FOX problem

[Phil Lloyd 10,738]

Whilst it may seem a more humane option,... I personally believe, that cage trapped critters are far better served with a quick clean end, rather than releasing them into an unfamiliar area. 

I feel that it is our responsibility to, take care of business, rather than force a captured animal to try and adapt,..quickly,...to an often hostile environment...

But, I could well be wrong...

[Deker 3,478]

11 hours ago, Torquemada said:

That's your opinion. 

??????

It isn't an opinion at all, the Act either says  it is an offence under the 2006 act to relocate a healthy fox,  or it doesn't.

if you think it does, quote the section!

Edited September 16, 2018 by Deker

[Torquemada 288]

On 16/09/2018 at 09:05, Deker said:

Relocating a fox does not instantly or by implication cause it welfare issues...

That is your opinion and that is the crux of the matter. The Abandonment of Animals Act made it an offence to adandon an animal because it causes the animal to suffer unnecessarily. The 2006 act prohibits animals suffering unnecessarily therefore it is an offence. 

The 2006 act doesn't specifically say you can't tie fireworks to foxes tails either. Offence or not?

[Deker 3,478]

11 hours ago, Torquemada said:

That is your opinion and that is the crux of the matter. The Abandonment of Animals Act made it an offence to adandon an animal because it causes the animal to suffer unnecessarily. The 2006 act prohibits animals suffering unnecessarily therefore it is an offence. 

The 2006 act doesn't specifically say you can't tie fireworks to foxes tails either. Offence or not?

It isn't an opinion, it is a statement of fact!

Relocating a fox does not instantly or by implication cause it welfare issues.   Your wild and ill informed assumption says it does!

There is NOTHING in the Act that says it is an Offence to relocate a fox!   If you think it says that, quote the section.

Your assertion is….. The 2006 act prohibits animals suffering unnecessarily therefore it is an offence.  No it isn't, that does NOT say it is an Offence to relocate a Fox.  As I have already stated, it would have to be proved that by doing so the fox was caused welfare issues, not simply that the act of relocating a fox was instantly an offence, in some cases relocating a fox is beneficial, so it can't possibly be an offence under your assertion.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Deker

[Torquemada 288]

Yes it can.

[Deker 3,478]

32 minutes ago, Torquemada said:

Yes it can.

What planet are you on?

In some cases relocating a fox is beneficial, so it can't possibly be an offence under your assertion.

So, the Act does NOT prohibit relocating a fox, and what you maintain is, relocating a fox for the benefit of the fox is an offence, because it suffers unnecessarily!

 

[Torquemada 288]

If the Fox is injured and you have  given it medical attention to help it recover from his injuries ( I did make the distinction in my original post about a healthy Fox). This is what certain animal charities are regularly doing as you know.

However, relocating a healthy fox just because you don't want around is to cause it to suffer unnecessarily. That's just the law and you're going to have to live with it.

 

[LuckOrJudgement 437]

I think the key word here is 'Abandonment', ie hard release - meaning literally kicked out the back of a van, versus  soft release - into a temporary holding pen with food and water and then eventual freedom under close supervision and monitoring.

My interpretation would be that humane despatch at the point of capture would be more in favour with the law than hard release, although the soft option is also ok if someone is willing to stump up several hundreds of £'s.

 

[walshie 2,804]

As per my earlier post, there is no specific law prohibiting the relocation of foxes from one place to another or the RSPCA would have been taken to task by now. You could conceivably get involved in animal welfare issues if it wasn't done correctly, but this is subjective and it would have to be proven in a court where a judge would have to decide whether "unnecessary suffering" had been caused on a case by case basis. 

The 2006 Act aims to improve the welfare of animals, domestic and wild, to ensure they are not caused any unnecessary suffering. Whether or not moving a fox from point A to point B causes suffering is open to individual interpretation rather than hard and fast legislation. 

Easier to just shoot them IMO.  

[Torquemada 288]

2006 Act Section 9:

Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare

(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—

(a)its need for a suitable environment,

(b)its need for a suitable diet,

(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,

 

So taking an urban fox and dumping it in a rural environment is in direct contravention of this... Ergo, an offence and unnecessary suffering. Naturally the Act doesn't attempt to list ALL the possible instances where an animal could suffer, that would be ludicrous. The Act is a broad brush but does include abandoning animals as above. It's not just an opinion, its the LAW.

[walshie 2,804]

37 minutes ago, Torquemada said:

2006 Act Section 9:

Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare

(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—

(a)its need for a suitable environment,

(b)its need for a suitable diet,

(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,

 

So taking an urban fox and dumping it in a rural environment is in direct contravention of this... Ergo, an offence and unnecessary suffering. Naturally the Act doesn't attempt to list ALL the possible instances where an animal could suffer, that would be ludicrous. The Act is a broad brush but does include abandoning animals as above. It's not just an opinion, its the LAW.

I'm aware of what the Act states. It says the needs of the animal should be met to the extent required by good practice which should include environment, diet and behaviour.

Who says a rural environment is not suitable?
Who says it won't get a suitable diet?
And who says being located elsewhere won't let it exhibit normal behaviour?

For the record, I've never released a fox as I don't think it's fair on the fox or the person who gets it released on their land. But I also can't see anything there that makes it illegal. Enough people, vets and animal do-gooders do this, so why aren't they prosecuted.?

We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

 

[Torquemada 288]

Come on we all know that an urban environment is not suitable for a rural fox and vice versa. How many people have posted on here saying that they've seen a fox has been released and they don't know what to do in the countryside and they can't find anything to eat in the countryside? That's just common sense.

You can argue all you want but the reason that the animal charities get away with it is in the first instance they are providing medical care to injured or sick foxes. Bearing in mind their propensity for private prosecutions under this act they're not likely to take themselves to court for releasing animals into the wrong environment are they?

And you've just said it yourself: releasing an animal into a unfamiliar environment isn't fair. It is unnecessary suffering. End of story.

And it's fine to disagree after all there's lots and lots of very very rich lawyers who bank on the fact that some points of Law are arguable. They are rich and I do pest control.

 

 

[Deker 3,478]

8 hours ago, Torquemada said:

If the Fox is injured and you have  given it medical attention to help it recover from his injuries ( I did make the distinction in my original post about a healthy Fox). This is what certain animal charities are regularly doing as you know.

However, relocating a healthy fox just because you don't want around is to cause it to suffer unnecessarily. That's just the law and you're going to have to live with it.

 

[Torquemada 288]

Well argued. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Torquemada