in uk law that drowning is considered as unnecessary suffering and contrary to the act

[Matt 160]

how i see it, the fact it could drown could be considered to have the potential to cause unnecessary suffering, contrary to the animal welfare act 2006 as i posted earlier a test case has already set a President in uk law that drowning is considered as unnecessary suffering and contrary to the act

 

It wasn't proved Paul.

 

The bloke concerned pleaded guilty. There was no test case.

 

Whenever you set a trap, you have a 'duty of care' (thats the legal term) for any animal that may get caught. Potentially, if you set a trap below the high water line then you could be accused of not taking 'reasonable measures' to prevent unnecessary suffering.

[paulus 26]

 

how i see it, the fact it could drown could be considered to have the potential to cause unnecessary suffering, contrary to the animal welfare act 2006 as i posted earlier a test case has already set a President in uk law that drowning is considered as unnecessary suffering and contrary to the act

 

It wasn't proved Paul.

 

The bloke concerned pleaded guilty. There was no test case.

 

Whenever you set a trap, you have a 'duty of care' (thats the legal term) for any animal that may get caught. Potentially, if you set a trap below the high water line then you could be accused of not taking 'reasonable measures' to prevent unnecessary suffering.

 

but a drowning cable is a drowning cable and deliberately set to drown the trapped animal. the very name of it implies the animal is not killed instantly, surely this itself would be deemed as deliberately setting out to cause an animal unnecessary suffering.

[J Darcy 5,871]

It sure is a funny one. The reason why American trappers use a drowning line is because they want their animal dead ASAP. And, to be fair, it would stop any animal suffering if there was a foul catch. What is best; said animal going into the water and being killed within a matter of twenty seconds, or one sat therein the trap and, possibly, waiting 23 hours? The law's crazy in this country...

[paulus 26]

It sure is a funny one. The reason why American trappers use a drowning line is because they want their animal dead ASAP. And, to be fair, it would stop any animal suffering if there was a foul catch. What is best; said animal going into the water and being killed within a matter of twenty seconds, or one sat therein the trap and, possibly, waiting 23 hours? The law's crazy in this country...

sure is. hitting a squirrel with a shovel is more humane than drowning it to kill a rat with a dog is humane but to kill a squirrel is not.................need i go on

[Matt 160]

I understand what you mean Paul, but if you used a drowner cable on a kill trap would you be setting out to drown the animal?

 

One of the reasons the Americans do it is to stop the fur getting damaged by carrion feeders etc. They also often use holding traps rather than killing traps.

 

There are advantages; a drowner set would keep the capture out of sight and also be an insurance against foul catches. The legal situation over here would be 'grey' however, and as has already been said, it would be a brave man or woman who goes to court to defend it.

[paulus 26]

I understand what you mean Paul, but if you used a drowner cable on a kill trap would you be setting out to drown the animal?

 

One of the reasons the Americans do it is to stop the fur getting damaged by carrion feeders etc. They also often use holding traps rather than killing traps.

 

There are advantages; a drowner set would keep the capture out of sight and also be an insurance against foul catches. The legal situation over here would be 'grey' however, and as has already been said, it would be a brave man or woman who goes to court to defend it.

would it not be argued that if you set out to kill it then the fact you also chose to use a backup to drown it should that fail be seen as causing or not causing unnecessary suffering..............what came first the chicken or the egg, i think the fact it hides the catch from sight should a clean kill not be achieved could be seen as advantageous in certain situations.

[Matt 160]

Funnily enough, the law that is often quoted as outlawing drowning also outlaws 'beating'.

 

What is the government approved method for dispatching squirrels?

 

Concussion to the head via a priest (beating).

 

Out of interest, what would happen if you set a kill trap below the high water line, with the intention of the trap killing the target and it was found under water? Would anyone find it? Would they go to the trouble of getting an independent PM done? Would the authorities sanction a prosecution? Would they be able to prove 'intent'?

 

This is one of those interesting topics that asks more questions than it answers. Great stuff.

[paulus 26]

Funnily enough, the law that is often quoted as outlawing drowning also outlaws 'beating'.

 

What is the government approved method for dispatching squirrels?

 

Concussion to the head via a priest (beating).

 

Out of interest, what would happen if you set a kill trap below the high water line, with the intention of the trap killing the target and it was found under water? Would anyone find it? Would they go to the trouble of getting an independent PM done? Would the authorities sanction a prosecution? Would they be able to prove 'intent'?

 

This is one of those interesting topics that asks more questions than it answers. Great stuff.

that is a real possibility when trapping mink on brooks and ditches here especially with the rainfall we have been getting, the local river can rise a foot an hour given the right amount of rainfall the same with the drainage ditches, like walking on eggshells this trapping game has become me thinks young skywalker

[J Darcy 5,871]

Funnily enough, the law that is often quoted as outlawing drowning also outlaws 'beating'.

 

What is the government approved method for dispatching squirrels?

 

Concussion to the head via a priest (beating).

 

Out of interest, what would happen if you set a kill trap below the high water line, with the intention of the trap killing the target and it was found under water? Would anyone find it? Would they go to the trouble of getting an independent PM done? Would the authorities sanction a prosecution? Would they be able to prove 'intent'?

 

This is one of those interesting topics that asks more questions than it answers. Great stuff.

Thats the thing Matt, I think some organisation or other would take the case on as a 'test' case. They could possibly prove an animal to have been drown, but i doubt if they could prove intent. As for high/low water mark, setting too high up would surely cause the trap to be away from the minks 'run' and therefore would stop being effective in regards that the trap siting would be far too high up the bank for a mink to see it?

Is there any organisation actually on the side of the trapper that is trying to get such things clarified?

[Matt 160]

The NGO are probably the best organisation out there lobbying for keepers and trappers.

 

I suspect that getting clarification could be a double edged sword. Do we really want laws that are very prescriptive and don't allow for common sense?

 

The real danger is in rogue organisations seeking to make a name for themselves by setting out what they consider to be best practice. The GBM being a classic example of that; they are actively campaigning to end the exemption to the STAO relating to moles. The impact would however be much wider than just moles.....

 

Anyway, I digress...